Category Archives: Mexico

Mexico’s Historic Opportunity to Get Cannabis Right

Under a Supreme Court order to legalize and regulate the drug, the country is holding a big civic discussion about exactly how best to do that.

MEXICO

Julia Barajas

LA native, graduated from Columbia Journalism School after working in education for several years. Her work has also appeared in La Opinión, the Columbia Journalism Review, and La Prensa Gráfica.

In Mexico, the question is not whether to legalize cannabis, but just how to do it.

On Monday, the Mexican Senate will launch a series of roundtable discussions to gather input on the country’s pending regulation of cannabis. The meetings this week, widely publicized on social media, will take place in the nation’s capital, granting citizens nine opportunities to weigh in in-person.

This move follows two separate Supreme Court decisions, which, combined with three previous rulings in deference to the Constitution’s “free development of personality” doctrine, set a binding precedent—that the prohibition of cannabis for “recreational” purposes is unconstitutional.

In concrete terms, the rulings invalidate sections of Mexico’s General Health Law that prohibit activities related to cannabis for personal use, including cultivating, harvesting, and transporting the cannabis plant.

But the Supreme Court decisions were hardly the end of the discussion. In practice, lawful consumption of cannabis in Mexico still requires citizens to undergo a bureaucratic rigmarole. First, people who want cannabis must request an authorization from the Federal Commission for the Protection against Sanitary Risk (COFEPRIS), the Mexican health authority’s regulatory arm—and they must do so knowing that the request will be denied. Rejected petitioners must then go before a federal court and request an injunction, which every federal judge is obligated to grant because of the precedent established by the Supreme Court. Finally, once the petitioners obtain the injunction, they must return to the COFEPRIS, which will be forced to authorize the original application.

The average citizen, of course, does not have the time and resources to carry out this procedure. (Among recent successful petitioners, for example, is the actor Gael García Bernal.) The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, moreover, does not touch on the trade, supply, or any form of cannabis distribution. As a result, just how a person with permission to consume cannabis is supposed to obtain it remains murky.

To make matters more complicated, the former administration approved prescription-free sales of dozens of cannabis-based products last year, including twenty-one dietary supplements and nine cosmetics, all with less than one percent THC. The products, the COFEPRIS said at the time, would enable patients to treat illnesses like epilepsy, arthritis, and anxiety. They would also serve as “relaxants, analgesics, and for the treatment of difficulty falling asleep.” Notably, the move was made just weeks ahead of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s inauguration in December.

Under the new administration, which made drug policy reform integral to its platform, the COFEPRIS tossed out those guidelines. Doing so, said the agency, was necessary because the former administration contravened a decree issued in 2017 that allows for the medical use of cannabis. Additionally, said the agency, the guidelines exceeded their purpose by authorizing the commercialization of products that contain THC for uses that are neither medical nor scientific, and included products forbidden in international trade.

To date, the 2017 decree allowing for medical cannabis has yet to be implemented. Most policy reform advocates, moreover, feel that it is insufficient anyway, as it does not allow for the domestic production of cannabis, forcing those who need it to import.

Then came the Supreme Court. On January 31 of this year, the Court issued an official notice of its precedent to both houses of Congress, which are now required to reform the laws to reflect that the prohibition of cannabis use is unconstitutional.

Thus the listening sessions. Legislators are contemplating several bills and working through a host of details, with the aim of crafting legislation to regulate its use.

In April 2019, Senator Julio Ramón Menchaca Salazar, who presides over the Justice Committee, confirmed that a new regulatory framework for cannabis is in the works and suggested that lawmakers use the summer recess (May 1 to August 31) to pore over the details, so as to meet the October deadline set by the Court. The Mexican Senate also hosted a forum in April, titled “Towards a Policy to Regulate Cannabis,” in which lawmakers, regulators, and policy experts at the local, national, and international level exchanged ideas on the best model for the country.

Some early advice

Among them was Zara Snapp, a drug policy expert and reform activist based in Mexico City. During her presentation, Snapp first pointed to the human cost of Mexico’s “war on drugs.” Between 2006 and 2016, she said, 250,000 people were killed one way or another in that war and nearly 2,000 clandestine graves have been unearthed. Some 40,000 people remain missing, another 300,000 have been internally displaced.

