Mexican lawmakers passed a sweeping new drug law early Friday that would crack down on small-time dealers, legalize the possession of small quantities of drugs and mandate treatment for addicts. ...
Supporters of the bill said it was meant to fix major flaws in Mexico's current drug laws. First, it will allow local judges and the police to decide on a case-by-case basis whether people should be prosecuted when caught with small amounts of drugs. Previously, every drug suspect had to be prosecuted, a system that put many addicts in jail while dealers went free after bribing officials.
Second, the state and local police will be empowered to arrest and prosecute street dealers who are carrying more than the minor amounts allowed under the law. Under existing laws, drug crimes were handled only by federal officials.
-- Mexico Passes Law Making Possession of Some Drugs
So noted an NYT article on the change in the Mexican drugs law. As you can see it is not really "drug legalization," though it is a sane step with some pragmatic results (including reducing graft). Thus, clearly, the U.S. is against it. Sanity and drug policy (see recent fiction on their official line on medicinal marijuana) is not the U.S. way:
A United States Embassy official in Mexico deplored the new measure. "We have not seen the text, so we cannot comment on it in detail," said the official, who was not authorized to speak publicly. "But any law that would decriminalize dangerous drugs would not be helpful."
Sanity is possible. In 1968, Justice White -- a pretty conservative sort -- noted: "Punishing an addict for using drugs convicts for addiction under a different name. Distinguishing between the two crimes is like forbidding criminal conviction for being sick with flu or epilepsy, but permitting punishment for running a fever or having a convulsion. Unless Robinson is to be abandoned, the use of narcotics by an addict must be beyond the reach of the criminal law."
The case was about voluntary public drunkenness, so he voted to uphold the conviction, but on this point he had support of five justices. [Recently a lower court used his reasoning to strike down arrest of the homeless for sleeping in public when there are not enough beds ... there are not enough drug treatment slots.] Now, on some level, surely a wide majority of drug users are not "addicts," even when dealing with drugs like heroin.
But, it underlines that a non-criminal model in this field is possible. In fact, on some level, a large segment (maybe not a majority, though certain cities and states might be different) of the population are willing to sign on. The current policy, like the one being replaced in Mexico, is just insane.
As with Rush, it is the "war" on some drugs, with some (you know, "them") victimized, while others get to bloviate on successful talk shows.
[For weekend viewing: the new movie Clean about a recovering addict fighting her addiction and trying to re-connect with her son. Co-starring Nick Nolte as her father-in-law.]