| |
|
Well, he's right in the sense that you can't declare war on a chemical substance (although it tends not to fight back, which admittedly makes it the kind of enemy that the western world has traditionally preferred to wage open war upon). Any war on anything will be against people.
Am I alone in thinking that the above bill wouldn't actually make anything any better for anyone, assuming Fox did sign the thing? Effectively, it decriminalises the possession of small substances, so that the police don't have to spend ages arresting and prosecuting small scale users/abusers. The sale of such substances is still illegal, and possession of more than a small amount is still illegal. The substance itself is still illegal to possess, they've just decided arbitrarily to prevent police from having powers to arrest small users. Presumably they'll be out there with a set of scales or something hanging next to the nightstick...
The article also talks about increased jail terms for dealers (ie, anyone possessing "illegal" quantities of a narcotic, presumably to sell to a small scale user who can then walk around with it in his shirt pocket). This isn't legalisation in any sense, it's passing into law the same kind of 'common sense approach' that English and police and judicial branches have been adopting when finding people in possession of 'personal use' amounts of weed, speed, etc - that it's up to the individual copper/force/judge whether to prosecute. The article goes on to say that this case-by-case system - the one the UK uses - is already in use in Mexico.
What's the point of introducing it into legislation? It muddies the playing field for all kinds of reasons. Is it ok to buy drugs in that quantity, or just possess them (ie, if you're caught buying half a gram of coke, can you be arrested? If the guy selling it to you only has that half gram on him, can he be arrested?)? Either they're legalising certain kinds of currently illegal drug, or they're keeping them illegal.The drug barons still control and war over the supply, and it's no less dangerous to be any part of that trade. Hundreds of innocent people will still die because of the drug trade every year. There will still be poverty-stricken addicts in Mexico City. The only difference will be that the police will no longer have the option of arresting them, unless of course they're in possession of a microgram more than is legally permitted, in which case suddenly they can put them away for being dealers.
Really, this is a ridiculous idea. It doesn't make any kind of sense. The common-sense approach of not jailing small time users is a good one (a friend of mine recently spent the night in the cells for possession of a wrap of speed, and was then given a lift home in the morning without even a caution), but this is just stupid. |
|
|