Snapp also provided context regarding the unregulated cannabis market, noting that, in Mexico’s case, “the issue is not so much consumption but production.” Currently, about 500,000 people are involved in the cannabis chain of production. According to the UN, they produce 15,000 to 27,000 tons of cannabis per year, primarily in the northern states of  Sinaloa (36%), Chihuahua (19.5%), and Durango (16.4%), though also in Guerrero, Jalisco, Michoacán, Nayarit, Oaxaca, and Sonora. Mexican cultivators, Snapp added, earn 200 to 540 pesos ($10 to $28) per kilogram. But once the product gets across the US-Mexico border, the same product is sold for about $1,000 per kilogram.

Moving forward, Snapp told lawmakers, Mexican cannabis policy should look to keep that value in its state of origin by legalizing and regulating cannabis. Additionally, rather than using federal funds for enforcement and eradication programs that adversely affect the environment and rural communities’ income and health, lawmakers should consider providing current cultivators with technical assistance, so as to improve the quality of the cannabis and offer a better product, both domestically and abroad.

“We have an historic opportunity, but we have to do it very carefully and with an emphasis on social justice,” Snapp told the forum’s participants, “instead of gifting this [industry] to large corporations, as was done with last year’s Medical Cannabis Law, which does not provide for domestic production.”

Though unable to attend the forum, the Drug Policy Alliance’s executive director, Maria McFarland Sánchez-Moreno, issued a statement on Mexico’s move towards cannabis legalization, stating in part that “the massive amount of resources invested in the war on drugs has contributed to a bloodbath.” Legalizing cannabis, she acknowledged, “will not solve the serious security and health problems in Mexico. But regulation does have the potential to improve the lives of many: people who are currently criminalized or abused in the name of cannabis prohibition, and people who don’t have access to medical cannabis.”

We have an historic opportunity, but we have to do it very carefully and with an emphasis on social justice instead of gifting this [industry] to large corporations, as was done with last year’s Medical Cannabis Law, which does not provide for domestic production.

Zara Snapp, drug policy expert and reform activist

Pointing to efforts in the US as a potential model, the Drug Policy Alliance’s executive director suggested expunging the records of people convicted of cannabis-related offenses, as well as reinvesting revenue from the cannabis industry into communities that have been most impacted by prohibition.

By regulating the industry, she underscored, Mexico will be better able to “shape how cannabis is produced, distributed, and consumed” and “demonstrate regional leadership.” Like Snapp, McFarland Sánchez-Moreno asked lawmakers to “Ensure that the new legal market does not only benefit big businesses.” Pointing to California as a possible model, where some cities have prioritized licensing for people with low incomes, she encouraged the Mexican Senate to “limit vertical integration to make sure that the entire market does not end up controlled by only a handful of powerful groups.”

Bills under review 

There are ten bills under consideration. One of them was introduced on November 6, 2018 by the Citizens’ Movement, a center-left political party that is among the top four most numerous groups in the Senate. This measure cites a study conducted by the Washington Office on Latin America, which indicates that, between 2009 and 2013, 14,860 people were detained in Mexico on charges of cannabis consumption. According to the bill, “Under this regime, the police constantly extort citizens, which affects their perceptions of the justice system.” The Mexican penitentiary system, moreover, is in a “deplorable state,” in which “prisoners live in overcrowded conditions that violate human rights, preventing the reintegration of citizens into society.”

“Our penitentiary system,” the bill underscores, “is at 250% to 305% of its capacity,” and a cell for six people might actually hold between fourteen and twenty.

In response, the Citizens’ Movement bill would decriminalize the consumption of cannabis for “ludic or recreational purposes,” as well as eliminate the need for citizens to seek an authorization from the COFEPRIS. Notably, personal consumption of cannabis—whether for medical or recreational purposes—would be exempt from maximum dose restrictions. The marketing, export, and import of cannabis products that have broad industrial uses and contain less than or equal to 1% of THC would also be permitted. The bill also calls upon Mexico’s Ministry of Health to design and execute public policies that regulate the medical and “recreational” use of cannabis sativa, as well as domestic production.

Back in September 2018, just before the Supreme Court issued its decisive fifth ruling, the Citizens’ Movement also introduced another measure, which calls for amnesty for those who have been sentenced for cannabis consumption or possession. In its explanatory statement, the measure points to previous Supreme Court decisions, which granted plaintiffs permission to consume cannabis “in a recreational, regular, and personal manner,” as well as to cultivate, harvest, prepare, possess, and transport the material, so long as it is not for commercial purposes.

