Mexico set to legalize marijuana, becoming world’s largest market(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Mexico set to legalize marijuana, becoming world’s largest market
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/10/world/americas/mexico-cannabis-bill.html
46 comments
Time to see how sticky the path dependence of criminalization is. I'd think there's a good chance of it remaining de facto illegal to grow/sell in many places, because the cartels won't appreciate competition.
My favorite book on this subject is Legalize This!: The Case for Decriminalizing Drugs by Doug Husak
https://www.amazon.com/Legalize-This-Decriminalizing-Practic...
He argues that since putting someone into prison is the among the worst things society does to people, we need a good reason to do it. When it comes to using drugs, no such reason (has been, or) can be given. Alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and sugar are all drugs. Skiing is dangerous to one's health. Any reason given against drugs should not outlaw things we already think should be legal. He concludes that all drugs should be decriminalized.
A historic note: the prohibition of 1920's would be a good approximation of decriminalization the book argues for -- back then the consumers of alcohol were not criminals, only the distributors. Legalization (allowing for sale of drugs) requires a different argument than the book provides.
https://www.amazon.com/Legalize-This-Decriminalizing-Practic...
He argues that since putting someone into prison is the among the worst things society does to people, we need a good reason to do it. When it comes to using drugs, no such reason (has been, or) can be given. Alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and sugar are all drugs. Skiing is dangerous to one's health. Any reason given against drugs should not outlaw things we already think should be legal. He concludes that all drugs should be decriminalized.
A historic note: the prohibition of 1920's would be a good approximation of decriminalization the book argues for -- back then the consumers of alcohol were not criminals, only the distributors. Legalization (allowing for sale of drugs) requires a different argument than the book provides.
Heroin isn’t prohibited just because people get high on it. It is also prohibited because addicts turn to petty crime, whether targeted at innocent loved ones or strangers, to get the money to support their addiction. So, decriminalizing is never a solution alone. It has to be accompanied with providing addicts with a free supply (and ideally a safe and hygienic space to use it in). It does little good for a society to legalize drugs without also rolling out that public medical infrastructure.
Not all addicted people are criminals. Putting heroin, or any kind of drug users, who have not committed any crime exept possesion is immoral. Prison is just isolating them while making sure their only friends are criminals. People that are on the streets are clearly not able to function like most people in a society. Punishment cannot be on the table.
Nowhere in my post did I advocate jailing users.
"It does little good for a society to legalize drugs without also rolling out that public medical infrastructure."
That's what I was referring to. I think legalising drugs would do alot of good even without the "public medical infrastructure"
That's what I was referring to. I think legalising drugs would do alot of good even without the "public medical infrastructure"
And we can't just enforce the laws against said petty crime because...?
Some people that play violent video games also end up committing violent crime. And yet, not once has such an argument come anywhere close to banning violent video games.
And mind you, you don't even need a free supply of drugs to prevent said crime. Drugs ain't that expensive on the street; if people are resorting to crime to pay for e.g. heroin, chances are they're already pretty close to needing to resort to petty crime to pay for food and shelter. The focus should therefore be on their economic well-being; UBI would benefit them and non-addicts, and would go a lot further (not to mention that financial stress is already something that drives people to self-medicate said stress in the first place).
Some people that play violent video games also end up committing violent crime. And yet, not once has such an argument come anywhere close to banning violent video games.
And mind you, you don't even need a free supply of drugs to prevent said crime. Drugs ain't that expensive on the street; if people are resorting to crime to pay for e.g. heroin, chances are they're already pretty close to needing to resort to petty crime to pay for food and shelter. The focus should therefore be on their economic well-being; UBI would benefit them and non-addicts, and would go a lot further (not to mention that financial stress is already something that drives people to self-medicate said stress in the first place).
I disagree with UBI. There are simpler mechanisms that aren't a funding nightmare. Government jobs and infrastructure investments are the tried and true method for times when economic activity is below the expected/desired levels.
Fiscal policy is actually a necessary part of speeding up the recovery of the economy. A UBI that gets abolished as soon as the economy picks up again is fruitless because it fails to keep its promise.
Fiscal policy is actually a necessary part of speeding up the recovery of the economy. A UBI that gets abolished as soon as the economy picks up again is fruitless because it fails to keep its promise.
