California's Prop 19, On Legalizing Marijuana, Could End Mexico's Drug War

MedicalNeed

New Member
MEXICO CITY - On Nov. 2, Californians will vote on Proposition 19, deciding whether to legalize the production, sale and consumption of marijuana. If the initiative passes, it won't just be momentous for California; it may, at long last, offer Mexico the promise of an exit from our costly war on drugs.

The costs of that war have long since reached intolerable levels: more than 28,000 of our fellow citizens dead since late 2006; expenditures well above $10 billion; terrible damage to Mexico's image abroad; human rights violations by government security forces; and ever more crime. In a recent poll by the Mexico City daily Reforma, 67 percent of Mexicans said these costs are unacceptable, while 59 percent said the drug cartels are winning the war.

We have believed for some time that Mexico should legalize marijuana and perhaps other drugs. But until now, most discussion of this possibility has foundered because our country's drug problem and the U.S. drug problem are so inextricably linked: What our country produces, Americans consume. As a result, the debate over legalization has inevitably gotten hung up over whether Mexico should wait until the United States is willing and able to do the same.

Proposition 19 changes this calculation. For Mexico, California is almost the whole enchilada: Our overall trade with the largest state of the union is huge, an immense number of Californians are of Mexican origin, and an enormous proportion of American visitors to Mexico come from California. Passage of Prop 19 would therefore flip the terms of the debate about drug policy: If California legalizes marijuana, will it be viable for our country to continue hunting down drug lords in Tijuana? Will Wild West-style shootouts to stop Mexican cannabis from crossing the border make any sense when, just over that border, the local 7-Eleven sells pot?

The prospect of California legalizing marijuana coincides with an increasingly animated debate about legalization in Mexico. This summer, our magazine, Nexos, asked the six leading presidential candidates whether, if California legalizes marijuana, Mexico should follow suit. Four of them said it should, albeit with qualifications. And last month, at a public forum presided over by President Felipe Calderón, one of us asked whether the time had come for such discussion to be taken seriously. Calderón's reply was startlingly open-minded and encouraging: "It's a fundamental debate," he said. ". . . You have to analyze carefully the pros and cons and the key arguments on both sides." The remarks attracted so much attention that, later in the day, Calderón backtracked, insisting that he was vehemently opposed to any form of legalization. Still, his comments helped stimulate the national conversation.
ad_icon

A growing number of distinguished Mexicans from all walks of life have recently come out in favor of some form of drug legalization. Former presidents Ernesto Zedillo and Vicente Fox, novelists Carlos Fuentes and Angeles Mastretta, Nobel Prize-winning chemist Mario Molina, and movie star Gael García Bernal have all expressed support for this idea, and polls show that ordinary Mexicans are increasingly willing to contemplate the notion.

Indeed, as we have crisscrossed Mexico over the past six months on a book tour, visiting more than two dozen state capitals, holding town hall meetings with students, businesspeople, school teachers, local politicians and journalists, we have witnessed a striking shift in views on the matter. This is no longer your mother's Mexico -- conservative, Catholic, introverted. Whenever we asked whether drugs should be legalized, the response was almost always overwhelmingly in favor of decriminalizing at least marijuana.

The debate here is not framed in terms of personal drug use but rather whether legalization would do anything to abate Mexico's nightmarish violence and crime. There are reasons to think that it would: The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy has said that up to 60 percent of Mexican drug cartels' profits come from marijuana. While some say the real figure is lower, pot is without question a crucial part of their business. Legalization would make a significant chunk of that business vanish. As their immense profits shrank, the drug kingpins would be deprived of the almost unlimited money they now use to fund recruitment, arms purchases and bribes.

In addition, legalizing marijuana would free up both human and financial resources for Mexico to push back against the scourges that are often, if not always correctly, attributed to drug traffickers and that constitute Mexicans' real bane: kidnapping, extortion, vehicle theft, home assaults, highway robbery and gunfights between gangs that leave far too many innocent bystanders dead and wounded. Before Mexico's current war on drugs started, in late 2006, the country's crime rate was low and dropping. Freed from the demands of the war on drugs, Mexico could return its energies to again reducing violent crime.

Today, almost anyone caught carrying any drug in Mexico is subject to arrest, prosecution and jail. Would changing that increase consumption in Mexico? Perhaps for a while. Then again, given the extremely low levels of drug use in our country, the threat of drug abuse seems a less-than-pressing problem: According to a national survey in 2008, only 6 percent of Mexicans have ever tried a drug, compared with 47 percent of Americans, as shown by a different survey that year.

Still, real questions remain. Should our country legalize all drugs, or just marijuana? Can we legalize by ourselves, or does such a move make sense only if conducted hand in hand with the United States? Theoretically, the arguments in favor of marijuana legalization apply to virtually all drugs. We believe that the benefits would also apply to powder cocaine (not produced in Mexico, but shipped through our country en route from Latin America to the United States), heroin (produced in Mexico from poppies grown in the mountains of Sinaloa, Chihuahua and Durango) and methamphetamines (made locally with pseudoephedrine imported from China).

This is the real world, though, so we must think in terms of incremental change. It strikes us as easier and wiser to proceed step by step toward broad legalization, starting with marijuana, moving on to heroin (a minor trade in Mexico, and a manageable one stateside) and dealing only later, when Washington and others are ready, with cocaine and synthetic drugs.