As the measure underscores, the Supreme Court decisions solely apply to plaintiffs who managed to secure an injunction against the COFEPRIS. This, says the measure, has generated duplicity in the legal system, because the law is applied differently to those who lack the resources to obtain an injunction. Such a policy, the bill goes on to say, undermines principles of equality before the law, a situation that is “aggravated when we consider that there are thousands of Mexicans incarcerated in prisons for possessing or consuming marijuana and at the same time the Court has declared that the norms that prohibit their consumption are unconstitutional.” It also notes that, “according to official data published by the federal government in response to a request for transparency,” 43.7% of prisoners did not have a lawyer present when making a statement before the Public Ministry and 39% did not have a lawyer explain the results of the proceedings.

If implemented, the amnesty bill would apply to all persons against whom authorities have brought or could bring criminal proceedings for the personal consumption or possession of cannabis. Judicial and administrative authorities would also be obligated to revoke pending arrest warrants and release accused or sentenced persons.

In November 2018, the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), which ruled the country without interruption for more than seventy years, until 2000, also put forth a measure, calling for adjustments to the country’s General Health Law, Federal Penal Code, and the Federal Law Against Organized Crime.

Like the measures put forth by the Citizens’ Movement party, this bill acknowledges the Supreme Court rulings declaring cannabis prohibition unconstitutional and calls for the decriminalization of consumption for “ludic and recreational purposes.” Likewise, if implemented, obtaining a permit to consume from the COFEPRIS would no longer be required.

Still, the PRI’s bill differs from the Citizens’ Movement measures in important ways.

Currently, the country’s General Health Law indicates that no criminal action will be taken against a person in possession of up to five grams of cannabis for personal consumption. Under the PRI’s bill, the limit would increase to twenty-eight grams. This is markedly different from the proposal introduced by the Citizens’ Movement, which calls for personal cannabis to be exempt from any quantity restrictions. The PRI also makes no mention of people who have been imprisoned in relation to cannabis use or simple possession, though it does stipulate that the “ludic and recreational use” and personal consumption of cannabis will not be subject to criminal prosecution.

The PRI bill also explicitly references the procurement of cannabis seeds and stipulates that the possession of seeds, in addition to the acts of sowing, cultivating, and harvesting, will not be subject to punishment—so long as these activities are carried out for non-commercial purposes. This is significant because, to date, only a handful of people have permission to obtain seeds in Mexico. One of them is policy expert and activist Zara Snapp, who, along with two others, sued the federal government to obtain this permission. And though the Supreme Court ruled in their favor, current policy forced Snapp to import seeds from a seed bank in Holland, a process that involved several months of waiting.

This recommendation runs counter to another distinguishing feature of the PRI bill, which repeatedly makes it clear that commercial sales and any type of cannabis distribution will not be permitted. So, while people would be able to possess small amounts, it would still be unlawful to buy and sell it. On the international front, the measure states that it will be permissible to export and import cannabis products that contain 1% or less of THC. It also stipulates that all cannabis-related activities in Mexico will remain subject to international treaties and conventions.

The most prominent and comprehensive bill under consideration was introduced by Mexico’s Interior Minister, Olga Sánchez Cordero while serving as a senator representing the National Regeneration Movement (MORENA) party, which has a majority in both houses of Congress.

This measure begins by citing the Geneva Academy’s 2017 War Report, which categorizes Mexico’s fight against organized crime as a “non-international armed conflict” akin to the situation in Afghanistan, Iraq, South Sudan, and Syria. This, the bill goes on to say, is because, since 2006, violence tied to organized crime in Mexico has been marked by “violent battles between heavily armed, and increasingly fragmented, criminal groups fighting for control of lucrative business opportunities,” as well as “violent clashes between criminal groups and the state armed forces.” The bill then goes on to say that the increased violence—which implicates both criminal groups and federal authorities —is “one of the most important problems in the country.”

“We don’t want anymore dead,” said Sánchez Cordero when she introduced the measure to Congress in November 2018, “be they police officers, servicemen, drug traffickers. We don’t want any more collateral victims, we don’t want any more families in mourning.”

The “War against narcotrafficking,” the MORENA bill says, “has generated two consequences that point to its failure,” namely “increased violence in every corner of the country,” along with “the criminalization of vulnerable sectors of society,” all rooted in the “false presumption that the drug problem must be addressed through a criminal approach.”

