> 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.<p>This is a sane and direct response to exactly that.
I 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!<p>my last comment still applies though... <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10503260" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10503260</a>
What 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?
Ok, let me try to clarify, because lots of nonsense have been spoken here already.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.
I 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.
"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
Going 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.
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?
>"In a 4-1 ruling, the court found that prohibitions on using marijuana violated the 'right to the free development of personality'"<p>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.<p>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?