The Reality-Based Community: More absurdity

May 03, 2006

More absurdity

Posted by Mark Kleiman

NBC News called this morning. Could they come interview me about Mexican drug decriminalization? Sure, I said, but as far as I can tell decriminalization isn't what happened. Fine, they said, we'll be right over.

So I made on camera pretty much the same points I'd made on the radio:

1. The new law would expand the number of police who can make drug arrests.

2. The new law would free users caught with small quantities from going to jail, but not from arrest.

3. The Federales probably weren't in the habit of arresting users for possessing small amounts, any more than the DEA is.

4. The new law more or less tracks California law, and the law in many other states: users, if arrested, get diverted from the criminal justice system.

The reporter seemed very reluctant to believe any of this. He kept asking me what-ifs: What if the local ordinances against possession permitted by the new law don't actually get passed? (I failed to point out that most of the Mexican border cities already have such laws.) When I pointed out that there was no reason to imagine that Vicente Fox was soft on drugs, or would want to pass a soft-on-drugs law so near the election which Felipe Calderon, his chosen successor, seems to have a real shot at winning, the reporter replied with dark suspicion that Fox was lying low, not commenting publicly on the new law. (The notion that Fox might be hiding from the U.S. media fury didn't seem to appeal to him.)

When the reporter failed to call back as promised to let me know when the story would run, I guessed that my viewpoint hadn't made it into the segment. I was right.

The story as it aired (scroll down to "Mexico moves to soften drug law") was about as inflammatory as imaginable. The anchor introduced it as an account of "the outrage in this country over a decision by Mexico to make possession of some illegal drugs legal." The correspondent, Peter Alexander, after a reference to "dangerous narcotics" and the usual grim war-on-drugs footage, reported that "in effect, the law would approve the use, in small amounts, of a dizzying array of illegal drugs." The law, he said, was "among the most permissive in the world."

Drug czar John Walters was shown saying that "if we are talking about legalizing drugs, that's bad for everybody." (That suggests Walters had doubts that the new law was legalization, but if so he wasn't shown expressing them.) His predecessor Barry McCaffrey skipped the "if," and opined lugubriously about the risk of "cross-border drug tourism out of the United States, to include college students." A drug counselor from San Diego talked of the risk that San Diegans could "go across the border and buy heroin out in the open." (How people were going to openly buy a drug it would remain a serious crime to sell wasn't made clear.) Alexander talked of counsellors' fears of being "swamped by a new audience of addicts."

A lone Mexican official was shown denying that the law legalized drugs, and the view that the new law would help focus attention on traffickers was attributed to the Mexican government, but those were left as bare assertions, discredited by everything else said and shown.

This evening, under what appears to have been intense pressure from the U.S., Vicente Fox capitulated, saying that he would not sign the bill his own appointee as head of the Federales had shepherded through the Mexican Congress. It's hard to guess whether this rather public humiliation of Fox will damage Calderon's chances of beating Lopez Obrador; what seems certain is that none of the American drug warriors whipping up the furore had bothered to think about that question.

Since I doubted from the beginning that the new law would make much of a difference one way or the other to the size of the drug problem either in Mexico or in the U.S., I can't say I'm especially dismayed that it will now be sent back to the Mexican Congress for redrafting. But I do continue to be dismayed by the utter unseriousness with which our politicians and journalists treat my pet issue.

Posted at 11:47 PM | TrackBack (1) |

|
Thread: Drug Policy , Thread: The wayward press

Comments

Vindictive, Puritanical, Judgmental, Punitive, Unforgiving, Restrictive, Arabitrary, Arrogant, Lacking in Empathy, self-serving, self-righteous, cocksure, imperial, oppressive; Somber, oppressive; America: love it or get out of town.

Posted by: Joe at May 4, 2006 05:45 AM

To solve the problem, you have to first understand the problem. If the MSM gave the real story on the true costs of the 'war on drugs', maybe the majority would come to the conclusion the humans are just beings. Beings represent life, life cannot be controlled.

I know, it is a stretch, but the real problem is big pharma. They have no stake in drugs that can be manufactured by anyone.

They same people who spin this story of 'legalization' are hypocrites. Alcohol, Nicotine, OxyContin anyone.....

Posted by: oddball at May 4, 2006 06:16 AM

I'm not a proponent of legalization or decriminalization of drugs, but in this instance, I believe that if Mexico went ahead with what their proposed law was purported to do, it would be a great step towards reduction of crime in this country.

Starting with San Diego and other parts of southern California, I'm sure that drug users would rather drive south across the border to get their drugs at lower cost and reduced risk, freeing up police on our side of the border to fight other crimes.

The net result would be tantamount to putting more cops on the street in this country, and let the Mexican government take our place of being in the business of having prisons overcrowded with drug offenders.

Posted by: gene grossman at May 5, 2006 07:32 AM

Wish you would fact check your ideas first, I know people currently serving 18 months state prison in California for "recreational" amounts. You stated: "The new law more or less tracks California law, and the law in many other states: users, if arrested, get diverted from the criminal justice system." That statement is just wrong.

Posted by: Jatico at May 7, 2006 08:20 AM

Hi! Very nice and beautifull place! Keep it!

Posted by: Zgojmtif at December 6, 2006 05:26 AM

Tdavdgjm
http://3djestgd.org/57470986/index.html 3djestgdvde map 1
Tdavdgjm

Posted by: Pierre at December 6, 2006 05:27 AM

Yforsnzv
http://3djestgd.org/57470986/index.html 3djestgdvde map 1
Yforsnzv

Posted by: Richard at December 6, 2006 05:28 AM

Iflnwciz
http://3djestgd.org/57470986/index.html 3djestgdvde map 1
Iflnwciz

Posted by: James at December 6, 2006 05:28 AM

http://3djestgd.org/57470986/index.html 3djestgdvde map 1

Posted by: Benua at December 6, 2006 01:25 PM

http://3djestgd.org/57470986/index.html 3djestgdvde map 1