As abhorrent and antithetical to common sense as such a law might appear, it is neither new (the Dutch have had such laws years - 30? - and British Columbia is experimenting with such laws as well) nor contrary to logic...think harm reduction--and before you react to HR as contrary to all things American, consider seat belts, smoke detectors, hand rails, flame retardant material, fluoridated water...and the list goes on., We are firmly committed to HR in America. And before reacting negatively to the reported Mexican legislation, it may be prudent to consider several issues simultaneously: (1) The "drug war" has done little to change the presence or use of drugs in its 30 years of being waged...yet look at the changes in drug use behavior in The Netherlands during this same time since it has changed its public policies regarding drugs; (2) decriminalizing possession of small amounts of illicit substances such as outlined in this article will result in a demonstrable reduction in cost (both direct - criminal justice related costs of enforcement of 'zero tolerance' - and indirect, e.g., fewer collected taxes from incarcerated violators. The "money saved" and the income taxes collected from those who would have been incarcerated can be spent prevention and treatment. In short, decriminalization of possessing small amounts of illicit substances makes sense for a number of reasons - public health, economic, social service, humanitarian to suggest a few. What do you think?

The U.S. pressured Mexico into the same failed "War on Drugs" policies, and now the drug cartels are out of control. Too bad the U.S. couldn't have butt out and allowed them to do something that would have saved many lives. I hope Mexico does what is best this time, and passes the bill.

Does allowing possession of such amounts in turn approve use, per se? What is a cop to do on a traffic stop? If the driver is impaired, but possesses a legally aproved amount, should he simply be turned loose? Ignoring possession and use of "legal" amounts only postpones and worsens the inevitable for many, as the "consumer's" desire eventually evolves into craving, increased frequency of use, use of more substances, etc. Proponents can try to argue the opposite, but treatment records and research stats speak clearly of the risks and consequences of such an approach. As a society we must pay now or pay later-- in this instance, with compounded interest.

Can it really be so easy? Just let everyone do what they please and society will right itself? Does our country become a better place to live if we accept drug use as a right? When does an individual's drug use become society's problem? When that person is operating a vehicle? When that person is offering your child drugs? When that person is in your back yard looking for something to steal because they are a little short on funds to purchase drugs? When your next door neighbor cooks a little meth for a party, but the toxic smell wafts over to your nose? Just wondering

When your neighbor legally has a little bit of heroin, a little bit of cocaine & a little bit of marijuana lying around his home and his little children get hold of it & become well on their way to becoming "little drug users or addicts" will we put up with that as well?

2bits: Who said it was gonna be easy? Yes, our country is a better place when we all have the "right" to alter our state of consciousness (manage our "Yes/Go" neural circuitry). And it's a better place by having reasonable laws and civil processes towards that end e.g. laws against impaired driving, theft, harassment of children, pollution. Frank W.: 1. Yes - approval of reasonable and responsible use. 2. A cop is trained to enforce impaired or reckless driving laws whether a person is under the influence of caffeine or their cell phone. 3. Maybe we should outlaw breast milk, since, as you say, "the "consumer's" desire eventually evolves into craving, increased frequency of use, use of more substances. Come on, man: think it through. 4. We will always pay, now and later, for those who have difficulty managing their neural circuitry. Since that has been the case since mammals have walked upright, I'm for harm reduction.

Carole: So we should outlaw Darvocet and kitchen cleaners????? We have child protection laws, don't we? When his children get ahold of his Darvocet, or toxic household cleaner, the ER nurse will hope that, in reporting the incident, dad stands a chance of being charged with neglect, and that he'll likely be educated in ways that help him be more responsible. Maybe that is not good enough for you. Maybe you want a perfect world where every parent acts perfectly????

Legalizing small amounts of drug possession will only fuel the cartels. Now they will have a larger consumer base, as those who didn't buy before will buy now. This is definitely flawed thinking.

