23 ms·
Mexico supreme court rules ban on marijuana use unconstitutional
- esaym 11y ago>"In a 4-1 ruling, the court found that prohibitions on using marijuana violated the 'right to the free development of personality'" Perhaps that is out of context, and I don't know their constitution as a whole, but I am not finding a lot of sense in that sentence. If drug use can be considered a "right to the free development of personality", then how else could America's "right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" be interpreted?
- pmoriarty 11y agoIt's never about what the laws say, but rather about who interprets the laws.
- esaym 11y agoI've always hated that a "law" can be interpreted really.
- pmoriarty 11y agoThat's the nature of communication. There can be no communication without interpretation.
- Natsu 11y agoWe do have some separation between eval (legislative) and apply (executive) though, but that mostly only works for a few things like presidential pardons.
- InclinedPlane 11y agoNot possible for it to be otherwise. Also, not desirable. The law is not like an OS that society runs on, that's a very dangerous but sadly pervasive idea. The law is a tool that society uses for its own betterment, hopefully in the service of justice and liberty.
- intopieces 11y agoWithout it, our Constitution would be almost worthless. Segregation was brought down by the Interstate Commerce Clause!
- sk5t 11y agoI would argue that the ICC is something that seriously diminishes the Constitution, as the courts have applied such tortured logic so as to allow the federal government to regulate virtually anything.
- drumdance 11y agoI personally think the Constitution should be thrown out and start over. It's an archaic document reflecting a radically different society. Some love to treat it as sacred, but if it's so sacred how come we've had to amend it so much? Though come to think of it I wouldn't mind a few amendments to the Bible and Koran.
- intopieces 11y agoThe veneration of the Constitution is a weak point in American government. It's riddled with policy mistakes (see: Impeachment, where the Vice President would cast the deciding vote in his own trial should there be a tie) and rediculous vagaries (Judges serve for life so long as they remain "in good behavior"), not to mention the validation of the fundamental evil of slavery which was, at the time, already a point of contention. Rather than an objective framework for government, the Constitution has morphed into a shield against discourse, a talisman wielded to justify policies that deserve to be questioned. It's our National Bible, where things are right because see, it says it right there.
- Retra 11y agoWhat else would you do with it?
- copperx 11y agoThis is your engineering or science background clashing with reality. I, for one, am glad that laws are interpreted and not taken as hard rules. Stupidity would reign otherwise, because it is impossible to create a hard and fast rule that will stand the test of time in a changing civilization. Unfortunately, I have met too many CS types that are surprised by the concept of law interpretation. That's why liberal education is important.
- ahomescu1 11y agoI was following and agreeing with you (and was going to upvote you), until the last 2 sentences. You could have made your point without bashing "CS types" and CS/engineering education.
- im3w1l 11y agoDon't you think it is scary to invest that much power in a post that is unelected and for life?
- aakilfernandes 11y agoThose words are from the Declaration of Liberty, not the Constitution. I'm not sure how/if SCOTUS uses the Declaration in their decisions. But it certainly does illuminate the feelings of the founders.
- djent 11y agoUnfortunately the Supreme Court can't find laws unDeclaration-of-Independance-al.
- maw 11y agoAs far as I'm aware that phrase isn't anywhere in the US constitution -- just the Declaration of Independence. It doesn't have any legal force. The phrase "el libre desarrollo de la personalidad" however is present in the Mexican constitution, although in its context it isn't clear to me how it applies.
- esaym 11y agoAh, I see.
- cookiecaper 11y agoTrue, but people still basically accept it as a canonical element of American philosophy and believe it should be used to justify governmental actions. The Constitution contains the very similar phrase "promote the general welfare".
- bpodgursky 11y agoSorry, HN is full of morons who like to downvote. The Declaration of Independence has indeed been cited by the Supreme Court to give evidence of the intent of the drafters of the Constitution, where the phrasing in the Constitution is ambiguous. So you are perfectly correct.
- Retric 11y agoThey have used other documents from the time period for the same reasons. The point is it does not have direct legal Athority only incite into the way people thought.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- cookiecaper 11y agoPeople use statements from the Founding Fathers to justify anything they want. For example, since the Preamble to the Constitution specifies that it was set up to "promote the general welfare", there are many people that believe the government's job goes beyond providing favorable conditions for free markets and keeping them reasonably fair all the way to literally owing them a wage just for breathing, since the "general welfare" is not helped by some people being poor. The fact of the matter is that if you're in a position to justify something you strongly believe in, no matter how high, visible, or supposedly rationally-based that position is supposed to be, you're going to find a way to push it through. Look at the ruling in Obergefell; even liberal publications said the legal basis cited for it was rubbish. In the general case, people will use whatever pretense they can to get what they strongly believe in, and justify it by saying that they're making something good happen (that is, the ends justify the means). Social sciences are like 90% this, and from thence comes the phrase "never trust a statistic you haven't faked yourself". It's not universal, but it happens way more often than most of us want to admit, in every field.