We don’t want anymore dead, be they police officers, servicemen, drug traffickers. We don’t want any more collateral victims, we don’t want any more families in mourning.

Olga Sánchez Cordero, Mexico’s Interior Minister

Though this bill, like all others being considered, solely focuses on cannabis policy reform, the MORENA measure takes issue with prohibition in general, arguing that it has failed to bring about its purported purpose, as there has been “a considerable increase in domestic consumption of cannabis and other drugs.” Moving forward, says the bill, Mexico must approach the issue differently, “precisely because the objective cannot be to eradicate the use of a substance with such prevalence as cannabis.”

In line with the Mexican Supreme Court’s rulings (in which Sánchez Cordero participated as a judge), MORENA’s draft decree places a premium on the Constitutional right to self-determination and consumer health. It includes a long list of “ailments that have been effectively treated with cannabis,” including cancer, glaucoma, epilepsy, and Tourette’s syndrome. Mexicans, the bill underscores, have a right to health. Therefore, the government must work to guarantee that patients with “difficult-to-treat diseases” can access medications “with characteristics that substantially improve their quality of life.” In doing so, the government will also “prevent and reduce the incidence of poisoning” through unregulated cannabis self-medication.

Under the proposed regulation, all adults would be allowed to have up to thirty grams of cannabis on their person (a slightly higher limit than that proposed in the PRI bill). However, if a  person wishes to carry more, permission must be requested from a newly created Mexican Institute for the Regulation and Control of Cannabis, which would be established to monitor, regulate, sanction, and evaluate the legalization of the plant. Adult citizens would  also have permission to grow up to twenty plants for personal use or participate in “production co-ops,” which can have from two to 150 members, and will be allowed to grow up to 480 grams of cannabis annually, per member. As in Canada, edibles would not be permitted in Mexico. Hemp is also included in the MORENA bill, though it is loosely defined as “non psychoactive cannabis” with a “low THC content.”

Additionally, advertising adult use cannabis products, even for medical use, would be prohibited in every means of mass communication. The MORENA bill also takes on packaging, which, under its framework, would  have to be: childproof; establish levels of THC and CBD; and include legends that describe possible health risks, which must be “large, clear, visible, and legible” and occupy 30% of its surface.

The export and import of cannabis and its derivatives would also be permitted, under the jurisdiction of the Institute. While all packages and containers for domestic sales will be labeled “Authorized for sale only in Mexico,” the packaging of products for export and import must adhere to guidelines established in the receiving country.

In addition to having the government regulate and monitor the entire supply chain, the MORENA bill addresses public health and safety concerns. One feature of the measure that ran into a lot of pushback is that it would allow smoking cannabis in public places, except for smoke-free zones, just like with tobacco. The bill would also prohibit driving any vehicle and operating heavy machinery under the effects of THC. A person who violates this rule would be subject to a twelve- to thirty-six-hour arrest. The method of THC detection, the measure goes on to say, “should be based on scientific evidence.” Still, it remains unclear how authorities would make this determination.

The sale of cannabis to minors, as in other countries that have legalized the plant, would be strictly prohibited. Notably, the MORENA bill also forbids the employment of minors in the industry. And, though not in the bill itself, the party’s leadership has expressed support for the initiative that seeks to release those  incarcerated for consumption or simple possession.

The greatest challenge in crafting this regulatory model, reads the text of MORENA’s bill, “is to balance the public health approach with the interest of commerce,” noting that “the former seeks to minimize risks and damages related to cannabis use, while the latter seeks to promote its use to obtain greater profits.” As such, the party argues that the model it has proposed is a “midpoint between absolute prohibition and the free market.”

When introducing the bill, Interior Minister Sánchez Cordero welcomed criticism and suggestions. “Let it be discussed, let it be opened up,” she said.

Business interests have already lined up for changes in the country’s cannabis policy. One multinational company that has already made inroads in Mexico is Khiron Life Sciences Corp, which has roots in Canada. In recent months, the company has been scooping up opportunities, not only in Mexico, but throughout Latin America, including Chile, Colombia, Peru, and Uruguay. Its board of directors includes former Mexican President Vicente Fox, who has taken to hosting international cannabis summits. In a reception hosted by Khironin Toronto last March, Fox also added that he plans to construct a greenhouse within the compounds of his Presidential Library, where he will grow cannabis for research tied to the company. More recently, Khiron appointed Larry Holifield, former DEA regional director in Mexico and Central America, as director of the company’s security and compliance in Mexico—despite the agency’s imperfect and, at times, deadly record in the country.

