They miss the point that merely the title is misleading.

The correct title should have been 'Mexico legalizes drug addictions', and I consider this a very, very good and important step for a country.

Why? Because there is a certain asymmetry in the drug scene.

On the one hand, you have those guys who are addicted. They buy small amounts of drugs to consume and, well, consume them. Usually, and especially for those harsher drugs, however, this addiction is physical, which -- at least to me -- qualifies as a sickness.

On the other hand, you have the professional drug dealers. They buy large amounts of drugs (much more than one could consume and not die) and sell drugs to other people. I consider this to be a nasty abuse of sick people (one might go as far and sort of compare it with stealing purses from people in wheelchairs, even though that might be a bit harsh).

Thus, mexico legalized a disease, while keeping abuse and organized criminality illegal, which seems like a good, correct step to me.

While the rebuttal makes good points, it still misses what the law is really about and why it isn't a step in the right direction at all. It's about prosecuting small-time drug dealers. Except now anyone caught exceeding the above limits of personal use is a drug dealer. The limits are so arbitrary they're laughable. I mean 5 grams of pot could keep you high for days or just give you a bad head ache, 40 mg of mdma? How much is that? the kid at the club only sells it by the pill.

TBF, it seems you could make yourself a pretty crazy personal party kit and stay under the legal limit. Too bad the kid caught with just a 10 mg bag of crappy pot will get a really hard time at the police station though.