Mexican Congress Passes Drug Decriminalization
June 26th, 2009 by Russ
Early this week, a major blow was struck against the modern War on Drugs. Faced with a unprecedented drug crisis threatening to spill over its already porous borders, the Mexican legislature decriminalized the possession of drugs intended for personal use.
Done relatively quietly because of a worsening Swine Flu outbreak, the Mexican lower house approved a measure that had already passed the Senate to allow Mexicans to carry up to five grams of pot, half a gram of cocaine, .04 grams of meth, and .05 grams of heroin. The bill also acts to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for small-time drug dealers.
The bill now awaits the signature of President Felipe Calderón, which is expected to happen shortly. Though Calderón had gained a reputation as a staunch enemy of local drug cartels, he offered up the decriminalization legislature as an emergency measure to loosen the burden on Mexico’s prisons and overtaxed law enforcement.
According to Rafael Ruiz Mena, head of Mexico’s National Institute of Penal Sciences:
The important thing is… that consumers are not treated as criminals. It is a public health problem, not a penal problem.
The referred to public health problem has become a serious drain on Mexico’s resources. As we reported last month, the addiction rate in Mexico has increased by 50% since the violence between the government and cartels began to escalate. A fragmenting of the traditional cartel structure has flooded the Mexican market with cheaper, purer substances that have moved street level dealing and use out of any semblance of control.
It’s a shame that the situation had to deteriorate to this point before the Mexican government agreed to take steps toward adopting a more rational drug policy. Perhaps transitioning to a system that seeks to help non-violent addicts (instead of demonizing them) will restore the people’s faith in Mexican government, and stem the breakdown of Mexican civil society.
2010: A Legalization Odyssey
June 16th, 2009 by Russ
Occasionally, California politics seems like something right out of a Kubrick, brain-addled, psychadelic, sci-fi jaunt. The law of the land is seemingly set just as often by the people themselves as their elected representatives. A 1996 CA referendum gave us Proposition 215, a historic and revolutionary endorsement of medical marijuana. Now, activists want to do away with ordinary criminalization, and legalize small amounts for personal use.
The Control, Regulate, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 (in its current incarnation) would legalize possession of weed by adults in amounts up to one ounce. It would also give Californians the right to grow and cultivate up to 25 square-feet of weed for personal consumptive purposes.
It will have it’s day at the polls if organizers can muster the nearly half a million signatures necessary to place it on next year’s ballot. Given the weed dispensary boom going on in Los Angeles and other parts of Northern California, the business community may find itself uncharacteristically advocating for this position.
If they succeed in placing the Prop on the state ballot, organizers forsee a fighting chance for the measure. According to Oakland dispensary owner, Richard Lee:
We believe that the people lead the politicians on this issue.
California is certainly the place to test out that notion. Open the pod bay doors, Hal. It’s time to go for a ride.
Pro Pot Group Proposes $5 Fine
May 22nd, 2009 by RickEven though Colorado legislature passed a law in 2001 that brought marijuana possession from a misdemeanor to a petty offense, one little town named Longmont is apparently still reaping in the rewards of the cash cow system created by the war on drugs.
A group called, Free Marijuana in Longmont, wants the $100 fine and possible jail time for possession of marijuana reduced to $5. They feel community service and a $25 fine, instead of jail time and $100 fine is the way to go for public display or consumption of marijuana. This would just be a change for the adults however, the minors would still have to fork over their drug lunch money and allowance and pay the current fine.
The group plans to bumrush city council members the next time they hold a meeting and basically give them an ultimatum of agreeing to changing the code or they would send out petitions and collect signatures to get the issue on the ballot in November and therefore let the people decide.
Although medical marijuana is legal in Colorado, Paul Tiger, another Longmont resident worries about the chances of people smoking marijuana for recreation and not medication if it’s decriminalized and the penalties are reduced.
Kevin Clowers, leader of the group, uses the logic that if the fine is reduced to something like $5 then the authorities won’t bother in chasing the potheads and thus they save money in the long run with the courts and freeing up police officers to go after the real bad guys.
Connecticut Decriminalization Bill Hijacked
May 19th, 2009 by RickA bill sponsored by Democrat Senate Majority Leader Martin M. Looney that would have decriminalized possession of up to a half ounce of marijuana was defeated last Tuesday in the Connecticut senate by Republican Sen. Antonietta Boucher, when she filibustered the issue until the deadline arrived, thus essentially killing the bill.
After the financial committee adjourned, the committee leaders revealed that they allowed the bill to die because of an e-mail threat that Sen. Boucher had received last week from 28-year old vice chairman of the Connecticut chapter of NORML, Dominic Vita, saying that he would “go postal” on Boucher. Because of this threat, policeman in civilian attire were among the attendees at the committee meeting. Vita was charged May 13th with disorderly conduct, stemming from the incident, and after accepting community service, he was ordered to stay clear the Capitol for the next few weeks. Vita’s next court date is set for July.
