Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mexico supreme court rules ban on marijuana use unconstitutional

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 143 posts

Re: Mexico supreme court rules ban on marijuana use unconstitutional

#31

Post by woodman »

jpatokal wrote: post #24
taylorlapeyre wrote: post #23

Not 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?

The same that stops the mafia from threatening anybody who brews beer or distills liquor: the target can now call the cops.

It wasn't the poor moonshiner's ability to finally squeal for daddy that pushed the mafia out of the liquor business... it was the fact that they could not compete in the market place. Sure they could have went on a rampage and wrecked a bunch of legit distilleries, but all the while they would be hemorrhaging cash. Killing people aint cheap.

Re: Mexico supreme court rules ban on marijuana use unconstitutional

#32

Post by Retric »

r0s wrote: post #15

> 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.

Drug cartels don't make there money selling to people in Mexico, the real money is in the US market.

Re: Mexico supreme court rules ban on marijuana use unconstitutional

#33

Post by Retric »

bpodgursky wrote: post #13
cookiecaper wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, 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".

Sorry, 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.

They 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.

Re: Mexico supreme court rules ban on marijuana use unconstitutional

#34

Post by kzrdude »

Retric wrote: post #32
r0s wrote: post #15

> 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.

Drug cartels don't make there money selling to people in Mexico, the real money is in the US market.

How much money is in marijuana compared to harder drugs? I mean, does this put much of a dent in the organized crime economy?

Re: Mexico supreme court rules ban on marijuana use unconstitutional

#35

Post by intopieces »

sk5t wrote: post #17
intopieces wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without it, our Constitution would be almost worthless. Segregation was brought down by the Interstate Commerce Clause!

I 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.

The 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.

Re: Mexico supreme court rules ban on marijuana use unconstitutional

#36

Post by toomuchtodo »

Retric wrote: post #32
r0s wrote: post #15

> 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.

Drug cartels don't make there money selling to people in Mexico, the real money is in the US market.

Not to worry, we're working on decriminalizing it in the States as well. Just think how little violence there'd be if we just manufactured the drugs (legally) here.

Re: Mexico supreme court rules ban on marijuana use unconstitutional

#37

Post by ojbyrne »

kzrdude wrote: post #34
Retric wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drug cartels don't make there money selling to people in Mexico, the real money is in the US market.

How much money is in marijuana compared to harder drugs? I mean, does this put much of a dent in the organized crime economy?

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."

Re: Mexico supreme court rules ban on marijuana use unconstitutional

#38

Post by nikmobi »

kzrdude wrote: post #34
Retric wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drug cartels don't make there money selling to people in Mexico, the real money is in the US market.

How much money is in marijuana compared to harder drugs? I mean, does this put much of a dent in the organized crime economy?

I was watching a documentary and I believe I saw that 60% of Cartel income is from marijauna. Sorry I don't have a source.

Re: Mexico supreme court rules ban on marijuana use unconstitutional

#39

Post by [deleted] »

ahallock wrote: post #22
esaym wrote: post #2

>"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…

Why 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]

Re: Mexico supreme court rules ban on marijuana use unconstitutional

#40

Post by dreamdu5t »

rayiner wrote: post #19
esaym wrote: post #2

>"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…

The 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 d…

There 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/Gonzales_v._Raich

Post reply on HN