cannabisnews.com: Mexico President Seeks Review of Drug Law 










  Mexico President Seeks Review of Drug Law 

Posted by CN Staff on May 03, 2006 at 22:53:15 PT
By James C. McKinley Jr. and John Broder 
Source: New York Times 

Mexico City -- After intense pressure from the United States, President Vicente Fox has asked Congress to reconsider a law it passed last week that would decriminalize the possession of small amounts of drugs as part of a larger effort to crack down on street-level dealing.In a statement issued late Wednesday, Mr. Fox said the law should be changed "to make it absolutely clear that in our country the possession of drugs and their consumption are and continue to be crimes."
Officials from the State Department and the White House's drug control office met with the Mexican ambassador in Washington Monday and expressed grave reservations about the law, saying it would draw tourists to Mexico who want to take drugs and would lead to more consumption, said Tom Riley, a spokesman for the Office of National Drug Control Policy.Later in the day, Mexico's chief of the Federal Police, Eduardo Medina Mora, tried to clarify the law's intent, saying its main purpose was to enlist help from the state and local police forces. Until now, selling drugs has been solely a federal offense, and the agents charged with investigating traffickers are stretched thin, he said.Mr. Medina Mora, the main architect of the first measure, which Mr. Fox sent to Congress in January, said it was true the law would make it a misdemeanor to possess small quantities of illegal drugs, but he added that people caught with those drugs would still have to go before a judge and would face a range of penalties. "Mexico is not, has not been and will not be a refuge for anyone who wants to consume drugs," Mr. Medina Mora said.The current law has a provision allowing people arrested on charges of possessing drugs to argue they are addicts and that the drugs were for personal use. The new law sets an upper limit on how much of each drug one could possess and still claim to be using it to support a habit, Mr. Medina Mora said, and stiffens penalties for people possessing larger amounts of drugs.But the law drew a firestorm of criticism from American officials on the border and among American drug enforcement officials in Mexico, who argue any move toward decriminalization would encourage drug tourism. Some municipal officials on the border have worried that cities like Tijuana and Ciudad Juárez would become the Mexican equivalent of Amsterdam, where marijuana is legal in some bars. Mayor Jerry Sanders of San Diego, a former police chief, called the bill "appallingly reckless and incredibly dangerous." Judith Bryan, a spokeswoman for the American Embassy here, said the officials in Washington had urged Mexico "to review the legislation and to avoid the perception that drug use would be tolerated in Mexico and to prevent drug tourism."It is unusual for American officials to try to influence internal Mexican legislation. Mr. Fox made it clear late Wednesday he would not sign the bill in its current form, but would send it back to Congress with proposed amendments.James C. McKinley Jr. reported from Mexico City for this article, and John Broder from Los Angeles.Complete Title: Under U.S. Pressure, Mexico President Seeks Review of Drug Law Source: New York Times (NY)Author: James C. McKinley Jr. and John BroderPublished: May 4, 2006Copyright: 2006 The New York Times CompanyContact: letters nytimes.comWebsite: http://www.nytimes.com/ Related Articles:Legalizing Drug Use in Mexico Called 'Reckless'http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21813.shtmlMexico's Fox To OK Drug Decriminalization Lawhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21808.shtml

