Mexico Legalizes Drug Possession

NYT ^ | August 21, 2009 | AP

[SolidWood]

MEXICO CITY (AP) - Mexico enacted a controversial law on Thursday decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other drugs while encouraging government-financed treatment for drug dependency free of charge.

The law sets out maximum "personal use" amounts for drugs, also including LSD and methamphetamine. People detained with those quantities will no longer face criminal prosecution; the law goes into effect on Friday.

[Clinging Bitterly]

But if you think that laws have no effect on public opinion...

I don't, but I give them less credit for good behavior than you. Inter alia, a minor disagreement.

...public morality such as homosexuality, divorce, drunk driving, welfare, etc...

Quite a mix of things there, none of which, far as I know, have ever been affected in any way by federal criminal statutes (nor should they have ever been in my opinion).

Drunk driving, I have discussed at length on other threads. No federal crime per se, but fedgov has sort of strong armed states to put specific things in their statutes (.08% vs. the once more common .10%, for example) by threatening withdrawal of highway funds. Maybe that's constitutional, maybe not, but constitutional does not equate to good and proper. At the end of the day I say unconstitutional. Besides the 10th amendment there is incorporation of certain privileges and immunities, enumerated right to due process large among them. Then, states have constitutions too, and many of them require compelling government need, public interest, or similar language as a part and justification for all state statutes. Arbitrary federal requirements for state statutes and many of the laws and methods of enforcement that are the product of the states alone violate so many of the state and US constitutional limits on government it isn't even close to funny.

All in all, one of the poorest examples of state law to hold up as an example for no nonsense state drug laws one could possibly use.

To summarize, we have US constitution, self incorporated provisions of same as limits on states, 14th amendment incorporation of other US provisions against the states, and the state constitutions themselves. State drug laws operating within all of those limitations are perfectly fine. But we are not a democracy and making just any old law according to majority public opinion is not and has not been a power of any government in the US since the ratification of the US constitution.

If it were, you know, that Shamwow guy wouldn't be allowed to live in any of the 57 states, and I dare say Billy Mays would have been executed well before his untimely natural death.

[dcwusmc]

Drunk driving has been on the decline for quite some time. The new laws and penalty increases, together with the lowering of BAC to 0.08 from 0.10 was done at the behest of MADD, which has, according to its founder, Candy Lightner, who’s no longer with the group, gone so far beyond its original purpose that she had to leave it. Now it’s just one more pressure group, seeking to get more and more behavior criminalized.

[Clinging Bitterly]

Not particularly relevant, but I found this, attributed to Candy Lightner:

It [the brain of 18-year-olds] isn’t developed, and that’s exactly why the draft age is 18, because these kids are malleable. They will follow the leader, they don’t think for themselves and they are the last ones I want to say ‘here’s a gun, and here’s a beer.’ They are not adults; that’s why they’re in the military. They are not adults.

Just goes to show you, everybody's got something in them waiting for a chance to come flying off the wall.

Evil spirits?

[mvpel]

But I believe legitimizing drug use will make it widespread, and with it widespread ruin of lives, families, and eventually the nation itself, until we become such a weakened body that we have no defense against whatever ailment (i.e. invading force, communism, islam, etc.) gets to us first.

And on what basis do you found that belief that tens of millions of people who have no interest in doing drugs right now will suddenly decide that they do, and ruin their lives as a result? People hardly want to smoke tobacco anymore, and yet you still believe that tens of millions of them want to do cocaine, heroin, pot, and LSD if only it were legal?

It's easier for high school students to get pot and other illegal drugs than it is for them to get alcohol or tobacco right now, today. Illegality is not stifling supply - anyone who wants to do these drugs right now can obtain them easily with a couple of inquiries in the right places.

But yet you still believe that legalization will lead to an explosion in drug abuse.

I just don't get it.

Have you considered that if the hard-core addicts wasted away and died under a bridge at the age of 25 in a drug-induced stupor, instead of limping along to the age of 50 or taking half a dozen people with them on the freeway in a legal alcohol-induced stupor, that our nation would be the stronger for it?

Here in New Hampshire, package liquor is imported by a state agency and sold only in state-run stores. Advertising of distilled spirits is legally constrained. Suppose the same arrangement was made for other kinds of drugs besides alcohol, instead of the free-for-all which you fear?