Meanwhile, the War on Drugs continues in Mexico. In the absence of federal cannabis regulations, and with the assistance of the US Customs and Border Patrol (which provided training and equipment), Mexican officials recently located an illegal  cannabis grow site close to the San Diego area. Measuring approximately thirteen square miles, the site contained more than 42,000 plants, with an estimated street value of $276,900,000.

As the Border Patrol proudly reported, all of the plants were destroyed on site.

Mexico’s Disastrous Drug War and the Plan to End It

June 27, 2019 Ryan Mallett-Outtrim Americas
Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador at a rally in 2012 in Tlatelolco, Mexico. Photo by Eneas De Troya / Wikipedia CC 2.0

The footage was shaky, but the screams could easily be heard. Thumping, cries for help and wails of pain left Facebook users who viewed the video baffled and unnerved. The clip was posted by Facebook user identified as Leticia, who claimed to have been placed in the care of a private addiction clinic in the Mexican city of Leon. Leticia alleged the footage was evidence her and other patients were being mistreated by their caretakers, including suffering beatings, along with both food and clothing deprivation. The footage went viral in February, but no longer appears available on social media. Speaking to a local newspaper, the manager of the clinic denied the claims, and said Leticia’s own family blocked her Facebook account “because they know it’s a lie and we don’t mistreat [patients].”

According to the manager, Leticia had spent six months in drug rehabilitation, and had made progress but became upset when her family requested she remain in the clinic’s care for an additional three months. She then convinced her fellow patients to help her stage the video in an effort to discredit the clinic. The case has not been investigated by authorities, according to newspaper El Sol de Leon.

Social media users who viewed the video were divided: was this a drug addict resorting to extreme ends to escape treatment, or a credible allegation of human rights abuses?

Part of the problem is that in Mexico, the disparate drug rehabilitation industry is increasingly being perceived as yet another source of human rights abuses linked to the country’s drug war.

Often referred to in Mexico as “anexos”, these clinics can range from professional facilities that provide comfortable care to help users with dependency and addiction problems recover, to fly-by-night operations where abuses are rife. In 2016, Vice News reporter Nathaniel Janowitz gained access to one such clinic, where he allegedly found a “room crammed with 80 addicts.”

“It’s been three months since I saw my family, since I went down the stairs,” one of the dozens of patients told Vice. “If they knew I was telling you these things, [they] would hit me.”

Prayer, Violence and Spiritual Patrols

While conditions vary from clinic to clinic, the real problem is a lack of government oversight, according to a report by the Open Society Foundations (OSF). The report indicated that Mexican authorities struggle to inspect even 10 percent of clinics, despite independent estimates that suggest over 75 percent of all private rehabilitation facilities are operating outside the law. Instead of using medically-proven addiction treatment practices, the report found many clinics rely on “chaining, public humiliation, abduction and prayer” to rehabilitate drug users.

Even the patients – or residents, as they are often called – are allegedly forced into perpetrating human rights abuses on behalf of their caretakers. “In Mexico, residents of some centers are tasked with going out to collect new recruits. These recruitment gangs are nicknamed ‘spiritual patrols’,” OSF reported.

“Roundups are often done violently and against the will of the person they are bringing in,” and can allegedly include suspected addicts being dragged from the street, hog-tied and forcibly carried to a clinic for treatment. Meanwhile, even users who desire treatment have few options available to them.

“Only three percent of the treatment centers that are currently available are run by the government, and there is a huge gap between private treatment centers for people with resources versus those who don’t, and who go to places called ‘anexos’ and which have been accused of numerous human rights violations,” said  Zara Snapp, co-founder of Instituto RIA, a social justice research group based in Mexico.

Speaking to Toward Freedom, Snapp argued that Mexico needs to “expand access” to credible, professional addiction treatment for “people who use drugs who identify that they have …  problematic use.” However, she pointed out there’s an even broader problem at hand: the entire debate surrounding drug policy in Mexico is mired in a false dichotomy that a drug user is “either sick or a criminal.”