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #26 posted by Critto on May 06, 2006 at 15:55:40 PT
times, they NEED to be a-changing!!!
"This is why the US don't have a foriegn policy or domestic policy. The (US) don't need one, they just tell you what to do. And get re-elected."THIS should CHANGE. The countries that are foreign to the USA should start thinking more selectively about the US pressures. Accept some (there are some good ideas and actions of the US Government, as supporting the fight for free speech in totalitarian countries), while rebutting others (as the War on Drugs). The USA is NOT a mission of Heaven on Earth -- it's just the same country like others, just more powerful. It has its virtues and vices as any other country on the Globe. There are lots of good, freedom-loving Americans, but there are also tyrannical types aka John Walters, sadly. Those freedom-loving ones should also express their opposition to the tyrannical and intrusive policies of the US Government, thus delegitizing it both domestically and internationally.Btw, sometimes I think that the USA need the democratic, non-violent revolution as the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. What do you think?In Liberty,
Critto
LIBERTARYZM=LIBERTARIANISM
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #25 posted by Critto on May 06, 2006 at 15:48:24 PT
Really OUTRAGEOUS!!!
It's really outrageous, that the Head of the sovereign, proud country that Mexico always was, is and I hope will be, falters to the foreign power, however befriended he may be with it.I don't know if the Congress of Mexico has the power to override the decision (veto) of the President -- if yes, the Mexican Congresspeople should use this power only to show, that they are FREE in their decisions concerning the internal affairs of Mexico that the US Government should NOT meddle with. Simply, they should let their outrage erupt by blocking the decision of Fox, introducing a new decrim bill or just starting a brand new DEBATE on the OUTRIGHT LEGALIZATION of ALL drugs, as some Canadian MEPs did in similiar situtation. Go on, Mexican Congress, viva DECRIMINALIZATION!!!In Liberty,
Krzysztof (Christopher) "Critto" Sobolewski
liberter.webpark.pl
LIBERTARYZM=LIBERTARIANISM
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by rchandar on May 05, 2006 at 07:36:40 PT:
however you look at it...
...very sad. Sometimes I think they should pull press releases so that politicians will think they're in a vacuum and do what's right. Seems like every time a country comes up with a bill like this, the press release allows the US government to put pressure to stop the motion.Only exceptions I've seen in the past few years: Britain, Belgium, Portugal, and (I think) Berlin. Everywhere else...--rchandar
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by FoM on May 04, 2006 at 21:08:38 PT
runderwo 
I don't see anything wrong with it either. As long as they are working together that's fine with me. Different approaches are often good.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by runderwo on May 04, 2006 at 20:49:53 PT
all the groups
Actually, it makes sense for different groups to exist. It allows them to attack the issue from different angles, while at the same time appearing to outsiders that there are in fact many groups on top of this issue, as opposed to just NORML. I don't see a problem with it as long as they are not wasting money and good will fighting each other.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by b4daylight on May 04, 2006 at 18:49:09 PT
WTF
This is why the US don't have a foriegn policy or domestic policy. The (US) don't need one, they just tell you what to do. And get re-elected. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by FoM on May 04, 2006 at 18:26:12 PT
Celaya
I didn't understand why they couldn't be one big organization and fight who we need to fight to win this insane war against cannabis. This poor plant has been used, abused, glorified, and cursed. It really is amazing when you think about it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by Celaya on May 04, 2006 at 18:05:00 PT
FoM
You've got a point. I know there were probably good reasons why NORML and MPP disliked each other, but I always thought they should get over it and work together. But then, what do us peons know? 8^)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by FoM on May 04, 2006 at 18:00:42 PT
Celaya 
I know what you mean. I get so frustrated but I try to keep my thoughts to myself. I don't like stirring up trouble. I vaguely remember when I was new online a lot of infighting but I avoided it because I believe all it does it make people angry and cause division. I always keep in my mind divide and conquer is how they win. I don't want to make it worse. I try to step back and find some other focus that I care about and relax or I get angry and I don't like being angry.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by Celaya on May 04, 2006 at 17:44:55 PT
FoM
Of course, they need money, and I don't fault them for it. But they should be doing the other things to. Just like other orgs mobilize their members - Sierra Club, NRA, etc...It's just odd that they don't. And a waste of human resources.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by FoM on May 04, 2006 at 13:53:28 PT