This is about decriminalizing possesion. They are not making it legal to drive impaired, neglect your child, or steal from your neighbor. Does use of drugs and alcohol harm people? Yes. Would they benefit from stopping? Absolutley. Could they devote the money spent aressting, prosecuting, and incarcerating individuals to treatment instead? Yes. Would this clear the jails of lower risk criminals to jail and hold violent and dangerous criminals? Absolutely. If they did this in the states would it take money out of the pockets of private corporations that make money building jails and incarcerating as many people as possible? Absolutely. That is why I believe we don't have similar laws here in the states.

1. Julian mentions the corporations that make money building jails, right on, but in a similar vein, and even more money at stake, Big Tobackgo is the main stakeholder in cannabis prohibition. 2. I wish the Mexicans would consider decriminalizing JUST CANNABIS and not the other substances for which the profit margin will collapse (just like tobacco) if cheap legal cannabis is available. 3. Weedonomics: 5 grams of riefer is 200 single servings in a screened single-toke utensil -- adequately convenient if, like me, you are on a merciful compassionate moderation regimen of ten 25-mg. tokes per two days 0r 1826 per year.

Mexico is a mess. It starts off with small quantity and leads to more and stronger substances. I know that this is why its where it is now. They have not held a high enough conviction in this area. They have taken over. There must be some form of punishment or theyll just get out and continue this addiction, habit. May God help them as they try to figure out how to bring help to this one area of need in Mexico.

Thank the Goddess! Finally some common sense comes to Mexico. Now if only American legislators would finally get their heads screwed on straight, we could adopt this policy here. All the arguments against such a tactic are red herrings. Portugal decriminalized drugs years ago. Was there increased use? No. Did it become a mecca for drug users? No. Did it become impossible to control crime? No. In fact, addiction went down. Crime was reduced. HIV infections plummeted. For those skeptical drug warriors on this site, read the Cato Institute Report. Then apologize for your years of promoting prohibition.

Imprisoning them will not diminish the supply of drugs on the street, nor will it improve public security; yet it will justify the war on drugs, since the government will be able to boast the number of people incarcerated with this policy. The law implicates a policy that induces the commission of crimes on behalf of police forces by allowing them to buy drugs in order to identify small time dealers. The amounts of drugs permitted in the initiative for personal consumption are ambiguous in terms of their actual legality, being that it is not specified how a consumer can obtain them without being considered a criminal due to the mere transaction. But most importantly, these amounts are not realistic in terms of the drug market (for example, the initiative allows a consumer to have .5 grams of coke, when coke is sold on the streets by the gram), reason for which we can anticipate a significant increase in corruption and extortion of consumers by police forces. Taking into account these considerations, CUPIDH manifests its caution to the possible consequences of this law, and reiterates its belief that the problem of illegal drugs in Mexico cannot be resolved without an integral policy that considers them above all as a public health issue, with clear informative and preventive actions in which the human rights of the population must be respected without any restrictions.

Great News. The only long term solution for the addiction situation is to;lump all addictive substances together; legalize all of them; develop clear and enforcable regulations that apply to all aspects of the production, distribution, sale, etc. of these drugs; ban all advertising of these substances; guarantee that all tax revenues, profits, etc that come from these "businesses" are used for the range of educational, harm reduction, treatment, etc. that would be necessary. That, and only that, approach will work in the long run.

As I have said before-you are throwing the towel in on our young if you legalize. Since when did JT become a forum for conspiracy theories and not for addiction professionals?

John - how do you respond to the Cato Institute report on Portugal's decriminalization of drugs. Is the Cato Inst. a hot bed of conspiracy theories? You simply cannot argue with facts.

The only good comming out of this policy is that Mexico will become a bigger consumer of drugs, which might reduce the amount that availible to US drug users. Also John is right, I remember when JT was about Prevention and Treatment and not legalizing drugs.

It is amazing to me how the debate continues to rage after all these years and after all we know about drugs of abuse - especially stimulant drugs of abuse. I'm sure that all those people who carry 500 mg will just stick with 500 mg. Wake up! Read the research. Examine social history. We went down this road once, and it wasn't pretty. This isn't about harm reduction at all - it about valuing human life or not.