The law was adopted in relation to a serious drug problem among the population aged 12 to 17, although there are already several laws prohibiting the consumption of alcohol, tobacco and drugs. By way of reference, I quote Gary Becker`s text, which may add some elements to the debate. “The legalization of drugs will lower their price by more than 90%, which will ensure that addicts do not have to commit crimes to fund such expensive sums. On the other hand, falling prices will wipe out the huge profits of drug traffickers and prevent the integration of gangs of young people living in ghettos. The World Health Organization warns that drug use among young Africans is on the rise. In addition, the UN estimates that by 2030, the number of drug users in Africa will increase significantly. [Proponents of the regulation do not encourage drug use, nor do we deny that there are problems with some currently illegal drugs and with certain types of use, and the legalization of drugs and the promotion of their use or even their use are NOT the same or have a necessary relationship.] ® When talking about drugs, as well as their prohibition or legalization, reductionism often occurs. One of them is “countercultural”: “I want to make my mess, nothing and no one should prevent it or prevent it, and that`s it.” In addition to the reductionist error itself, this anti-prohibition position often has quite a few drawbacks or problems due to deficiencies and inadequacies of rational and democratic foundations; Similarly, at the end of the day, it does not represent the “rights and freedoms” of some of us who propose the legalization of drugs. Suffice it to say that this point, with conditions, includes the “freedom of disorder” and is not reduced to it. But there is another problem, important and twofold, which focuses on Mexican and other places. On the one hand, the average “crazy” attitude is often an obstacle for the enemies of prohibition to become better allies of legalization. It is not enough to be in favour, it must be for good reasons, with reasons based on facts.
Around drugs, legal and illegal, there is not only “evil”, suffering and unhappiness (another reductionism), but also not only personal or group/”tribal” pleasures and joys; They are also there, and relevant, several other things: complexity. That is the other side of the coin. When citizens who defend legalization limit themselves to defending their “chaos”, they only confirm the anti-scientific and generally irrational prejudices of the reductionists they have as a counterpart: they harden their conviction that the proposal means practically nothing or nothing good for those who do not take drugs (illegally). Of course, both sides are wrong. That some are only interested in defending this side alone and that “it`s their problem”? Obvious; And that doesn`t mean they`re fine, or that they`re not causing adverse and harmful effects, or that it`s not in their best interest — that it`s good for others and for them — anything else. Some cannot socialize more and better arguments in favour of a good alternative and publicly incriminate them to some extent, especially in the province and with particular emphasis on those parts of that national province where there is also relative peace; They are therefore acting against their own interests. Some influence each other negatively, unnecessarily and stupidly, even if, deep down, confused, they prefer illegality in order to reinforce or “authenticate” their “counter-cultural” nature (I know some young people who believe in it…). The others, supported by the former, are far from wanting and being able to understand the respective reality, which is a piece with many faces. The researcher, aware that this is not the solution, ensures that legalization is a necessary condition to reduce the high level of uncertainty, which is constantly and considerably aggravated with the continuation at each stage of production, marketing and consumption. It also claims that this prohibition policy entails disproportionate costs, since, according to 2016 statistics, only 3% of the country`s population who used drugs, or 0.6% who were considered addicts in the same year, are allocated disproportionate resources. Resources, on the other hand, could be allocated both to health programmes and to combating other types of crime, such as theft, extortion, kidnapping, etc.
This means that legislation preventing minors from consuming alcohol, tobacco and drugs has failed to varying degrees in Mexico. This suggests that banning minors from having easier access to marijuana will also fail. Taking into account the current percentage of alcohol and tobacco use among minors, the projections for cannabis use are alarming, and this is not speculation. There are several points of view in the legalization debate. However, what has been more than demonstrated by all sorts of research over the years is that legalizing or regulating drug use in ± relevant markets reduces their price compared to what they had when they were illegal. Lower prices even out its profit margins and prevent organized and violent criminal groups from engaging in their trade. It is not enough to be in favour, it must be for good reasons, with reasons based on facts. Around drugs, legal and illegal, there is not only “evil”, suffering and unhappiness, but also not only personal or group/”tribal” pleasures and joys. Legalizing drugs that are not tobacco and alcohol – which are drugs, legal drugs – could also help improve the Mexican economy by: First, by ending spending billions of pesos, especially by the federal government, on a misnamed, strategically flawed, and already failed “war on drugs.” an unnecessary and even counterproductive expenditure in terms of democratic security.
With all these means, including economic elements. This “war” doesn`t do what it`s supposed to, and the president says it serves. Basically, it serves what does not serve us as such, especially in a country outside the “first world” like Mexico: confusing state priorities in a democracy and wasting public money. Second, by bailing them out, which could contribute to some empowerment, or by allowing the state to prosocially divert the money it wastes to track, treat and place thousands of consumers in prisons that are not necessarily addicted or bad citizens, but who are generally “not rich”, than what they normally consume, marijuana is; These are citizens who, even if they were drug addicts, do not deserve prison sentences and who, at the expense of the public treasury, are taken to overcrowded, corrupt and dirty prisons where, to make matters worse, most drugs are consumed [drugs in general, i.e. legal and illegal are included] and live the worst criminals who continue to act as such here and there. What good should we expect from this reality for society?! Just consider a possibility or, if you will, a probability: if they get out of jail and no one wants to give them a good formal job because they have a “criminal record,” a job that many probably never had, what some of those who have been incarcerated, small vendors or not, “pickup trucks” or “mules” or not, would do, Consumers or not, will they survive? Well, we shouldn`t exclude arrests and deliveries and even convictions of those who didn`t even consume? “There is no consensus,” the president said of the administration`s position on the legalization of certain drugs. Internally, the topic was discussed with an interdisciplinary team for months, but became a hot potato. While Thursday`s presentation highlighted that with the legalization of the substance in Canada and some U.S. states, there are fewer and fewer illicit marijuana plantations, this data was not enough to promote a bloc position. “We did not reach an agreement because there is still a lot of damage± the most painful is the death of people,” explained López Obrador, “we are open to looking for alternatives, but always think about life.” The other part of the government`s official drug strategy was ± address drug use with campaigns warning of drug addiction and their health consequences. “There is no happy ending in the world of drugs,” ± the official campaign repeats every day on television and radio.
Raúl Martún del Campo, a Mexican member of the United Nations International Narcotics Control Board, told this newspaper a few weeks ago that these ± campaigns are a gesture of goodwill, but that they have a central problem: “Young people no longer watch television or listen to the radio, they are involved in social networks.” For him©, the great challenge of this policy is also to make content attractive to consumers. Almost always, the forbidden has more appeal than the ±±or wants to prevent”. While Mexican cartels have reduced the production, trafficking and sale of marijuana, they have nearly doubled domestic production of methamphetamines, plain heroin, heroin combined with fentanyl, and have steadily increased the purchase and trafficking of cocaine produced in Colombia, Peru and Bolivia.