> There are simpler mechanisms
UBI is quite literally as simple as it gets:
No less a "funding nightmare" (because God forbid the ownership class pays its fair share) than artificially creating jobs for the sake of working. Would be a lot simpler to just... give citizens money. On that note...
> Government jobs and infrastructure investments are the tried and true method for times when economic activity is below the expected/desired levels.
Infrastructure improvements are necessary regardless of whether or not the economy is healthy; bridges and roads don't care about whether society is rich or poor when they decide to collapse. And government jobs beyond said improvements just shuffle around the symptoms of economic problems without actually fixing anything.
That is: these are "tried", sure, but they solve different problems than what UBI and other forms of welfare solve.
> A UBI that gets abolished as soon as the economy picks up again
Why in the heck would we want to do that? The whole point of UBI is to be a permanent safety net, not some stop-gap solution. And with that permanent solution, economic downturns and crises become significantly less harmful to the working class. UBI is a preventative measure, not a reactive one.
UBI is quite literally as simple as it gets:
revenue = collect_taxes() # LVT, other wealth taxes, etc.
ubi_pool = revenue - cover_expenses() # infrastructure, etc.
for c in citizens:
c.send_check(ubi_pool / citizens.count)
No less a "funding nightmare" (because God forbid the ownership class pays its fair share) than artificially creating jobs for the sake of working. Would be a lot simpler to just... give citizens money. On that note...
> Government jobs and infrastructure investments are the tried and true method for times when economic activity is below the expected/desired levels.
Infrastructure improvements are necessary regardless of whether or not the economy is healthy; bridges and roads don't care about whether society is rich or poor when they decide to collapse. And government jobs beyond said improvements just shuffle around the symptoms of economic problems without actually fixing anything.
That is: these are "tried", sure, but they solve different problems than what UBI and other forms of welfare solve.
> A UBI that gets abolished as soon as the economy picks up again
Why in the heck would we want to do that? The whole point of UBI is to be a permanent safety net, not some stop-gap solution. And with that permanent solution, economic downturns and crises become significantly less harmful to the working class. UBI is a preventative measure, not a reactive one.
I agree that we should go further than just decriminalization. Heroin is extremely cheap (were it not for being illegal). Cities that provide safe spaces for its use (and clean needles) decrease health problems for its users (and thus for the population as a whole). We could also provide the heroin (reducing life-threatening fluctuations in quality and the incentive for petty crime).
The book focuses on arguing for one thing: decriminalization. I think it succeeds hands down.
The book focuses on arguing for one thing: decriminalization. I think it succeeds hands down.
A lot of health problems from heroin usage stem primarily from cutting agents put in by street dealers. Basically what happens is that the street dealer ear marks his own share of the drugs and replaces that part with something else. Some people have come up with extremely nasty cutting agents that cause severe health problems far beyond what regular drug use is capable of.
Similarly, the tobacco in cigarettes isn't the main driver of health problems, it's the additives that cause most of the problems.
Similarly, the tobacco in cigarettes isn't the main driver of health problems, it's the additives that cause most of the problems.
I agree that we should legalize all drugs while also providing help for people who fall into heavy addiction.
> It is also prohibited because addicts turn to petty crime...
This is just bad logic though. The best thing to do would be to just arrest people for the actual crimes when they happen instead of trying preempt it.
Otherwise we'd have to make illegal all the things that cause people turn to crime like bad parenting, being a sociopath, being in debt and oh...having spent time in prison. As soon as you get out of prison, they'd have to turn you right around and put you back in again.
(No offense meant to you - I'm not sure if you're stating the logic that has been given to you or expressing your own. Either way, I 100% agree that decriminalization alone is a bad idea.)
> It is also prohibited because addicts turn to petty crime...
This is just bad logic though. The best thing to do would be to just arrest people for the actual crimes when they happen instead of trying preempt it.
Otherwise we'd have to make illegal all the things that cause people turn to crime like bad parenting, being a sociopath, being in debt and oh...having spent time in prison. As soon as you get out of prison, they'd have to turn you right around and put you back in again.
(No offense meant to you - I'm not sure if you're stating the logic that has been given to you or expressing your own. Either way, I 100% agree that decriminalization alone is a bad idea.)