[mvpel]

That said, it puts me in the position of having to try to convince you (my neighbors, actually) that our community will be better off if we don't allow drugs here. (I'm also in the unenviable position of being a smoker, and having to convince my neighbors that banning tobacco is undesirable.)

It also puts you in the unenviable position of being a hypocrite. How can you convince us, your neighbors, that our community will be better off if we don't allow drugs you don't like and don't use, but do allow drugs you do like and do use?

United States Surgeon General Richard Carmona told a House subcommittee Wednesday he would support a ban on tobacco products. Carmona's comments marked the first time a surgeon general, the federal government's top public health advocate, had gone so far on the politically sensitive topic.

Asked if he would "support the abolition of all tobacco products," Carmona told a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee investigating smokeless tobacco and other reduced risk tobacco products, "I would support banning or abolishing tobacco products." Carmona equivocated when asked if he would support a law to ban tobacco, saying "legislation is not my field," but then reiterated his support for criminalizing tobacco. "If Congress chose to go that way, that would be up to them," he said, "but I see no need for any tobacco products in society."

You see "no need" for pot or other illegal drugs, and General Carmona sees "no need" for tobacco.

Why is banning tobacco "undesirable," as you put it? How do you explain that? Do you use the same arguments we've been using with you here about other kinds of drugs?

[Loud Mime]

If they do the feds should move in and arrest every legislator that voted for it and Arnie for signing it!

I think not. What would be the charge if it were a citizen initiative, like the medical marijuana?

This brings up a great constitutional question Vis-à-vis Amendment X; I would sit back and enjoy watching the antics. Remember, California needs the money as much as the drug gangs do.

[Kozak]

seems like an endless cycle and a money pit...

As opposed to the War on Drugs

[dalereed]

It’s a federal crime as it should be!

Anyone using it should get a life sentence.

I’ve got one cousin that i would love to see get 25 to life!

[LearsFool]

Now hold on a minute. I mentioned drunk driving laws to illustrate one point and one point only: That laws and public opinion can and often do reflect and reinforce public opinion.

If you want to discuss whether our current drunk driving laws are reasonable or constitutional, that'd be both interesting and off the subject. Surely we have legitimate points of disagreement we can discuss without pretending that I held up our drunk driving "as an example for no nonsense state drug law". So back to those.

State drug laws operating within all of those limitations are perfectly fine.

I confess that's not a statement I expected to hear from you, but if you indeed hold that view, I'm glad of it. No, we're not a democracy, though our republic has a clearly democratic element to it. Democracy in America has distinct limits, as Madison pointed out: The will of the majority must be right in order to rule.

The majority, for instance, is prohibited from killing you just because they don't like you. They're prohibited from silencing you just because they don't like what you say. But in matters on which they do have authority to act, the majority will prevails. That's a democratic republic, democracy limited by the res publica - the law. (As you already know, I'm certain.)

So where do we still disagree, you Bitter Clinger you? Does the majority (at any level, state, local, federal) have authority to ban drugs? If so, then it's up to you to sway the majority to your way of thinking, and me to do likewise.

Or does individual liberty trump, and overrule the majority no matter how large?

[LearsFool]

And on what basis do you found that belief that tens of millions of people who have no interest in doing drugs right now will suddenly decide that they do, and ruin their lives as a result?

"Suddenly"? No, I didn't say "suddenly".

I'm arguing that law has a restraining effect that goes beyond the fear of punishment, insofar as it reflects and reinforces public opinion. This is why I dislike federal laws even when they're constitutional. The "punishment effect" might be the same whether the law is local or federal, but the "non-punishment effect" is clearly greater when the law is made by a smaller group of people - because the smaller group is more obviously making the law to govern themselves, having decided for themselves that they themselves need it. - As opposed to some distant congress of rulers making decisions about "what's good for the masses."

It's my opinion - which I came to after reading the founders - that this is not only the most just way for free people to govern themselves, but also the best way for free people to retain their freedom. It's not perfect, and liberty may from time to time be a casualty. But mistakes can be corrected with this system, as the people learn from their mistakes.

And isn't this what made the United States such a unique nation? - Each state can test out its own ideas, and so learn from one another's experiments, adopting others' good ideas and avoiding their mistakes. (After all, haven't we discussed here the Netherlands, Mexico, etc. to see what works and what doesn't?) But I digress.

Look at divorce. We've seen the laws change radically in recent decades, and we've seen the incidence skyrocket behind it. Is one the horse and the other the cart? Do the laws affect public opinion, and thus encourage (or at least no longer discourage) divorce? Or was it public opinion that prompted a change in the laws?

