World

Showers (AM and PM) 10° London Hi 15°C / Lo 8°C

Heroin and cocaine now legal in Mexico – in small doses

By David Usborne

A controversial new law decriminalising the possession of small amounts of heroin, marijuana, cocaine and other illicit substances was quietly slipped on to the statute books in Mexico yesterday.

The move provoked little fuss either in Mexico itself or across the border in the US, which in the past has resisted anything that might be seen as going soft on drugs.

"This is not legalisation. This is regulating the issue," insisted Bernardo Espino del Castillo, the Attorney General, in an attempt to play down the significance of the new measure. The government made sure there was no fanfare or grand announcement after the law was finally passed at the end of last week.

Mexico is enmeshed in a violent war with drugs cartels and traffickers that has claimed more than 11,000 lives in the past two-and-a-half years, and it is keen to explore any new approach that might ease the situation. Officials believe that the law will ease pressure on the country's overcrowded prisons and allow police to concentrate on dealers and smugglers.

The reform will also help by taking away from ordinary police officers the discretion on whether to arrest and possibly prosecute drug users – a prerogative that has encouraged shakedowns of citizens and corruption.

However, it is also with at least half an eye towards America that the law has been signed. Many in Mexico believe that their northern neighbour would do well to reassess its own ultra-prohibitionist approach to drug use, particularly concerning marijuana, sales of which provide roughly two-thirds of the cartels' profits.

Some US states have indeed moved to decriminalise the possession of small quantities of marijuana but not other drugs. At the same time, arrests for marijuana possession set a new record of about 800,000 last year.

With Barack Obama in the White House, the atmospherics, at least, have been changing. Earlier this year, the US acknowledged for the first time that it shared some of the blame for Mexico's drug problems because it was the main point of consumption. Certainly, it is anxious to see the Mexican President, Felipe Calderon, make headway in his anti-drugs campaign.

Observers also note that when the Mexican Congress approved a similar law several years ago, the then president, Vicente Fox, declined to sign it because of stiff pressure from the Bush administration in Washington. This time around, there was no such intervention from the US, which so far has had little to say about it officially.

Under the new rules there will be no action taken against those carrying up to a half-gramme of cocaine, 40 grammes of marijuana or 50 milligrammes of heroin.

Limits are set for other drugs, including LSD and methamphetamine. People found in possession of these small amounts will be encouraged to attend a drug treatment programme.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

About time
[info]had_it wrote:
Tuesday, 25 August 2009 at 06:34 am (UTC)
All drugs should be legal.
Think of it as evolution in action.
[info]doug_piranha wrote:
Tuesday, 25 August 2009 at 07:21 am (UTC)
" Officials believe that the law will ease pressure on the country's overcrowded prisons and allow police to concentrate on dealers and smugglers."

COBBLERS - that's an operational decision - police decide who they go after - and judges decide who they jai. Police here do that . You regularly see and hear about people with quite large amounts walk away with a caution

The next line of the article - which suggests the new law removes the ability of cops on the street to extort money from citizens - is clearly the real reason for the new law.

" had_it " says legalise drugs. Another loon. They are illegal because class A drugs are highly addictive and can damage your health. What about additives in food ? Let's open the door to all those too, regardless of their affect on humans. I know smoking damages your health - and for hisotrical reasons that is only now being pushed out of our society. Of course cigrettes should have been banned when it was discovered they damaged your health. But there was too much money at stake.

Do we want a society where all the weak souls are drugged up to the eyeballs. Or shall we build a society where people want to engage with reality - instead of escape from reality.

Do you really want people walking the streets - high on crack cocaine ?
No thanks

Cocaine and heroin are the cancer of society - and need to be cut out - at source .
All those apologists for the opium growers - and fools who cry "legalise drugs" - should visit the graves of all those young kids that have died from these drugs - and hang their heads in shame.
Who told you all this?
[info]kuma2000 wrote:
Tuesday, 25 August 2009 at 09:29 am (UTC)
Was it the Daily Mail or The Sun?
Re: Who told you all this?
[info]doug_piranha wrote:
Friday, 28 August 2009 at 06:53 pm (UTC)

Berk !
Whatever is in that cup - you ought to drink less of it !
Your reply must rank as the all time , brainless,
comment I have ever read.

I don't read either "paper". I am not some right wing nut - as I suppose your fatuous reply implies.

Nothing to say ?
Clearly not !!

A smart-arse jibe is NOT a cogent and witty retort.

It only shows the cavity between your ears is empty.

Who told me all what ?
That cocaine and heroin kill people ?
the dead kids - that's who told me all this.
Re: Who told you all this?
[info]kuma2000 wrote:
Friday, 28 August 2009 at 11:15 pm (UTC)
Your response is a knee jerk reaction to what you have been told by the tabloid press. Perhaps you should find out a little more about drug use before responding. I would direct you back over several lines you have written here as they apply to your response.
Re: Who told you all this?
[info]doug_piranha wrote:
Tuesday, 1 September 2009 at 04:37 pm (UTC)
Your arrogance is a way of masking your stupidity, because I notice that you don't say anything - you merely do what so many emtpy headed , wind-up merchants do - and suggest that those who do not agree with you do not know anything about the subject. very childish

You dont show me where I am incorrect. You have nothing - you say nothing. You don't argue any points.

You merely make a childish and fatuous suggestion that I am parroting what I have read in a tabloid newspaer. How can you make such stupid remarks and believe that you are actually engaging in debate ??

Don't kid yourself - you obviously fancy yourslef as some sort of wise arse - when you are an empty vessel, making a lot of noise, with no meaning.

"learn something about drug use " - you arrogant twit !

What they don't kill people ? They don't rob people of the ability to think and function properly? You can deny that if you want - but you will be baying at the moon.

You say "I would direct you back over several lines you have written here as they apply to your response."
?????????
Your words are completely devoid of any meaning !!

So.........it appears you are just a time waster with nothing to say - you really do have your head up your arse, don't you?

1- I don't read the tabloid press
2- I was a member of a drug support group - Notting Hill 1972.

I don't know why I waste my time - but i really couldn't let you sit in your own smug world actually believing you had said something worthwhile.

Apparently you disgree with my comments - although you do not have the courage to say so.

But you do have the arrogance to dismiss my views - by suggesting I take my views from the tabloids. You cannot possibly know that. In fact you are wrong.

You have shown your self to be a real lightweight You don't argue - just try to dismiss my opinions with a baseless lie. Give it up mate - go back to the washing up and staring out the window.
Sanity
[info]mowfalmighty wrote:
Tuesday, 25 August 2009 at 09:13 am (UTC)
Viva Mexico! Sanity at last, UK should follow suit immediately. Prohibition of drugs is completely unworkable,
technical note for travellers to Mexico
[info]lsi_92 wrote:
Tuesday, 25 August 2009 at 02:29 pm (UTC)
The amount quoted for marijuana above is incorrect, according to AP and the NYT, among others - the correct maximum permissable amount is 5g (FIVE grams), NOT 40g as quoted above.

AP:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iP1GlMCOzYSi8kbAUY1lLDdqc4vAD9A763HO0

NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/world/americas/24mexico.html?hp

Good job Mexico for having the balls to legislate for common sense.
[info]doug_piranha
[info]wiseiswatwise8 wrote:
Monday, 5 October 2009 at 06:49 pm (UTC)
Why do you care if some dumb ignorant people die from abusing drugs that they know will kill them. Making the drugs illegal will only cause more people to go to jail more people being killed by police and vice versa. Let the sutpid die off and the smart live on without them.

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date