>It is also prohibited because addicts turn to petty crime
I was about to write a rebuttal but once I read the rest of your comment you are spot on.
Decriminialization is not enough. You also need to help people get out of the vicious chemical dependency cycle in a way that doesn't break their bank account.
The high cost of drugs drives secondary criminal activity because people have to finance their drugs somehow and that usually means theft and involuntary prostitution.
I was about to write a rebuttal but once I read the rest of your comment you are spot on.
Decriminialization is not enough. You also need to help people get out of the vicious chemical dependency cycle in a way that doesn't break their bank account.
The high cost of drugs drives secondary criminal activity because people have to finance their drugs somehow and that usually means theft and involuntary prostitution.
Did addicts turn to petty crime before it was criminalized? This sounds unlikely, do you have a source for that?
[deleted]
Better to take a first step than none at all.
Even fentanyl and meth should be legal.
Because the underground economy funded by illegal recreational drugs is causing incredible violence. Mexico and Afghanistan, to give just two examples, are in a state of civil war, where one side is the official government and the other is the drug business. This violence is much more harmful than recreational drugs, even the worst of them.
Disagree completely. There are irreversible psychological effects from opioid and amphetamine abuse, especially from a neurotoxic amphetamines like meth. Such neurotoxicity or long-term damage potential isn't seen on things like methylphenidate, vyvanse, modafinil or kratom.
Not all drugs are the same.
Not all drugs are the same.
> There are irreversible psychological effects from opioid and amphetamine abuse
This is not relevant to whether or not they should be legal.
The prohibition on drug use is a moral issue. If we aren't free to cause deliberate harm to our own bodies, the one thing to which we can be sure we have a clear and unambiguous title, what else can we possibly own or control in life?
Sawing off my own hand with a circular saw is legal. Why isn't poisoning my own brain?
This is not relevant to whether or not they should be legal.
The prohibition on drug use is a moral issue. If we aren't free to cause deliberate harm to our own bodies, the one thing to which we can be sure we have a clear and unambiguous title, what else can we possibly own or control in life?
Sawing off my own hand with a circular saw is legal. Why isn't poisoning my own brain?
> Sawing off my own hand with a circular saw is legal. Why isn't poisoning my own brain?
If it was incredibly addictive and loved ones were dying (literally) to saw off their hands, then I'd want to make it illegal.
If it was incredibly addictive and loved ones were dying (literally) to saw off their hands, then I'd want to make it illegal.
So do you think tobacco and alcohol should be made illegal?
My point is that sawing off your hand is a false equivalency. tobacco ≠ meth ≠ alcohol ≠ weed ≠ sawing off hands. We are very derailed from the original conversation.
No, I don’t think tobacco and alcohol should be illegal. I do think addictively sawing off your hand should be illegal.
No, I don’t think tobacco and alcohol should be illegal. I do think addictively sawing off your hand should be illegal.
>No, I don’t think tobacco and alcohol should be illegal. I do think addictively sawing off your hand should be illegal.
Why should addictively amputating your hand be illegal, but addictively killing yourself by destroying your lungs, heart, or liver not be illegal?
Why should addictively amputating your hand be illegal, but addictively killing yourself by destroying your lungs, heart, or liver not be illegal?
Sawing off your hand doesn't have a profitable business model and lobby group.
I think it's reasonable to compare tobacco + alcohol to marijuana, but from an outside perspective drugs like fentanyl seem to be in a whole different ballpark.
Tobacco kills roughly ten times more people than opioids.
Alcohol kills about twice as many people as opioids.
So yeah, definitely a whole different ballpark.
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/heal...
https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/features/excessive-alcohol-death...
https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/statedeaths.html
Alcohol kills about twice as many people as opioids.
So yeah, definitely a whole different ballpark.
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/heal...
https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/features/excessive-alcohol-death...
https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/statedeaths.html
[deleted]
I think for the comparison it would be better to use what percentage of users are killed. For example even though fentanyl kills something like 50% fewer people than alcohol, alcohol probably has several orders of magnitude more users. If fentanyl was as common I suspect it would kill more people than alcohol
Part of the purpose of law is to protect society. Damage to many individuals damages society overall.
Is there any compelling evidence that drug or alcohol prohibitions have done an effective job at protecting society?