- PhasmaFelis 11y agoIt just baffles me how people keep trying to use "maybe the government should protect people who can't protect themselves" as a self-evident example of egregious governmental overstep, instead of the fundamental reason we invented government.
- cookiecaper 11y agoWe invented government to provide a fair and equitable structure that everyone could operate under. The idea is that everyone can conduct their affairs in peace under our laws, and that those laws will allow (note, not guarantee, as the government can't force someone to be productive or useful) individuals to prosper and flourish by protecting their fundamental natural freedoms. Government does not exist solely to "protect those who can't protect themselves". Whether a person has substantial physical resources with which to "protect himself" or not, that person can petition the government for relief and participate in the democratic process. The thing here is that "protect people who can't protect themselves" is so generic it can mean anything, just like "the pursuit of happiness" or promotion of "the general welfare". Do you mean protecting employers against employees that want to steal time or goods? Do you mean protecting workers against idlers who want to consume their resources without having done anything to earn them? What about protecting companies against frivolous lawsuits from people just trying to get a big settlement? These likely aren't the problems you're thinking about, but they're the problems some people out there are thinking about. See what I'm saying? People are going to bias their opinion to favor their individual circumstances, but again, we all have to live under the government's rule, and it needs to be as fair and equitable as possible for everyone. Not just rich people and not just poor people; not just atheists and not just theists; not just healthy people and not just sick people. The interests must be well-balanced to maintain social order.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- rayiner 11y agoThe Declaration of Independence, where that phrase comes from, is basically marketing bullshit. It's full of rhetorical flourish that Jefferson got away with precisely because it has no legal significance. After all, that same document says that "all men are created equal" while the Constitution enshrined the institution of slavery for another few generations. The closest analogue in the Constituon is the idea that due process protects those fundamental rights inherent in "ordered liberty."
- dreamdu5t 11y agoThere is no analogue in the Constitution because the Constitution enumerates the specific powers granted to the Federal Government. Drug prohibition is not one of them, and the entire Federal war on drugs is held up by the lynch-pin supreme court case Wickard v Filburn... where the Supreme Court decided that "interstate commerce" applies to goods literally not involved in any commerce whatsoever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
- rayiner 11y agoWickard v. Filburn isn't the lynch-pin of the Federal war on drugs. It's a ridiculous case, but it's also a narrow one: does the Commerce Clause cover marijuana grown for personal use. That is obviously not interstate commerce within any sensible definition of the concept. However, the drug trade in general is archetypal interstate commerce. Almost nobody grows and processes their own weed or their own cocaine. It all happens through cross-border commercial transactions.
- dreamdu5t 11y agoPossession is illegal at the Federal level. All drug commerce that does not cross state lines is also illegal. There could be no federal war on drugs at all without the interstate commerce power the supreme court has derived. Going further, the purpose of the interstate commerce clause was to give the power to regulate tariffs (and other taxes) between the states, not make entire trades illegal because sometimes those goods are sold elsewhere.
- ahallock 11y agoWhy don't we stop enumerating specific rights (which leads to picking winners and losers and inconsistent application) and refactor them into a few basic principles. Such as the basic property right of self ownership. Since you own your body, not the State, you may use marijuana. Simple.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- Retra 11y agoYou think vague principles like "self ownership" are going to make for consistent legal frameworks? How about we throw out our constitutions and make "be a good person" the law and leave it at that.
- rtkwe 11y agoThen every court case becomes a philosophical argument about the meaning, bound, and effects of those 'few basic principals.' Without a steady legal framework with predictable outcomes large society binds up pretty quick.
- PhantomGremlin 11y agoWe actually have such an amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Unfortunately the Supreme Court treats it like a fucking joke[1]: Even though the woman grew cannabis strictly for her own consumption and never sold any, the Supreme Court stated that growing one's own cannabis affects the interstate market of cannabis. The theory was that the cannabis could enter the stream of interstate commerce, even if it clearly wasn't grown for that purpose and that was unlikely ever to happen (the same reasoning as in the Wickard v. Filburn decision). It therefore ruled that this practice may be regulated by the federal government under the authority of the Commerce Clause. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Commerce_clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_...