 Celaya 
Organizations are political and they need to do what they do to get money. Blogs and web sites like CNews and other web sites can do the work as far as getting the word out. Issues are important but politics just aren't as far as getting anywhere. I believe people care more that aren't into the money end of trying to get more all the time. We the people can do more because our heart is in it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by Celaya on May 04, 2006 at 13:02:34 PT
kaptinemo 
I understand the difference in resources. But we already have the tool we need. The Internet. As soon as this event started unfolding the reform orgs should have e-mailed all their membership and everyone else they could think of to bombard every Mexican embassy and consul with letters of support for the decrim decision.In general, this is the biggest bone I have to pick with the large reform groups. It seems the only thing they think their membership is good for is donations and a head count. They should empower them, solicit suggestions, choose the best, act on them, and notify them of the group actions to participate in.And they should NEVER miss opportunities like this to let other countries know most U.S. citizens don't agree with marijuana prohibition.The Internet is a tremendous tool. With the way things are going, we may not have it long. Make hay while the sun shines.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by kaptinemo on May 04, 2006 at 12:16:31 PT:
Celaya, they were there
But if all you can afford is a cheap little plastic megaphone when the US Gub'mint can buy the biggest, baddest decibel-cranking sound system it wants, there's hardly any competition. Money does, indeed, talk...and ours would have volumes to say, were such groups funded as they could be. It's that simple.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by Celaya on May 04, 2006 at 09:21:47 PT
Where Was Our Side?
This would have been the perfect opportunity for drug reform orgs to moblize their members to send the message to Mexico that the Bush cabal does not represent the American people on prohibition. Where were they? Where was NORML, MPP, the Drug Policy Alliance, Students for Sensible Drug Policy, etc.?We really dropped the ball on this one. When are we going to become an effective political force instead of show ponies?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by FoM on May 04, 2006 at 09:17:00 PT
Off Topic: 36th Anniversary of Kent State Shooting
"They Just Started Shooting Us Down" -- Kent State At 12:24 PM on Monday, May 4, 1970, twenty-eight Ohio National Guardsmen pivoted 135 degrees and began shooting into a crowd of student protesters at Kent State University. By the time the shooting ended thirteen seconds later, the guardsmen had fired sixty-seven rounds and four students lay dead or dying with at least another nine having been shot. How did this confrontation happen? And what caused the Guard to open fire? 36 years later, many of the answers are still unclear. Complete Article: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/3/162910/0623
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by unkat27 on May 04, 2006 at 08:47:13 PT
To Good To Be True
I knew this Mexico reform idea was too good to be true. Fox is being pressured by corporate big business pigs and DC to veto the new Mexican drug reform legislation, specifically the part that "decriminalizes" drug possession. Tell me that the DC pigs didn't get to him. We all know they did. This stinks.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by FoM on May 04, 2006 at 08:37:39 PT
whig
Thanks. When I look for news online not related to our topic here I first look at the links so I can figure out who they are trying to lean towards. I saw a great review of Living With War on a web site called Talking Left I think. I never read it because I thought it was part of the Libertarian Party. I looked around and didn't see that it was. I read Reason until I found out they are a libertarian web promoter. I am niave when it comes to these things. I don't want to be labeled anything.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by whig on May 04, 2006 at 08:25:52 PT
FoM
We all use different terms sometimes. I'm not actually political, per se, I'm more accurately anti-political.I think you may misunderstand what I mean by left-libertarian though, because it does not mean the same philosophy as held by the Libertarian Party (which is right-wing).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianI could use "progressive" because that's the more popular term today but remember that the original Progressives were the ones who started prohibition.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_EraIt comes down to the problem that words are not the things they represent, the ideas behind the words, the things themselves, are not fully or accurately described by them.What I'm trying to say is, whatever you want to call the beliefs that I'm describing, people online who are free to choose and participate according to their preferences, rather than be spoonfed, are not right-wing for the vast majority and are opposed to cannabis prohibition even on the right.
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #8 posted by FoM on May 04, 2006 at 08:04:05 PT

