The marijuana story continues to evolve as Mexico declares it’s legal for four Mexican nationals to have it, opening the door possibly for more. NewScientist (14 November 2015, paywall) gives an overview:
The Mexican Supreme Court ruled by 4 to 1 that banning the consumption and cultivation of cannabis for personal use violates the human right to free development of one’s personality.
A distinctly individualistic approach to the issue, without regard for damage, or advantage, for the greater societal structure. An analogous analysis with alcohol would be to ask about how many deaths are caused by inebriated individuals. CIP Americas‘ Simon Schatzberg covers the decision in more depth:
The Court’s decision, written by Justice Arturo Zaldívar Lalo de Larrea, tests the law prohibiting marijuana for proportionality and necessity. After quantifying the harm caused by marijuana use and balancing it with the level of intrusion into personal liberty that prohibition implies, the decision found that the intrusion is disproportionate. Furthermore, the decision found that such intrusions are “unnecessary,” considering that the harmful effects of marijuana could be mitigated through forms of state action that are less intrusive than prohibition.
Juan Francisco Torres, a 50-year-old lawyer who is one of the people who was granted an injunction, believes that the ruling is a “historic step,” but the first of many. “Today there are four of us, but tomorrow there could be 120 million,” Torres said after the ruling. “Today we achieved something enormous for human rights, for individuality and for liberty.”
The four plaintiffs are members of Mexicans United Against Crime (MUCD), an organization founded by family members of victims of the drug war that works to end the violence associated with crime in Mexico. To push for marijuana legalization in the courts, members of MUCD created the Mexican Society for Responsible Consumption (SMART). After being denied permission to grow and smoke marijuana from a federal health agency, members of SMART requested injunctive relief on constitutional grounds. A district judge denied that relief, and SMART appealed to the Supreme Court.
So it appears to be a classic approach to crime – remove the profit motive and hope the gangs break up. Marco Torres at PreventDisease.com has some assertions:
We now know that accepting and promoting the powerful health benefits of marijuana would instantly cut huge profits geared towards cancer treatment and the U.S. would have to admit it imprisons the population for no cause. Nearly half of all drug arrests in the United States are for marijuana.
Bills to legalise cannabis for medical use are under debate in Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Costa Rica. The world is moving towards its inhabitants finally being able to once again possess, sell, transport and cultivate the plant.
Several other countries have moved towards more lenient laws on cannabis use, but none have done so solely on the basis of human rights. Most, like Ireland, which in early November moved towards legalising supervised heroin use and possible decriminalisation of other drugs, have cited health, compassionate and economic grounds.
I recall reading something somewhere (a classic inside view of my brain), probably WHOLE EARTH REVIEW, where the remark was essentially that drugs were mankind’s approach to reaching out to God; those who were the gatekeepers of God didn’t like being bypassed. I wonder if this was ever true, and if it’s changing.