The fact is that small groups agitated for a change in the laws (starting in California, big surprise), and that public opinion about marriage and divorce followed, to be followed in turn by an increase in divorce. (And no, that didn't happen "suddenly" either.)

People hardly want to smoke tobacco anymore...

That's a good point. That's not because tobacco is any less enjoyable or addictive, is it? Isn't it because public opinion has been changed? And what brought about that change?

Here in New Hampshire...

I didn't know that - and am surprised, since your state is often touted as "the free state". But of course it's up to you folks to create the community you want. I'm a Texan, so I have no say in what you do up there. If your policies work out well, I'll suggest we adopt them down here. That's one reason why I wish the Raich decision had gone the other way: We would all have been able to watch California to see whether legalized pot were a good or a bad idea, instead of trying to predict from imperfect data and theoretical conjecture.

All I'm doing here is trying to distill from imperfect data some principles we can use to make a wise decision.

[LearsFool]

You see "no need" for pot or other illegal drugs, and General Carmona sees "no need" for tobacco.

No sir, you misrepresent me there.

Where Carmona and I disagree is on the presumption of liberty. Just like with the presumption of innocence, the side of liberty wins by default unless the opposition can overcome it.

In the case of tobacco, it's up to my opponent to prove that my using it causes enough harm to society that my liberty interest is outweighed. I don't have to prove a "need" for tobacco. I don't have to prove a thing. He does.

It's the exact same with drugs. And what I've argued here is that allowing the use of drugs causes such harm to society that liberty interest is outweighed by society's interest. You don't have to prove a thing. I do.

This is exactly how the temperance movement handled the matter. They did it legitimately, following the Constitution. They made a mistake, clearly. And it's possible I'm making a mistake. (To my credit, though, I'm not advocating an amendment nor any other federal control.)

But where Carmona and I differ is that I proceed legitimately, giving liberty its due honor. You have to grant me that much, don't you?

[Balding_Eagle]

Your point is well argued, and I agree completely.

[dcwusmc]

The government in this country rests on one thing- the CONSENT of the GOVERNED. With the Constitution we, the People, set up a compact with the Several States to establish a central government. We, the People are the bedrock for this authority which we granted to government with our consent for the government to act in our names and on our behalf in certain LIMITED matters. However, the key phrase here is “Consent of the Governed.” Which also applies to our relationship with the several States.

As you know (or SHOULD know), I, as an individual, can only consent to having someone do for me THAT WHICH I MAY RIGHTLY DO FOR MYSELF. For example, I may not rightly put a gun to YOUR head to get you to pony up to pay for my wife’s facelift (or even life-saving cancer surgery). If I as an individual cannot do that, how can I LEGITIMATELY consent to having someone else do it in my name and on my behalf? I cannot. Period. The same is true for compelling you to either ingest or put something into your body, such as vitamins or vaccinations, or refrain from ingesting or putting into your body (tobacco smoke or White Castle gut-bombs).

On the other side, since I can rightly screen who comes into my home and take measures to keep out undesirables, then it must follow that, since my country is ALSO my home, I can consent to rules regarding who may enter and on what conditions. I may rightly use whatever level of force is necessary to defend my own person or my loved ones, my neighbors and my/our property; thus, I can properly consent to hiring someone (government) to do that in my name and on my behalf.

So, ANYTHING that government proposes to do to expand the scope of its authority MUST absolutely be looked at through the prism of “CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.” Which, in essence, is what the Tenth Amendment is: that prism.

So given the above, apply it to your question.

[LearsFool]

Thank you. I was beginning to feel a bit lonely in here. ;-)

Those who’ve disagreed with me, when they get down to brass tacks, are no slouches - as you can see. Such folks truly help distill the disagreement to its essence, so we can each draw well-founded conclusions even if we still disagree.

[LearsFool]

Well that’s a good post. However...

This argument always sounds convincing, and seems like it should be unassailable. But it’s got a weakness that I’ve never been able to quite nail down. Maybe I’ll get it this time.

The flaw in this principle is that, simply put, we the people concede to a governing body the authority to do things we cannot do ourselves. We agree among ourselves that we need some arbitrator, some judge, to settle disputes. In a republic such as ours, that arbitrator is the law. Though we have a say in the making of law, it exists separate from us. (Otherwise we would have an anarchy instead.)