whig
I don't like words like left or libertarian when I see a web site that uses either of those words because it seems like a political party. Liberal equals libertarian type thing. I like the word progressive. What is a progressive though? They described Neil Young as a Libertarian Democrat in one of the radio reviews on NPR. What is a Libertarian Democrat? Oh politics how maddening they are to me. I would use the word liberal democrat and that I understand.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #7 posted by FoM on May 04, 2006 at 07:58:18 PT

dongenero 
I really like Dr. Weil. I believe that everything we need can be found in nature. When a program on the sea comes on one of the Discovery Channels I am fascinated with how sophiscated the deep sea animals are. Some people like shows on space exploration but I don't. The ocean is way more fascinating to me. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #6 posted by whig on May 04, 2006 at 07:52:01 PT

OT: The Real World
I was browsing some other blogs today and came across a comment that gave me pause to think. The right wing, and even moreso the prohibitionists, are incredibly marginal now, so few in number as to be barely significant. They exist only as a well-funded faction supported by the concentrated wealth and power of the industrial-media complex. The proof of this is that on the internet, where people choose their own sources of information, the left-libertarian viewpoints are far more numerous and well-subscribed, and prohibitionism is rarely seen even on the right. Where people are free to make choices is where we can see their true preferences. The mainstream media does not reflect such freedom, but the internet does. This, then, is the real world, not the distorted mirror which we are presented with that says otherwise.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #5 posted by goneposthole on May 04, 2006 at 07:49:38 PT

you can't have legal drugs in Mexico
The black market prices would fall in the US, more drugs would be used (if that is possible), and more people would be using more drugs (I doubt if that is possible, everybody uses drugs, legal or illegal).Anybody who wants to buy some illegal drugs in the United States will be able to buy them at anytime, regardless if Mexico legalizes small amounts or not.Drugs are more plentiful than gas is at Exxon/Mobil.When will the clueless, feckless, heartless, gutless, spineless, witless US government figure it out?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #4 posted by dongenero on May 04, 2006 at 07:18:11 PT

 off topic RE: natural medicine
From Dr. Weil's web site: This article is not about cannabis but speaks to those who downplay nature as a source of medicine.....Through the years, I have found that the phrase “nature’s wisdom” aggravates many conventional doctors. They seem unsettled at the idea that the natural world – which strikes them as a chaotic, undisciplined place – possesses any superiority over sophisticated technology, particularly in the area of creating medicines.But I am fascinated by the fact that, more and more, medical researchers are finding that nature can indeed create chemical wonders that no laboratory can come close to reproducing. A recent example comes from Indiana University, Bloomington, and Brown University researchers who are studying Caulobacter cresentus, a bacterium that lives in rivers, streams and tap water. This common, humble organism can attach itself to a glass pipette with a force equivalent to 70 newtons per square millimeter. This means that a spot of the Caulobacter’s “glue” the size of a quarter could lift the weight of four cars. By contrast, the best commercial superglues are only about one-third as strong.Even better the little creature’s glue works well on wet surfaces, leading bacteriologist Yves Brun to suggest that if large quantities could be produced, the substance could be a highly effective biodegradable surgical adhesive.I applaud the work of these researchers. It is humbling, but somehow thrilling, to realize that this minute, ubiquitous, harmless organism can make useful chemicals that no laboratory on earth can replicate. http://www.drweil.com/u/Page/Archive220/http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060411222211.htm
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #3 posted by Toker00 on May 04, 2006 at 04:03:03 PT

Amen, brother Dan B.
The soul of Prohibition is indeed infested. Infested with influence from ALL the CEOs and their EXECUT(ERS)IVES Pushing Legal DRUUUUUGS. The body of Prohibition is rolling and swarming inside with mature Maggots of Profit (DEA). You can see them move under the skin, like the bugs in "Mummy". The Soul of Prohibition is being devoured by these maggots. The soul of Prohibition is pure poison. These maggots themselves will surely die from this poison. They have spent all these billions to keep the Truth at bay, yet will die from that which they seek so foolishly. Their fate is sealed.Wage peace on war. END CANNABIS PROHIBITION NOW!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #2 posted by Dan B on May 04, 2006 at 01:59:40 PT

Not a Refuge
"Mexico is not, has not been and will not be a refuge for anyone who wants to consume drugs," Mr. Medina Mora said.Okay, so I guess that leaves the United States as the biggest refuge for those who want to consume drugs . . . provided that those drugs are sold for a profit by our legal drug cartels, such as big pharm, big tobacco, and big alcohol. American hypocrisy has grown increasingly ripe over the past five and a half years, but it has been stinking up the world for a lot longer than that. That stench that the palace guard from Hamlet smelled coming from Denmark is nothing compared to the rancid odor emanating from our political and law enforcement officials' bloated, maggot-infested souls.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #1 posted by MaRkAyNe on May 03, 2006 at 23:39:18 PT

What to Do
Mr. Fox. He has a big job to decide what to make legal in his country with all the pressure from the U.S. Hopefully he is thinking about peoples rights, not using it as immigration leverage.
[ Post Comment ]





  Post Comment