The idea of the legislation now in front of Mexico's President Vicente Fox is that not having police have to waste their time going after individual users of Marijuana, Cocaine, Heroin, etc; would give them more time to go after the trafficers. Its not a new idea, but it is finding more support due to the total failure of the war on drugs.
If the logic that the only way to win the war on drugs is to legalize drugs is now finally getting main stream recognition throughout the Americas, couldn't we extend that same logic to the war on terra?
Couldn't we just admit that the only way to but an end to terror and to truly be secure as a nation and a world, is to stop being a terrorist actively engaged in destroying the world in order to make more profits for big oil and other corporations.
The way I see it the most important issues are where to locate the new hotels, which ones get to host the Cocaine and Heroin Cups, and how much tax revenue from the drugs and tourism Mexico would get?
Would this sucessfully take Americans minds off the War, the elections, the Hurricans and the global warming?
Would Americans reverse the flow across the border to get lucative jobs in the new sin cities? How long would it take the casino and hotel chains to sort things out with the sex worker industry so you could get the full package as in Dubai?
Fox Should Lead Way on Drug Legalization
by Jacob G. Hornberger, March 2001
Another Latin American president is talking about ending the war on drugs. First, there is Uruguay's president, Jorge Batlle, who openly calls for drug legalization. And now there is Vicente Fox, Mexico's newly elected president. Last Monday, (March 19) in an article entitled "Fox Talks Drug Legalization," the Associated Press reported, "In an interview published by two newspapers Sunday, Fox indicated agreement with a police official who suggested last week that the only way to win the war on drugs was to legalize drugs -- eliminating the profits and violence caused by illegal trafficking. But the president quickly qualified the statement, saying that Mexico could not move alone and indicating that he did not expect such a step soon." Fox is both right and wrong. He's right to say that the war on drugs should be ended by (re-) legalizing drugs. But he's wrong to imply that Mexico must wait for other countries (i.e, the U.S.) to do so. Latin American countries such as Uruguay and Mexico can -- and should -- lead the world by unilaterally legalizing drugs. This would bring an end to so much of the violence, corruption, and gang warfare that has pervaded Latin America for decades. When U.S. government officials see the benefits that come with ending this immoral, inhumane, and destructive war, the pressure will be on them to follow Latin America's lead. http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
"...We can no longer simply react to the US positions," (said Castañeda), "Mexico must insist" with a "grand campaign" as it did to achieve the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that the United States change its laws regarding certification in the anti-drug fight and find 'a new focus' towards drugs.
On this point, Castañeda tackles the problem with a perspective that many governments recognize in private and elude in public: "The decriminalization, over the long term, of certain substances that are currently illicit... and the utilization of market mechanisms to undermine the profits that come from the prohibited character of drug commerce."
Thus, it appears that Castañeda is not backing down from his pro-decriminalization position. To the contrary, he is hinting that a "grand campaign" might be in the cards for bilateral relations in the coming years; a campaign to call the bluff on the hypocrisy of US drug policy throughout América.
A "Grand Campaign" like that would resonate not just across Mexico, but will find support, both open and behind the scenes, from other nations and governments who suffer the failure of drug prohibition in the hemisphere.
US policy toward Mexico in recent years has desperately tried to keep the lid on the drug legalization debate in Mexico. They see it as Pandora's Box: If they let the debate happen, then history could follow. US officials know that the Mexican public does not believe that the drug war is sincere or meant to combat drugs. The Mexican people have seen too much, they know better.
And so the Embassy and other agencies have worked overtime to pressure academic institutions and media outlets (recall that former US Ambassador James R. Jones is now on the board of directors of TV Azteca in Mexico City) and others to not allow serious discussion or debate of the issue.
In other words, US officials cheer "democracy" in Mexico -- unless and until the democratic will of the people disagrees with US policy.
The naming of Castañeda as Secretary of State, while not likely to bring any rapid change in drug policy (indeed, outgoing Secretary of State Rosario Green is also sympathetic to drug legalization and in September of 1998 threatened that Mexico would begin abstaining from the drug war if "decertified" by the US as a trusted drug war ally), does bring Mexico a small step away from the national debate that the US government dreads.
Castañeda - as an internationally known author and columnist - is someone who could, if provoked, bring the issue to the front pages. In that sense, Fox's appointment of Castañeda serves as a potential counterbalance to US pressures: The machinery is now in place to launch that debate on a moment's notice.
Indeed, Mexican Civil Society may provoke the debate before Castañeda even opens his mouth on the theme.