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

41–50 of 143 posts

Re: Mexico supreme court rules ban on marijuana use unconstitutional

#41

Post by PhasmaFelis »

cookiecaper wrote: post #8
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…

People 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 "gen…

It 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.

Re: Mexico supreme court rules ban on marijuana use unconstitutional

#42

Post by rayiner »

dreamdu5t wrote: post #40
rayiner wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.wikipedi…

Wickard 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.

Re: Mexico supreme court rules ban on marijuana use unconstitutional

#43

Post by MichaelGG »

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?

They are most likely diversifying (or have done so by now). Which means every year the USG allows them to maintain their monopoly on pot and other drugs just makes the cartels stronger.

Re: Mexico supreme court rules ban on marijuana use unconstitutional

#44

Post by dreamdu5t »

rayiner wrote: post #42
dreamdu5t wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.wikipedi…

Wickard 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 a…

Possession 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.

Re: Mexico supreme court rules ban on marijuana use unconstitutional

#46

Post by duskwuff »

rayiner wrote: post #42
dreamdu5t wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.wikipedi…

Wickard 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 a…

> Almost nobody grows and processes their own weed...

Er... really? In my experience, it's quite common.

Re: Mexico supreme court rules ban on marijuana use unconstitutional

#47

Post by Dylan16807 »

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.

Wow, who downvoted you for that? Wickard v. Filburn, seriously.

Re: Mexico supreme court rules ban on marijuana use unconstitutional

#48

Post by uououuttt »

ojbyrne wrote: post #37
kzrdude wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

I 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.

Re: Mexico supreme court rules ban on marijuana use unconstitutional

#49

Post by [deleted] »

maw wrote: post #6
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…

As 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.

[deleted]

Re: Mexico supreme court rules ban on marijuana use unconstitutional

#50

Post by xacaxulu »

rayiner wrote: post #42
dreamdu5t wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.wikipedi…

Wickard 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 a…

I know more pot growers than pot buyers and I'm not even in a decriminalized state.
Post reply on HN