Mexico supreme court rules ban on marijuana use unconstitutional • Hacker News Board

Re: Mexico supreme court rules ban on marijuana use unconstitutional

#121

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Nov 05, 2015, 2:22 PM UTC

throwaway7767 wrote: post #98

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.

> Drug cartels don't make there money selling to people in Mexico, the real money is in the US market. This decision is not sufficient, but if mexico completely legalised drugs, including manufacture, sale and distribution, the cartel violence in mexico would mostly stop, because they'd be legitimate businessmen who could rely on police protection. The US wouldn't like it, but hey, that's their problem (in theory - i…

The cartels can probably rely on police, military, media, and other institutional support more than any other set of businesses in Mexico now. Legalization would undercut cartel violence in Mexico because it would open up more competition and drop prices in the US market, so that the flow of money that supports their empire of corruption and violence would be shut off.

Re: Mexico supreme court rules ban on marijuana use unconstitutional

#122

Post by kefka » Thu, Nov 05, 2015, 2:53 PM UTC

happyscrappy wrote: post #114

kefka wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a US citizen, and I'm ashamed of what my government does in my name. I was born here: no choice in that matter. My taxes are used to fund horrid and despicable things in our collective name, including messing in others sovereign affairs, going to war, causing war between 2 different parties, and all the things wrong with "War on ____" (just add in the word representing the next 15 minute hot button issue). I, as…

If you are ashamed of America you should emigrate, continuing to be a hypocrite while profiting from the system is untenable if you are actually believe what you say. There are plenty of countries where it is a lot easier to become a citizen than the US.

And still be affected by their policies? Doesn't sound like a good plan.

Re: Mexico supreme court rules ban on marijuana use unconstitutional

#123

Post by cookiecaper » Thu, Nov 05, 2015, 3:05 PM UTC

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #41

cookiecaper wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We 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.

Re: Mexico supreme court rules ban on marijuana use unconstitutional

#124

Post by harryh » Thu, Nov 05, 2015, 3:23 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #64

IIAOPSW wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The constitution was agnostic on slavery so far as I can recall. Article and section please?

Article I, Section 9, cl. 1 (which was among the provisions explicitly shielded from Amendment prior to 1808 by Article V.)

Also Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 3 (the 3/5ths clause).

Re: Mexico supreme court rules ban on marijuana use unconstitutional

#125

Post by mvanvoorden » Thu, Nov 05, 2015, 3:50 PM UTC

frame_perfect wrote: post #112

mvanvoorden wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anything, certain illegal substances, like hallucinogens, have opened my eyes and gotten me out of depression, by making me see what's important in life. Without it, I might have committed suicide, or at least be still stuck (or even deeper) in a situation I don't want to be in. Cannabis and mushrooms, to name some, have been considered and succesfully used as versatile medicine for thousands of years, only to be…

If you excluded cannabis from your comment, I'd agree with you 100%. Cannabis can be both, but for me, and a lot of people I know, regular use just promotes bad habits and lifestyle choices. But to each his/her own. (btw I support legalization of cannabis and other psychs)

I know what you mean. I've used cannabis a lot in my past, and my life was basically standing still. But without, my life felt unbearable. It turned out that changing what I was doing with my life eliminated the need completely, and without any signs of withdrawal effects.

It was also the case that it's not cannabis that introduced bad habits, it was that the bad habits led to (the need of) cannabis use to ease my mind.

Now, I use it as a tool for creativity, when I'm working with my music.

I would also like to share this video, about how addiction seems to work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8L-0nSYzg

Re: Mexico supreme court rules ban on marijuana use unconstitutional

#126

Post by intopieces » Thu, Nov 05, 2015, 3:54 PM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #72

intopieces wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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) As mistakes go, this one is purely cosmetic. It has no actual implications; there would be nothing even minorly surprising about saying "the impeached party wins ties".

Not sure what gives you that impression. During the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, Chief Justice Chase cast 2 tie breaking votes on procedural issues. The purpose of this provision (Article 1, Section 3 - Chief Justice presides over the trial of the President in cases of impeachment) was separation of powers but the authors appear to have overlooked that value when it comes to the Vice President.

Re: Mexico supreme court rules ban on marijuana use unconstitutional

#127

Post by api » Thu, Nov 05, 2015, 4:34 PM UTC

frame_perfect wrote: post #88

a3voices wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Morality 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.

I 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.

It 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.

Re: Mexico supreme court rules ban on marijuana use unconstitutional

#128

Post by Dylan16807 » Thu, Nov 05, 2015, 5:24 PM UTC

intopieces wrote: post #126

thaumasiotes wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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) As mistakes go, this one is purely cosmetic. It has no actual implications; there would be nothing even minorly surprising about saying "the impeached party wins ties".

Not sure what gives you that impression. During the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, Chief Justice Chase cast 2 tie breaking votes on procedural issues. The purpose of this provision (Article 1, Section 3 - Chief Justice presides over the trial of the President in cases of impeachment) was separation of powers but the authors appear to have overlooked that value when it comes to the Vice President.

It doesn't matter. At worst it says that impeachment issues have to win by 2 votes. That doesn't damage separation of powers in any way. It's just an oddity.

Re: Mexico supreme court rules ban on marijuana use unconstitutional

#129

Post by scott_karana » Thu, Nov 05, 2015, 5:43 PM UTC

vpkaihla wrote: post #102

a3voices wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Morality 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.

We have lived in such a dystopic future for a long time. Almost everyone in the western world consumes caffeine on a daily basis.

Ethanol and nicotine consumption are pretty prevalent too.

Re: Mexico supreme court rules ban on marijuana use unconstitutional

#130

Post by saint_fiasco » Thu, Nov 05, 2015, 6:41 PM UTC

tomp wrote: post #77

saint_fiasco wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 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.

Why? There will still be criminals tradficking drugs to the US... They just won't be ceiminals in Mexico any more!

If those people are still criminals in the US, they will have to deal with organized criminal organizations to export to US instead of using the official channels.

One big benefit of legalization of drugs was that the organized criminals wouldn't be able to make money off it, but most of their business is in the US anyway.