Mexico's Supreme Court rules in favor of allowing recreational marijuana use | Hacker News Reader

Mexico's Supreme Court rules in favor of allowing recreational marijuana use

aztecreports.com

116 pointsegusa23 comments

Obviously this isn't legalisation. But as more and more countries/states legalise recreational marijuana, hopefully politicians will see the light and see that there's little demonstrable harm in legalisation, and that legalisation results in far more benefit than harm.

Unfortunately, this is unlikely. At least in the UK, New Zealand, and Australia. Politicians aren't opposed to drug law reform on the basis of safety, they might say they are, but in reality they're opposed to drug law reform because they believe that drug use is a moral sin. There are a significant number of politicians (in particular the religious ones), who believe that it's a sin to alter your mind, whether it be by alcohol, marijuana, mushrooms, MDMA, etc. etc. And they believe that it's their God-given duty to stop people from committing these sins.

The sad thing is that there are a lot of people in society who agree with them, hence they keep getting voted in. Just look at the comments on Facebook on any news story about somebody dying at a festival from drug overdoses, and there will be a slew of people literally saying that they deserved it for taking drugs in the first place.

And in Australia, I can't help but think that some politicians are using the war on drugs as a weapon in a fight against alternative culture. In Sydney, they have drug dogs at train stations, in particular in the Western Suburbs (the poorer, more ethnic side of the city), despite the fact that drug use is constant through the socioeconomic scale. Run a sniffer dog through the investment bankers' offices and see how much coke they'll pick up. They'll also use sniffer dogs at music festivals (especially non-mainstream events, like techno festivals), but they won't deploy them for the horse races, despite the fact that drug use is rampant at both.

You can make this point about these "side effects" for other countries as well. You will find plenty of commentators making the point that the US' War On Drugs has effectively been institutionalizing racism against blacks in the US, like the ACLU [1] or individual civil rights scholars calling it the "New Jim Crow" [2]. Others even claim that it may have had roots in a motivation to target "blacks and hippies" [3].

Whatever the reason, statistics describing the outcome of legal disparities between crack and cocaine in the US [4] seem to support the claim that the US justice system and drug laws in particular tend to reinforce racism and social exclusion.

Whatever the war on drugs was supposed to achieve, it certainly seems to be achieving something different altogether.

[1] - https://www.aclu.org/other/race-war-drugs

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Jim_Crow

[3] - https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/richard-nixon-drug-war-...

[4] - https://americanaddictioncenters.org/cocaine-treatment/diffe...

I don't think what you're saying is correct about Australia. Queensland just joined the ranks of states to legalise elective termination of pregnancy. If "murdering babies" and gay marriage can get through the morals of many politicians, I'm sure smoking a bit of weed can too. The difference I see is there really aren't any big movements from the citizens to push the marijuana agenda, as there were for the other two I mentioned.

Edit for clarification: this is addressing your point about their religiosity. I wasn't commenting on your last paragraph.

A step in the right direction, but it's not quite there yet. From the article

> It would still require individuals to bring their cases before the Supreme Court before the judges can rule whether their case is constitutional, which is still a little different to having the absolute freedom to consume marijuana across the country.

It's also non-commercial use, which makes me think that the situation would be akin to Washington D.C. where it's legal to consume it, but not to sell it.

Even with the case having to be brought to the SC, I wonder if this is Mexico’s initial step toward attempting to curb the drug cartels. With the states legalizing recreational marihuana, that has already slowed down a lot of the over-the-border smuggling, at least IIRC without digging up articles.

OT: Canada seems to maybe thinking the same thing with legalizing. If we legalize it, we’re erasing the incentive of backpacking through the back channels of the Canada-US border.

All of the weed transiting the Canada/US border is flowing from Canada into the US. Canada legalizing weed will have little to no impact on that, except reducing the risks for the Canadian growers. Legalization in several US states, especially Washington and California has already killed most of that trade though. There is plenty of weed being grown in the US now, and it's much easier to move it between states than it is to move it over a border.

Soon, 100% of illegal North American marijuana use will occur in the USA.

Step in the right direction. It's legal in Canada and I can report that society hasn't crumpled (nothing's really changed honestly).

It's been like one week. At least give it a minute! ;)

The Brave New World will take a few generations, I assume.

In true Canadian style, the switchover was meticulously orderly and boring.

In provincial style, BC completely messed it up and managed to only approve one outlet for an entire province, then had police raid a handful of established “head shops” who immediately sued. Check back in a year or two.

They're also selling product for double what the street value is, so there's that. I still can't believe how poorly the province has handled this, you would have thunk that we'd be all over it given our reputation.

Street value was low enough that I think the guarantee of quality and purity is still a good value.

I’d count these glitches as pretty minor. The online store launched and took orders without a hitch starting at midnight October 17th - it’s hosted on Shopify and frankly is well done.

Yes, there was a raid on a couple of grey market dispensaries, but that was orchestrated by the local Mounties, and all in all I don’t think qualifies as a botched launch.

¡Viva México!

>The Supreme Court found that adults have a "fundamental right to the free development of the personality" without interference from the state. "That right is not absolute, and the consumption of certain substances may be regulated, but the effects provoked by marijuana do not justify an absolute prohibition of its consumption," the ruling read.

What a bunch of lawless nonsense for a high court to be engaged in. This might be good policy, but the more ominous implication is what it means for the judiciary to be substituting its own judgment for that of the legislature, based on indeterminate legal theories about “fundamental rights” invented out of thin air.

All "fundamental rights" are invented out of thin air. Neither physics nor nature recognizes such "rights" as life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, property rights, what have you.

It’s not about physics or nature, but legal enactment. Constitutions are full of fundamental rights that have proper, lawful pedigree. The U.S. Bill of Rights, for example, was debated vigorously in Congress, passed by supermajorities in each house, and ratified by the people.

Isn’t that implicitly an argument for keeping the surface area of fundamental rights small?

> Isn’t that implicitly an argument for keeping the surface area of fundamental rights small?

It is at least one premise short of a basis for such an argument:

P1. All “fundamental rights” are products of human invention not found in nature.

P2. ?

C. Therefore, the number of fundamental rights on which a social system rests should be kept small.

P2 is something like, “It’s difficult to get country-sized populations to agree on products of human invention.”

I’m also implying a P3 that looks something like this: “Widespread agreement on the question of what exactly are the fundamental rights is a necessary condition for the survival of a nation.”

This is sort of an argument of the form, “make things as simple as possible, but no simpler.”

> I’m also implying a P3 that looks something like this: “Widespread agreement on the question of what exactly are the fundamental rights is a necessary condition for the survival of a nation.”

That doesn't seem to be true in practice. It may be a desirable (either fundamentally or instrumentally to some other desired quality result) condition in a nation, but plenty of nations have survived an extended period despite fairly durable disagreements on the nature and scope of fundamental rights.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com