- 11y ago
- crpatino 11y agoYou people do realize that the Mexican Supreme Court does rule about the Mexican Constitution, right?
- r0s 11y ago> The move potentially puts Mexico at the forefront of an international movement to decriminalize drugs – despite a decade-long militarized crackdown on drug cartels which has cost the lives of around 100,000 people. This is a sane and direct response to exactly that.
- Retric 11y agoDrug cartels don't make there money selling to people in Mexico, the real money is in the US market.
- kzrdude 11y agoHow much money is in marijuana compared to harder drugs? I mean, does this put much of a dent in the organized crime economy?
- ojbyrne 11y agohttp://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/magazine/104914/greg-campbell-blunt-trauma-marijuana http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/magazine/104914/... says "In 2010, Mexican officials estimated that cannabis now provides the cartels with as much as half of their revenue."
- uououuttt 11y agoI have also seen this 50% figure from various sources but I find it hard to believe, although I have no specific knowledge that would refute it. As far as I know, it's mostly low-grade weed that comes over the border, and while some grow operations within the US are cartel-run, I still am so surprised it would equal their profits from cocaine and methamphetamine combined.
- throwaway2048 11y agoit is also vastly more popular
- taylorlapeyre 11y agoNot to sound cynical, but (even if marijuana was legal to grow and consume) what's to stop a cartel from simply threatening the lives of anyone else who grows it?
- jpatokal 11y agoThe same that stops the mafia from threatening anybody who brews beer or distills liquor: the target can now call the cops.
- largote 11y agoMost people would switch to legal providers therefore drying up one of the money pipelines for cartels. Most of their power comes from their relatively large economic influence. Large corporate interests could leverage legit logistical infrastructure and take over, plus large corporations are rich and connected enough to get the police to actually enforce the law for them against threats.
- steve19 11y agoThe cops who work for the cartel [1]? [1] http://time.com/3490853/mexico-massacre-students-police-cartel-corruption/ http://time.com/3490853/mexico-massacre-students-police-cart... Edit: Downvoters, I would love to hear why I am wrong. I only know what I read about Mexican law enforcement, no personal experience dealing with them.
- jpatokal 11y agoImagine alcohol was illegal in Mexico, was suddenly legalized, and then the booze mafia and the corrupt cops on their payroll go around threatening home brewers selling their wares. Then Anheuser-Busch comes along and plunks down $100 million to build a brewery. Which side is any cop with half a brain going to opt for: the mafiosos trying to cling onto their obsolete business model, or the legit megacorp who'll be paying "facilitation fees" for decades to come?
- woodman 11y ago
- ps4fanboy 11y agohttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt1957938/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1957938/
- iamcurious 11y agoI never thought this would happen so quickly. Latin America has a drug problem that holds all development back, the problem is that drugs are illegal. I'm happy that Mexico is being so brave. viva Mexico cabrones! my last comment still applies though... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10503260 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10503260
- sowhatquestion 11y agoWhat shocked me about this article was the poll showing 77% of people in Mexico are opposed to legalization. Why? Social conservatism? Do they not understand that prohibition benefits the cartels and funds their violence?
- saint_fiasco 11y agoThe cartels make most of their money selling drugs to people in other, richer countries. If the US does not legalize those drugs, then Mexico will have to take the cost of legalization without it's biggest benefit.
- tomp 11y agoWhy? There will still be criminals tradficking drugs to the US... They just won't be ceiminals in Mexico any more!
- frame_perfect 11y agoIsn't that the whole point? If legalization goes through and the crime is only localized to the U.S., then Mexico's supreme court reduced crime in Mexico.
- tomp 11y agoYes, that's what I was trying to say... I see no "cost of legalization" for Mexico, only benefits.
- frame_perfect 11y agoOh yeah... duh. For some reason I thought you and the parent comment were the same person. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- saint_fiasco 11y agoReducing crime by not calling something a crime doesn't help very much. The crimes Mexican people most want to reduce are the violent crimes, the corruption, etc, all caused by people having to deal directly or indirectly with cartels if they want to produce/sell/consume drugs. As long as the US keeps drugs illegal in their market, people will have to deal with the cartels to be able to sell there, and the US is the biggest market.
- transfire 11y ago"If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." --Thomas Jefferson
- Tomte 11y agoI suppose you'd like to take FDA-unapproved medication? I wouldn't.
- dchest 11y agoYou say it like there's a choice.
- diqu 11y agoYou say that like there's a sane and safe alternative.
- tomp 11y agoWhat if you don't care? If I were terminally ill, dying in a few months, I would definitely be interested in trying the latest experimental drugs. I mean, what's the worst that can happen? (Although legalizing euthanasia would help too.)
