TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Mexico's Supreme Court rules in favor of allowing recreational marijuana use

116 点作者 egusa超过 6 年前

7 条评论

toomanybeersies超过 6 年前
Obviously this isn&#x27;t legalisation. But as more and more countries&#x2F;states legalise recreational marijuana, hopefully politicians will see the light and see that there&#x27;s little demonstrable harm in legalisation, and that legalisation results in far more benefit than harm.<p>Unfortunately, this is unlikely. At least in the UK, New Zealand, and Australia. Politicians aren&#x27;t opposed to drug law reform on the basis of safety, they might say they are, but in reality they&#x27;re opposed to drug law reform because they believe that drug use is a moral sin. There are a significant number of politicians (in particular the religious ones), who believe that it&#x27;s a sin to alter your mind, whether it be by alcohol, marijuana, mushrooms, MDMA, etc. etc. And they believe that it&#x27;s their God-given duty to stop people from committing these sins.<p>The sad thing is that there are a lot of people in society who agree with them, hence they keep getting voted in. Just look at the comments on Facebook on any news story about somebody dying at a festival from drug overdoses, and there will be a slew of people literally saying that they deserved it for taking drugs in the first place.<p>And in Australia, I can&#x27;t help but think that some politicians are using the war on drugs as a weapon in a fight against alternative culture. In Sydney, they have drug dogs at train stations, in particular in the Western Suburbs (the poorer, more ethnic side of the city), despite the fact that drug use is constant through the socioeconomic scale. Run a sniffer dog through the investment bankers&#x27; offices and see how much coke they&#x27;ll pick up. They&#x27;ll also use sniffer dogs at music festivals (especially non-mainstream events, like techno festivals), but they won&#x27;t deploy them for the horse races, despite the fact that drug use is rampant at both.
评论 #18361923 未加载
评论 #18362158 未加载
suby超过 6 年前
A step in the right direction, but it&#x27;s not quite there yet. From the article<p>&gt; It would still require individuals to bring their cases before the Supreme Court before the judges can rule whether their case is constitutional, which is still a little different to having the absolute freedom to consume marijuana across the country.<p>It&#x27;s also non-commercial use, which makes me think that the situation would be akin to Washington D.C. where it&#x27;s legal to consume it, but not to sell it.
docbrown超过 6 年前
Even with the case having to be brought to the SC, I wonder if this is Mexico’s initial step toward attempting to curb the drug cartels. With the states legalizing recreational marihuana, that has already slowed down a lot of the over-the-border smuggling, at least IIRC without digging up articles.<p>OT: Canada seems to maybe thinking the same thing with legalizing. If we legalize it, we’re erasing the incentive of backpacking through the back channels of the Canada-US border.
评论 #18361140 未加载
hughes超过 6 年前
Soon, 100% of illegal North American marijuana use will occur in the USA.
Mikeb85超过 6 年前
Step in the right direction. It&#x27;s legal in Canada and I can report that society hasn&#x27;t crumpled (nothing&#x27;s really changed honestly).
评论 #18360146 未加载
评论 #18360273 未加载
doodliego超过 6 年前
¡Viva México!
wildmusings超过 6 年前
&gt;<i>The Supreme Court found that adults have a &quot;fundamental right to the free development of the personality&quot; without interference from the state. &quot;That right is not absolute, and the consumption of certain substances may be regulated, but the effects provoked by marijuana do not justify an absolute prohibition of its consumption,&quot; the ruling read.</i><p>What a bunch of lawless nonsense for a high court to be engaged in. This might be good policy, but the more ominous implication is what it means for the judiciary to be substituting its own judgment for that of the legislature, based on indeterminate legal theories about “fundamental rights” invented out of thin air.
评论 #18362605 未加载