What about the evidence that it has done the opposite, by artifically inflating the price of drugs thereby enriching criminals, gangs, and cartels?
In Mexico, we have seen how this can lead to the cartels becoming more powerful than the government.
What about the evidence that it has done the opposite, by artifically inflating the price of drugs thereby enriching criminals, gangs, and cartels?
In Mexico, we have seen how this can lead to the cartels becoming more powerful than the government.
Throwing people in jail for daring to medicate themselves damages society far more severely.
> Part of the purpose of law is to protect society.
What makes you feel this way?
What makes you feel this way?
Because by poisoning your brain you go into an addictive cycle and are very likely to harm others via crime and or violence in order to get more.
As a society we have to control all negative behaviours - including drug addicts that are willing to harm innocents in order to get their next fix.
As a society we have to control all negative behaviours - including drug addicts that are willing to harm innocents in order to get their next fix.
> Because by poisoning your brain you go into an addictive cycle and are very likely to harm others via crime and or violence in order to get more.
We already have laws that criminalize violence and theft, and those apply just fine to drug users who engage in violence or theft.
The only possible use for drug laws that apply to all drug users, including ones that do not engage in the (again, already illegal) violence and theft is to criminalize nonviolent drug use.
That's morally unjustifiable.
We already have laws that criminalize violence and theft, and those apply just fine to drug users who engage in violence or theft.
The only possible use for drug laws that apply to all drug users, including ones that do not engage in the (again, already illegal) violence and theft is to criminalize nonviolent drug use.
That's morally unjustifiable.
Hmmm, I never thought about it that way, I think you're right.
Alcohol is also a neurotoxin, especially in the amounts consumed by alcoholics. Alchohol is also quite a bit more toxic to the liver than amphetamines.
Tobacco smoke is highly toxic to every tissue in your body.
So to be logically consistent, I'm sure you also think alcohol and tobacco should be illegal, right?
Tobacco smoke is highly toxic to every tissue in your body.
So to be logically consistent, I'm sure you also think alcohol and tobacco should be illegal, right?
>There are irreversible psychological effects from opioid and amphetamine abuse, especially from a neurotoxic amphetamines like meth.
I won't disagree with that, but making drugs illegal doesn't curb use. The cost of getting arrested is less than the cost of breaking the addiction. So in essence, you get all that you described, plus a criminal record, legal costs, etc, which lead to no future, which leads to more drug use.
The fallacy is making something illegal actually prevents that thing, or even reduces it.
I won't disagree with that, but making drugs illegal doesn't curb use. The cost of getting arrested is less than the cost of breaking the addiction. So in essence, you get all that you described, plus a criminal record, legal costs, etc, which lead to no future, which leads to more drug use.
The fallacy is making something illegal actually prevents that thing, or even reduces it.
I am not an expert but wouldn't this just mean that the safe dose is very low? It's entirely possible that what is considered a normal dose today is actually an overdose that merely didn't kill the user.
I recommend you compare the wikipedia pages of both amphetamine and methamphetamine. Meth is directly neurotoxic, even at "normal" doses of 10mg, while amphetamine is actually neuroprotective until you use really big doses.
Vyvanse is basically amphetamine hooked to a protein that has to be metabolized before it has psychological effects, so lowers its abuse potential. I'm 100% in favor of amphetamine legalization, but we've got to be smart about it and not allow toxic forms of it to be available. Pure meth should not be legal, nor should pure fentanyl or cocaine(methylphenidate would be a good alternative with a better safety profile)
Vyvanse is basically amphetamine hooked to a protein that has to be metabolized before it has psychological effects, so lowers its abuse potential. I'm 100% in favor of amphetamine legalization, but we've got to be smart about it and not allow toxic forms of it to be available. Pure meth should not be legal, nor should pure fentanyl or cocaine(methylphenidate would be a good alternative with a better safety profile)
Next up: "Oppressed Farmer" stories, how people kept and passed their strains and traditions despite the multiple larger forces using and chewing them. Like the Appalachian bootlegger stories, except they'll be able to use phrases like "honest peasants" and "evil warlords".
That explains why this move isn't a sign that the cartels have lost control of the state. I wonder if they accept the minor loss in profits or see it as more of a gateway to their other products.