Democrat Sen. Eileen M. Daily said:
I think the threat to Sen. Boucher and the committee overrode any other concern. [...] And out of respect to Sen. Boucher and the committee, we welcomed the debate on the bill as well as the filibustering all day. [...] Sen. Boucher was very shaken by that threat and very concerned and she has been very outspoken on her opposition to marijuana and she took the threat very seriously and wanted time to explain her position.
Before the e-mail threat, an amendment could have brought life back to the bill before the legislature closes on June 3rd but a number of republicans have “reconsidered their position on the bill,” backing the chief opponent to the legislature, Sen. Boucher.
In an interview, Democrat Sen. Andrew J. McDonald said:
There are a number of Republican legislators who appear to have reconsidered their position on the bill as the result of the abusive e-mail received by Sen. Boucher. [...] It’s never appropriate to threaten a legislator as was done in the e-mail sent to Sen. Boucher. There’s no doubt that the e-mail clouded the merits of the issue and mortally wounded its chances.
Now what’s sad is that the entire reason for a Financial Committee to receive this bill from the Senate was to discuss the fact that legislative research indicated that it could save millions of dollars in judicial costs and generate an annual revenue of $325,000 from fines.
Personal feelings got in the way and instead of a logical discussion and debate, what the Connecticut people received was essentially a long rant about the same antiquated rhetoric that marijuana was a gateway drug that led to more serious drugs and decriminalizing it would being higher costs to the police.
The mere point that certain legislators said they based their vote (or lack thereof) off the fact that Sen. Boucher was threatened, should anger the Connecticut citizens. The Senate passed that bill down to the financial committee for a reason and nothing financial was discussed.
- Cesar Gaviria
- , Decriminalization
- , Ernesto Zedillo
- , Fernando Henrique Cardoso
- , Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy
- , Legalization
- , Vincente Fox
Former Mexican President Calls for Legalization
May 15th, 2009 by RickA whirlwind tour of the three four amigos, ex leaders of Latin American nations, has blown in that calls for the decriminalization and legalization of marijuana.
On Tuesday, Vincente Fox told CNN:
I believe it’s time to open the debate over legalizing drugs. [...] It must be done in conjunction with the United States, but it is time to open the debate.
Former president of Mexico Vincente Fox, former president of MexicoErnesto Zedillo, the former leader of Columbia Cesar Gaviria, and the former president of Brazil Fernando Henrique Cardoso, are all members of the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy. In a February, at a meeting in Brazil, the organization wanted to change the policies with the war on drugs.
Gaviria said:
The problem is that current policies are based on prejudices and fears and not on results.
Cardoso said that their organization was only interested in legalizing marijuana and not all illegal drugs, citing that “you have to start somewhere”. Fox also says that since marijuana is predominantly consumed in the United States, Washington has to support any moves toward legalization.
Back in Febrauary, Gaviria said now is the right time to start the debate:
In many states in the United States, as is the case in California, they have begun to change federal policies with regard to tolerating marijuana for therapeutic purposes. And in Washington there’s some consensus that the current policy is failing.
Fox acknowledged the fact that the current President of Mexico, Felipe Calderon, has chosen to send in the army to battle the nation’s drug trafficking cartels.
If you go to war, you have to win it quickly and according to regulations. [...] Human rights are very important. [...] It also is important that the United States “accept its responsibility. [...] I would like to see some steps taken here in the United States. We see the drugs are coming across the border and are distributed in Atlanta and Washington and Chicago and all parts of the country.
Critics and opponents of their stance claim that the issue needs to be viewed at a global level, because they don’t want one area to be designated as a drug paradise. They realize that violence connected to the drugs may indeed by reduced but feel there would be some sort of social damage.
Mexican Senate Votes to Decriminalize Weed Posession
April 30th, 2009 by Russ
The Mexican Senate approved a measure Tuesday that would eliminate penalties for possession of several drugs, including marijuana. Proposed by conservative President Felipe Calderon, the bill would legalize possession of up to five grams of pot, half a gram of cocaine, and traces of harder drugs such as meth and heroin. The bill also would eliminate mandatory federal sentencing for small-scale dealers.
Following a nationwide debate on the efficacy of President Calderon’s escalation of violence against local drug cartels, several regional leaders have publicly supported a national policy of decriminalization. Former Presidents Ernesto Zadillo (Mexico), Fernando Cardozo (Brazil), and Cesar Gaviria (Columbia) all endorsed a return to progressive drug politics in the wake of a staggering rise in drug-related violence.
Succumbing to public pressure, Calderon proposed the legislation with the hopes of relieving some of the burden on local law enforcement, and allowing a more focused pursuit of high level drug traffickers. The bill awaits the endorsement of the Mexican lower house before it can be passed into law.