This dichotomy of either incarcerating or institutionalizing users continues to underpin the government’s approach to drug policy, even under the country’s left-leaning President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (or AMLO for short). This is despite AMLO proposing a historic overhaul of Mexico’s drug laws, including rolling back decades of prohibition.

An End to the War on Drugs?

Mexico’s first nominally left-wing president in generations has conceded the country needs a new approach to drugs. AMLO’s landmark 2019-2024 National Development Plan stated the “’war on drugs’ has escalated the public health problem represented by … prohibited substances, and turned it into a public security crisis.”

“The only real possibility of reducing the levels of drug consumption reside in ending prohibition … and reorienting the resources currently destined to combat [drug trafficking] and apply them in massive, but personalized programs of detoxification and reintegration [of users into society].”

While treatment may be better than criminalization, drug policy expert Amaya Ordorika Imaz told Toward Freedom that treating drug use exclusively as a public health issue comes with its own set of problems.

“The national development plan is an interesting development that recognizes the failure of the entire internal security model to combat drugs … but replaces it with a medical logic for users,” she said.

“In reality … this corrective model can likewise violate human rights,” she noted, pointing to the example of the anexos and their alleged “practices of torture and mistreatment of those who enter.”

Ordorika has seen the risks posed by both the security state and pseudo-medical clinics in her work with ReverdeSer, a youth collective that advocates for policy reform and works to tackle human rights abuses linked to the drug war, such as forced disappearances. In particular, Ordorika warned that members of Mexico’s LGBTIQ community are most at risk of abuse in the private, often openly religious anexos.

However, she argued there’s a “middle point” between the two extremes of treating drugs as either a threat to national security or public health problem.

Her organization has called for a legislative framework that not only decriminalizes users, but “allows the traditional, medicinal and recreational uses of substances that are now illegal and based on a perspective of youth, gender and human rights.”

Principle not Policy?

For now, AMLO’s drug policy remains somewhat vague. While the National Development Plan conceded in principle that prohibition had failed, it didn’t set a clear road-map for exactly how the government plans to reform drug policy.

As Snapp explained, “It is important to note that the national development plan is a broad document which outlines the plans for the government but which does not specify actions.”

“We welcome the statement recognizing that prohibition is unsustainable and there needs to be a change in paradigm, but we also do not support the pathologizing of people who use drugs.”

Along with these big picture concerns, there’s also the question of details: marijuana legalization may have widespread support, but hard drugs such as heroin and methamphetamines remain difficult issues to grapple with. Demands are growing in some parts of Mexico for the legalization of poppy production, though these too have been met with concerns over how such a market could be regulated. Then there’s the broader question of supply, and whether the growing, manufacturing and distribution of narcotics could ever be not only legalized, but effectively regulated. If the Mexican government can’t provide adequate public oversight of rehabilitation clinics, how could it possibly hope to responsibly regulate meth labs?

It’s difficult questions like these that have led experts like drug market investigator Carlos Zamudio to throw up their hands in exasperation and say, “They really have no idea.”

“It seems to me that [AMLO] said this without really having much knowledge of the situation and how to regulate these things,” Zamudio recently stated.

Is Dope a Done Deal?

Zamudio concluded that despite the lofty talk of a total end to prohibition, in reality AMLO will likely settle on the decriminalization of marijuana use, and little more. Indeed, experts who spoke to Toward Freedom indicated that if nothing else, there are at least high hopes that marijuana use will become legal across Mexico under AMLO.

“We have been closely working with the Senate as they debate the bill regarding the regulation of cannabis for all uses, including adult use,” Snapp said, explaining that human rights are a priority for any legalization on the issue. “There is a hope that by implementing a law that put social justice at the center, that we can avoid some of the errors made in other jurisdictions.”

One of the central concerns is production, and ensuring an emergent legal cannabis market isn’t immediately monopolized by corporate interests. “The goal is to have many small producers, rather than have three companies that control the market,” she said.

The most prominent advocate of such a proposal is Interior Minister Olga Sanchez Cordero, who has stated that even without broader reform, legalizing marijuana would be a “major contribution to bringing peace to our beloved country.”

“She is proposing three general forms of access,” Ordorika explained.

“The first is … cultivation for personal use. The second is associations for personal cultivation – that is, where people can grow [cannabis] for personal use, but in a collective manner; and the third is commercialization [for both recreational and medicinal use].”