- diqu 11y agoThis is already happening, even with agencies like the FDA in place. It's called off-label use: http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/treatmenttypes/chemotherapy/off-label-drug-use http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/tre...
- mseebach 11y agoI would. (I would, however, be looking to other sources of approval. Take Daraprim, the infamous $750 pill - at the time of the price hike, it was trivially available from perfectly safe foreign suppliers at <$1, just not with the FDAs approval. It's only available in the US now at that price because some people found a regulatory loophole that allowed them to sell it without the FDAs approval.)
- api 11y agoI realized today that it's a privilege to watch prohibition die; it gives me faith in the future to witness the end of a profound injustice in my time.
- a3voices 11y agoMorality aside, I think widespread drug legalization will greatly increase usage rates. It could lead to a more dystopic future where a very large portion of people are using various drugs.
- api 11y agoTh evidence shows otherwise. Besides, there is already an endless supply of booze, television, junk food, and empty consumerism for those who want to null out consciousness and distract themselves while they wait to die.
- paublyrne 11y agoYes and no. Alcohol is legal in most countries and is widely consumed, certainly much more so than it would be if it were illegal. It can be very addictive, and it an be very destructive, like many drugs which are currently illegal. I agree use of drugs would probably increase overall, but that society can adapt without collapse. Many people take illegal drugs now from time to time, and are able to function and live normally, have jobs, and not have their world implode.
- frame_perfect 11y agoI probably would have never started smoking pot if there wasn't that edgy/cool/illegal vibe to it. Once pot is legal, the stigma around recreational use will probably turn into something like drinking cough syrup for the DXM.
- api 11y agoIt won't be that lame, but I do expect some of the cool factor to fade a bit. There will be something like the craft beer scene and some aficionados and mostly a lot of people who might smoke it every once in a while but not often. Unlike, say, alcohol or heroin, it is not physically addictive. It can be psychologically habit forming but so can everything else. I personally never liked it that much so I can't see myself being a frequent customer. Haven't touched it in years despite it being 'around.' I will probably go have a first legal toke though when it's legal here (California) just because. We will wonder why on Earth we ever spent billions of dollars and locked people up in prison to suppress something so... trivial. On the bright side, when it is made legal and nothing much happens all the histrionic drug warriors will look unbelievably stupid and everyone will laugh at them. That's a good thing.
- crpatino 11y agoOk, let me try to clarify, because lots of nonsense have been spoken here already. Mexico's Supreme Court has no right to say a thing with regards to US law, US policy or US Constitution. The article is talking (very briefly) about Mexican Constitution. One would think that was obvious, but apparently even at Hacker News, gringo's arrogance knows no limit. We do have our own laws and institutions in other countries in case you never have bothered to notice. Second, it is a very interesting legal case which the article does no justice to (it rather gets lost reporting on the war on drugs, and the posture of conservative elements in society). There is this group of activists (SMART) that made a request to COFEPRIS - a branch of Mexican Government that is roughly equivalent to NIST - so that cannabis can be produced, stored and consumed with no profit motive. This request was obviously rejected, which is what SMART intended. Since there was a decision of the government that affected their interests, it was possible under Mexican law to demand a "Jucio de Amparo" which can be roughly translated as a "Sanctuary Trial" and it similar to suing the government but not quite. IANAL, but the bottom line as far as I know is that you can demand the court to evaluate and interject decisions from other branches of government if you think your rights are being violated. The SMART activist group did win that trial. What you are seeing talked about is the last appeal to that trial, which was ruled by the highest court in the country, and which the activists won again. The end result is not legalization, but undermining of the Mexican Government - and in particular law enforcement - ability to crack down on marijuana users with possession charges. If is of course open to debate whether that will benefit society at large or just some interest groups, or who those interest groups might be. In the long term, this also creates a precedent that might or might not result in the legalization of soft drugs... but it is too early to tell at this point. At the very least the subject, which was taboo not that long ago, is being openly discussed now.
- rplnt 11y agoGoing just by the title, it's obvious. I was really amazed when I learned that use of illegal drugs is prohibited (punishable offense) in US. It makes absolutely no sense in a civilized society.
- paublyrne 11y agoNot sure why you were downvoted. I assume you mean you didn't know that it was illegal to be under the influence of drugs, as opposed to it being illegal to have drugs in your possession?
- rplnt 11y agoYes, that. Use or influence as opposed to possession/distribution. edit: And as for downvotes, I'd say the "going just by the title" part is a bit offensive :)