Mexico, drugs, and naivete

Before you get riled up about Mexico's purported flirtation with decriminalization, be aware of all the facts.

1. "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."

2. "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" [emphasis added].

In other words, the change is relatively minor--and the ruckus it's raised is, predictably, huffed way out of proportion. In case you're not convinced, on to the line-by-line. Andrew Selby's comments are italicized. Mine aren't.

First, I think I’m suffering from naivete because I have always thought drugs were bad.

They are... mmmkay? Seriously, though, some drugs are bad. No argument there.

Passing a law that allows people to do something bad - with far-reaching negative effects on society as a whole - is not good.

That's if we assume that a law that allows people to do something bad means they will do it--or won't otherwise. Which has a bigger drug (and crime) problem: the U.S., with its extensive and often draconian drug laws, or the Netherlands, with state-run pot shacks? You might be surprised.

What I mean by negative effects on society as a whole are addictions, which may increase as more people have access to addiction creating narcotics such as heroin and cocaine. Perhaps an argument can be offered that would show addictions will not increase due to the legalization of drugs.

It can. A quick Google search is all it takes.

Second, given that drugs are bad, we don’t want lots of them in our country. Mexico allowing its citizens to carry generous amounts of these narcotics allows more drugs to be passed over into our borders.

"Generous" is in the arms of the holder. And "allowing," as I've already pointed out, is a misconception, except in the case of court-approved addicts. Trafficking is still mightily illegal. (On the border, corruption seems to be the biggest problem, never mind what the law says. The black market sends prices way, way up, making drug running highly lucrative. Capitalism in action. Oh, and it's American demand that drives the market.)

Again, I am willing to hear a case that demonstrates Mexicans - not just pro drug runners, but now anyone with a mind to - won’t be tempted to buy these substances legally in their own country, hop our relatively unprotected border and sell them for more money state-side.

Since selling drugs would still be as illegal as it ever was, I see no additional impact. And I'm willing to hear a case that Mexicans will be tempted any more than they--like anyone else--already are.

Given that Mexicans don’t seem to be massing and protesting this law, I assume that it is, by and large, culturally acceptable to buy, sell, and use these narcotics. Since many will have no scruples against the exchange and consumption of these substances, they will be willing to sell them in a country with naive laws such as the USA. This state of affairs stays the same with the legalization of drugs in Mexico, but now more people have access to them.

Or, perhaps Mexicans have a better understanding of their own legal system, and what this law actually changes--so very little, realistically speaking.

I further suppose that the price of narcotics will drop significantly now that they are legal. The risk to the seller has decreased. Therefore, more folks can afford it and go sell it.

Except that penalties for trafficking would be stiffened, and penalties for selling would remain the same. Read the original (linked to!) article.

The bill also would stiffen many drug-related penalties: for trafficking, for possession near schools, and for possession of even small quantities by government employees.

Criminal penalties for drug sales would remain on the books.

The drug market isn’t something I have thought much about, so I am eager to hear refutations.

Glad to help. In fact, I think more Americans need to think very hard about the costs and benefits of our "war on drugs."

I’ve met some in the universities today who believe that drug usage ought to be legalized here in our nation because drugs aren’t that bad. Those are arguments that I admit I don’t understand and would like to hear set forth.

I'm not about to, since my purpose here is to correct misconceptions about the proposed changes to Mexico's drug laws. Naivete is a starting point, but the goal is informed judgment--and that requires a thorough investigation of the facts.