Like AMLO’s broader efforts at drug reform, this proposal is likewise still up in the air, with lawmakers in Mexico City reportedly using the summer congressional recess to hammer out a bill that would regulate marijuana. There’s some speculation a concrete proposal could be made public sometime in September, after the recess ends on August 31, but before a Supreme Court mandated deadline in October. Mexico’s Supreme Court has ruled on five separate occasions that banning cannabis use is unconstitutional, and demanded reform.

Along with pressure from the Supreme Court, lawmakers are also facing a surge in public support for marijuana reform. When the Secretariat of Public Security conducted an informal poll on social media asking Mexicans if they would support legalization of recreational marijuana use, 80 percent of the more than 80,000 respondents said they would approve.

“Alcohol and tobacco are much more dangerous,” one respondent tweeted to the Secretariat. “It’s urgent that [we] liberate the 60,000 Mexicans imprisoned for possession of small amounts of marijuana, these are our taxes being thrown in the trash and it’s hell for their families,” another tweeted.

The Cost of the Drug War

Even while much of the Mexican public supports legal marijuana, the country’s overcrowded prison system is buckling under the weight of prisoners facing years behind bars for possessing a few dollars’ worth of pot or other illicit substances.

Well over half of Mexico’s prison population were arrested for drug related offenses, including an estimated 80 percent of female inmates, according to the Mexico City based Center for Economic Research and Education (CIDE). These women are almost entirely “young, poor, illiterate or with only basic education, and are nearly always single mothers,” according to the policy research group Transnational Institute (TNI).

“Many of these women get into dealing or transporting small quantities of drugs in order to support their children, and for the most part, this does not get them out of poverty,” the TNI researcher Ana Paula Hernandez stated.

As for the rest, CIDE reported earlier this year that over 40 percent of federal inmates convicted for drug crimes were caught with small quantities of illicit substances worth less than MX$500 (US$26). This is despite the fact that possession of less than 5 grams of marijuana was decriminalized more than a decade ago.

“This data shows that in Mexico, it’s consumers being criminalized, and they are the [primary] target of the law enforcement system,” the CIDE concluded.

According to OSF, the penalties for drug possession in Mexico “tend to be harsher than those for rape, possession of weapons reserved for the army, or violent robbery.”

“The maximum prison sentence established for rape among adults is 11 years shorter than the maximum sentence established for drug offenses,” they noted.

An estimated seven million Mexicans admit to regularly smoking marijuana, representing around five percent of the population. If caught, these mostly recreational users don’t only face lengthy prison terms, but can also suffer human rights abuses at the hands of law enforcement and denial of due process during legal proceedings.

A 2013 CIDE report found more than half of those arrested for drug offenses said they were beaten by authorities during their incarceration, 44 percent alleged they didn’t have a lawyer present during police questioning, and 39 percent said that after their trial their lawyers failed to explain what their convictions actually meant.

The Drug War

On top of these abuses, the drug war itself has devastated much of Mexico for a generation, even though at least some of its supporters seemingly knew it was lost nearly a decade ago. Since the federal government militarized its counter-narcotics efforts in 2006, more than 200,000 people have been killed on the ever-shifting frontlines of Mexico’s drug war. After over a decade of fighting, the results of the conflict have been a collapse of the once monolithic, monopoly-like cartels into smaller, less stable and more violent organizations that are constantly splintering and jostling for territory.

“These organizations today are less stable, their structures don’t really give any incentive to members for long-term participation,” the University of California’s  Cecilia Farfan-Mendez has explained.

In part, this has been attributed to a US-endorsed policy of targeting kingpins, while failing to prepare adequately for the burst of violence that ensues as once-subordinate lieutenants turn on each other in turf wars.

If anything, this new generation of more disparate drug networks has proven more violent, erratic and uncontrollable than their more stable antecedents, prompting even senior military officials to admit they’re exhausted by the endless fighting.

“There’s a wear-and-tear, it’s obvious,” then defense secretary General Salvador Cienfuegos Zepeda said in 2016. “We are working all over the country, at every hour, at every moment, in the mountains, in the cities.”

Despite the Mexican military’s efforts, as far back as 2010, US officials in Mexico City were privately admitting the Washington-sponsored, militarized drug war was a disaster.