CT Governor Opposes Decriminalization
April 2nd, 2009 by Rick
On Monday, Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell, said she opposes the decriminalization of marijuana. With a bill regarding that issue already headed to the General Assembly, two of Rell’s spokesmen stopped short of using the word “veto,” but they both said that Rell opposes the concept.
Spokesman Rich Harris said:
The governor opposes illegal drug use and possession. Whether it’s a little or a lot, marijuana is an illegal drug.
This is where our way of doing things in this country makes absolutely no sense. If the constituents want marijuana decriminalized and it makes it way into the General Assembly and it passes, how can one person, who has obvious biased feelings towards the issue, have the power to veto it? We elect the politicians to represent us yet we also elect a politician that presides over them and can reverse any decisions that they made for us in the first place. As Spock would say, “That’s not logical.”
Even though Rell is a cancer survivor, she vetoed a bill in June of 2007 that wanted to legalize medical marijuana. The state House of Representatives voted 89-58 while the Senate voted 23-13, both shy of the two-thirds margin that was needed in both chambers to override the veto. Her reasoning of the decision was that although she had sympathy for those who wanted to use marijuana for pain management, she said that her sympathy could not overcome her concerns that those seeking to obtain the drug would need to break the law to purchase it.
Well, there’s a good way to avoid people breaking the law. Change the law! Her statement does not even make sense. If medical marijuana was legalized then those people wouldn’t be breaking the law to purchase their weed. Is she implying that people would pretend to be in pain or sick to qualify for medical marijuana? Shouldn’t that be left up to the physicians? What right does a politician have on who qualifies? All the states have to do is legalize medical marijuana and then let the doctors decide from there.
It will be interesting to see how this issue pans out. If Rell successfully vetoes again, then Connecticut might just become the black sheep of the New England family. If they manage to override this veto then the law would reduce the penalty for possession of less than one ounce of marijuana from the current level of a misdemeanor to an infraction with a maximum fine of $121.
Connecticut Also Considers Decriminalization
March 26th, 2009 by Rick
Hot on the heels of Massachusetts introducing a bill into legislature to decriminalize marijuana, Connecticut cooks up one of their own. Led by Senate Majority Leader Martin M. Looney, D-New Haven, the bill would decriminalize possession of up to an ounce of marijuana, making it punishable by a small fine, save the state an estimated $11 million a year in police, court and incarceration costs and produce about $320,000 in revenue from the fines.
If approved by the General Assembly and signed into law by Gov. M. Jodi Rell — who last year vetoed legislation to allow medical uses of marijuana — Connecticut would join a dozen other states with reduced penalties for marijuana kept for personal use. Chief State’s Attorney Kevin Kane contested that even Looney’s definition of a “small” amount of marijuana is flawed, because an ounce — about 28 grams — is a hefty weight among cannabis users that commands prices in the hundreds of dollars.
Rep. Arthur O’Neill, R-Southbury, ranking member of the committee, said that it appears the state’s laws for simple possession are tantamount to decriminalizing it.
O’Neill said:
It seems like we’re only codifying current practice, which is almost no one goes to jail for marijuana.
Sen. John A. Kissel, R-Enfield, ranking committee member, asked:
If we decriminalize marijuana, would that not have the effect of encouraging drug dealers?
Looney responded:
I don’t think it would necessarily alter consumption patterns. People are either going to use the substance or not, based upon other factors in their lives, but I think what it would really do, as the people in Massachusetts were persuaded, is it will save the casual user from having a criminal record that will follow him throughout his whole life for something that is I think a very minor offense that is more properly treated as an infraction rather than a criminal violation.
James Meickle, a member of Central Connecticut State University’s chapter of Students for Sensible Drug Policy, said prescription drugs are being easily diverted for recreational use that have much more potential for health damage than marijuana. It’s about time someone said that. The Pharmaceutical industry has just been pumping out the pills, turning this country into a pill popping nation. These drugs that are manufactured have more noted side affects than what marijuana does. In order to take the pills, you might have to try other pills to alleviate the symptoms caused by the first set of pills. Seems to work out for the Pharmaceutical industry. Never mind that teenagers and adults alike are abusing them for a high, eating them like candy or indulge a little bit in that “hillbilly cocaine”.
Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, D-East Haven, who teaches at the University of New Haven, said that while students are fairly routine victims of mixing pills and alcohol and end up in emergency rooms, marijuana users don’t end up hospitalized. Another great point. Mixing pills and alcohol definitely leads to trouble in form of accidents if the users are behind the wheel. Alcohol impairs the ability to drive, while the pills intensify the affect of the alcohol. I would say a good portion of the marijuana smokers drive while under the influence of marijuana and I bet their driving record would be no different than someone that doesn’t smoke weed.
They should do a study on that. In fact they should see just what people can do under the influence of marijuana, just to show people that for some people it’s a way of life or at least a way to look at life. You’d be surprised that there is at least six degrees of separation from you and a marijuana user.