We have further conceded to representatives whom we elect from among ourselves the authority to make law - hence representative democracy in our republic. But even they are governed by law which we created and to which we consented.

The government then does not have ALL authority. But the authority we DID concede is no longer ours to claim. (Except via revolution, as the Declaration says, when certain conditions are met. If we’re at that point, then this discussion is moot until the revolution is completed and we’re starting over again.)

So if we did concede authority (which you’d no doubt agree we did), does that allow the government to do things neither of us alone could rightly do? That seems to be the crux of the matter. And I’ll argue that the government UNDOUBTEDLY DOES.

Can I imprison you for a crime? Can I order you to march into a battle you don’t want to fight? Can I take your money by force and spend it on the defense of our nation? Can I take your property by force and use it for public purpose?

These are all violations of your principle that “we cannot consent to allow government to do things which we cannot rightly do ourselves”, aren’t they? (My paraphrase.) But we together agreed to allow the government to do so, didn’t we? (If you believe we had no right to cede such power, then you must argue for revolution.)

Yours is an invaluable principle for us to use as a restraint on ourselves and our government, but I simply don’t see how it can be a hard-and-fast rule.

I wavered for years between the fascist-prone-social-conservative and anarcho-libertarian positions, until I’ve finally become convinced (for now, anyway) that neither one by itself holds the answer. It’s no more cut-and-dried than the federalist-antifederalist debate was. It’s the DEBATE where the answers lie. It’s the struggle between order and liberty that preserves both.

So you and I will struggle. We’ll disagree on drug legalization for now, mostly because our predictions are both imperfect. But two things we have and will continue to agree on:

1. The federal, state and local governments have abused the situation in order to grab power, and to tyrannize and terrorize the populace.

2. Liberty holds a place of primacy in any debate about legislation.

(Does this answer your question satisfactorily? If I’ve failed to do so, I can try again.)

[donna]

Those aren’t conservatives.

[donna]

Oh, alcoholics and smokers will register right alone with the other druggies. It’ll all be the same. Don’t forget the part about taking your kids away - probably to live with a homosexual “family”.

Once you give the feds that much money and information they can do anything a liberal could desire.

[ChrisInAR]

Those aren’t conservatives.

If you are referring to the Democrats & Republicans, I couldn't agree w/ you more...that's why I voted for Pastor Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party in the '08 election.

[donna]

I just signed up for newsletter email from the Arizona Constitution Party site.

[Clinging Bitterly]

I confess that's not a statement I expected to hear from you...

I tried to put in the post my recognition that we are not so far apart, because I don't believe we are. Certainly, public opinion does sway lawmaking, and should, but we need to be vigilant on those constitutional principles as the line of defense against tyranny they are meant to be.

That having been said, we must also check our own (the people's) power. Just as constitutional does not equate with good and proper, so it is with popularity. I suppose our elected legislators are intended to be the necessary check on both, but we know them to be, all too often, just as reactionary as the least informed (or most misinformed) of the populace.

My tearing apart of state drunk driving laws was done to illustrare an example of the above principles not being so carefully followed.

Now, for the sake of argument let's toss aside DEA enforcement and examine where we are in the states as opposed to where we might rather be.

For the most part, the deadly raids continue, the vast majority of them are in the name of state enforcement involving state and local forces. I think it's one of the major contributors to drug related violence in the US, and in the absence of any other changes, the tactics ought to be rethought. The drug trade is mostly non-violent I believe, and probably warrants a more civil approach as is done with other illegal trades.

Asset forfeiture as a primary mission needs to go. You know it has been challenged from all fronts and for some reason continues to pass muster, but the reality is it's a huge incentive for enforcement agencies to make big captures, and I think it motivates and inspires those agencies to do things they wouldn't normally do on the more solid foundation of the traditional police mission. Better, I think, we should abandon the quest for the spoils and return penalizing, in name and in fact, to the realm of criminal courts where it rightly belongs. Sure, some of the booty is going to escape the reach of the government, but why do we have drug laws? To get as much of a dealers' stuff as possible, or to remove drugs from the streets?

So there are two of the things I think need reexamining first and foremost and I believe my thoughts in that regard stand on firm ground. More should be done beyond that - I have an ideal in my mind but you and I both know it's not a universal vision. I'd be quite happy to see incremental de-escalation and trial of various decriminalization and legalization schemes over time, to see if we can reach a point where more can say we seem to be doing something right.