For now we'll take California's ballot measure. If our neighbors to the north pass Proposition 19, our government will have two new options: to proceed unilaterally with legalization -- with California but without Washington -- or to hold off, while exploiting California's move to more actively lobby the U.S. government for wider changes in drug policy. Either way, the initiative's passage will enhance Calderón's moral authority in pressing President Obama.

Our president will be able to say to yours: "We have paid an enormous price for a war that a majority of the citizens of your most populous and trend-setting state reject. Why don't we work together, producer and consumer nations alike, to draw a road map leading us away from the equivalent of Prohibition, before we all regret our short-sightedness?"

Héctor Aguilar Camín is a historian, a novelist and the publisher and editor of the Mexican magazine Nexos. Jorge G. Castañeda was Mexico's foreign minister from 2000 to 2003 and teaches at New York University.


NewsHawk: MedicalNeed: 420 MAGAZINE
Source: washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines
Author: Héctor Aguilar Camín and Jorge G. Castañeda
Contact: (washingtonpost.com)
Copyright: 1996-2010 The Washington Post Company
Website:washingtonpost.com
 
I agree with all your reasons why California should legalize pot and maybe Mexico also. I think if it passes The US DOJ will immediately sue to get it declared un constitutional. In this instance they have some standing. The Constitution gives the federal government the right to make treaties with foreign governments. Almost every trade agreement has provisions against the signatories allowing for the production or trade in illegal drugs. These treaties have exceptions for "medical marijuana" but only for that purpose.

The feds are turning a blind eye to medical marijuana....they will not do the same for recreational or commercial sales.
 
CA. is the most populated state in the Nation.

So that alone carries more votes in D.C. than any other state, so if they did that then the CA. Reps could easily throw a lot of issues into any voting going on in D.C.

Would it be interesting YES.

Will the Feds come out on top, maybe? Would they loose out on getting anything else done after alienating all the voters of CA. most likely. Stalemate.
Maybe for a short while. Depends on how it makes the rest of the states mad.

The Feds are going to have to give back some states right whether on the Cannabis or the Guns issue either way many states are battling for more states rights. Denying CA. voters their will, will surely make more states than just CA. upset on this issue.
 
Agreed again. I happen to be an unusual MM proponent and I am in favor of legalization. Ex law enforcement after a 28 year career, a mm patient and a grower. I supply other mm patients individually and some coops.

States do have to battle to get back our states rights and especially stop the blatant misuse of the interstate commerce clause.

I think prop 19 will be a huge test case for the DOJ all the way to the Supreme Court. Holder and Obama will have to make a stand to keep states from rolling back the erosions of states rights. Who will win? the liberals on the court will back Obama even though they might be in favor of legalizing pot. Keeping the states in line is more important. That leaves the conservatives on the court who have been against legalization for some time.

There is even some opposition in Calif from MM growers and the black market. They feel prop 19 will plunge the price of pot so it will not be profetable to grow.. even for medicianal purposes. I have heard some city councils and boards of supervisors in the Emerald Triangle in Calif are even having meetings trying to access the economic hit they will take if pot prices collapse.

I agree it is going to be interesting if it does pass.
 
Passage of 19 will eliminate the 'so called Mexican cartel' pot garden violence...and eradicate the environment impact of illicit gardens.

These two reasons alone should be reason enough for every Californian to vote yes on 19.
 
How many states and countries followed CA (the 8th largest economy in the world) in legalizing MMJ after 215 passed?
 
Keep dreaming. As long as it's illegal somewhere there will be a trade for it and money to be made and therefore, pursued. California will then become a jump point for their now legal operations within our state lines.
Oh and I hardly think a decade shows California as a trend setter. Besides, how many States in the Union have medical marijuana laws or have considered recreational allowances? 15 including DC. 15 out of 50...and how much has that slowed the cartels? Keep in mind that MJ is not their only valuable product. I'm also certain that California does not reject Marijuana. Prop 215 and our advocation for medical research and recognition prove that.
 
MM is pretty much all inclusive. Here in North Carolina we get tons of mexi mids, but we don't hear dealers saying, "yo, I got this killer bud from the harbor side collective." But with the passing of Prop 19. I can see the collapse of Mexico's hold on this market in the states. Why would someone buy low quality foreign grass when you can get pretty cheap domestic dank?
 
MM is pretty much all inclusive. Here in North Carolina we get tons of mexi mids, but we don't hear dealers saying, "yo, I got this killer bud from the harbor side collective." But with the passing of Prop 19. I can see the collapse of Mexico's hold on this market in the states. Why would someone buy low quality foreign grass when you can get pretty cheap domestic dank?

You should come to Cali man. I do not know one person who gets their bud from dealers on the street. Almost everyone I know get their meds from their local dispensary and the rest grow it themselves. The only ones who get their pot from dealers are the juveniles that this bill does nothing for. They will still be criminals if 19 passes. This bill will only do more harm than good for the people. It's so damn restrictive that some call it thinly veiled prohibition. Can't use cannabis in front of minors, can't grow in an area bigger than a 5x5 per household (not per adult) can't possess more than an ounce at any given time, and what bugs me the most...I CAN'T INGEST CANNABIS IF MY LOCAL GOVERNMENT OUTLAWS IT. I have more rights as a medical patient.
 
Back
Top Bottom