“The military was not trained to patrol the streets or carry out law enforcement operations,” read a classified 2010 US embassy cable published by WikiLeaks. In the cable, US diplomatic officials secretly conceded that using soldiers to fight drug crime made little sense. “[The military] does not have the authority to collect and introduce evidence into the judicial system. The result: arrests skyrocketed, prosecutions remained flat, and both the military and public have become increasingly frustrated.”

Despite these private misgivings about using the Mexican army to fight crime, at the same time the Obama administration was doubling down on Plan Merida. Controversial on both sides of the Rio Grande, under Plan Merida the US sponsors the militarization of Mexican counter-narcotics operations by providing state security forces – largely the army – with training, military equipment and other support. Under the prior Bush administration, Plan Merida began as a temporary, three year program to shore up Mexico’s security; under Obama, it was extended indefinitely, and dramatically expanded.

Aid Instead of Machine Guns?

Fast forward to the present day, and the US remains a staunch supporter of the militarized Mexican drug war. So far, since 2008 successive administrations in Washington have plowed US$3 billion into Plan Merida. In the 2019 financial year, the Trump administration committed $145 million to Plan Merida, and has already requested US$76 million for 2020.

While previous Mexican presidents accepted US military support, AMLO has called for Plan Merida funds to be diverted away from the war effort and instead be invested in economic development.

“We don’t want the Merida plan, we don’t want helicopters mounted with machine guns. We want cooperation for development,” AMLO said earlier this year.

At the time, a US Department of State spokesperson responded by stating, “We look forward to continued dialogue with Mexico on these issues.”

The lukewarm response prompted speculation the Trump administration could strong-arm Mexico into continuing to accept military aid it doesn’t want, in order to fight a war that Mexican society has long tired of – not to mention how Washington could react to drug reform.

Speaking to Toward Freedom, Snapp was cautious to draw hard-and-fast conclusions, but noted, “The relationship is increasingly changing now that Mexico has said they will be renegotiating the Merida Initiative.”

“This is important because it also shows AMLO’s rejection of international aid that has not shown results,” she said.

However, she pointed out that, “From what we have heard, the US has said they will not interfere with the regulation of cannabis in Mexico but that they are concerned with the discussion around the regulating poppy cultivation.”

Ordorika agreed it would make little sense for the US to interfere in the legalization of marijuana in Mexico, but nonetheless expressed concern over how the White House would take a rebuke of Plan Merida as it exists today.

“The United States is a little … volatile,” she said, commenting that it’s “very difficult to think about” how the Trump administration would handle a demilitarizing of Mexican drug policy, let alone the more ambitious proposals for an end to prohibition. She argued, though, that the time has come for Mexico to stop fighting a war that has little support outside Washington.

“Over half the states in the [US] have some form of legal marijuana, so the majority of Americans already have some form of access to legal cannabis,” she noted. “So right now we have a situation that’s extremely hypocritical, where Mexico is expected to continue fighting a war that has already cost us so much.”

Ryan Mallett-Outtrim is an independent journalist based out of Mexico. More of his work can be found at dissentsansfrontieres.com.

La Cofepris empantana mariguana recreativa-

Ha desechado o dejado en blanco la mayoría de los recursos para consumo lúdico y por tanto no hay motivos para solicitar un amparo, aseveran solicitantes

04/11/2016 05:46  CLAUDIA SOLERA 

4 / 4
4 de 4 

CIUDAD DE MÉXICO.

La Comisión Federal para la Protección de Riesgos Sanitarios (Cofepris) violó la Ley Federal de Procedimiento Administrativo, evitando que más personas se ampararan  para usar de manera recreativa la mariguana, de acuerdo con Sergio Leyva, presidente del movimiento juvenil del PRD y con el abogado Andrés Aguinaco.

Esta institución incumplió sus funciones al no responder la solicitud de Sergio
Leyva  para la autorización del consumo de mariguana y a Andrés Aguinaco, a quien le regresó la respuesta fuera de tiempo.

La Cofepris desechó o dejó de responder las casi 300 solicitudes que ha recibido en un año para impedir que se volviera a aplicar la estrategia de los cuatro integrantes de la Sociedad Mexicana de Autoconsumo Responsable y Tolerante (Smart), quienes argumentaron la violación  de sus derechos humanos por coartar su libertad.

Las solicitudes que desechó, como por ejemplo las diez que Andrés Aguinaco ingresó, esta vez no las respondió con los artículos prohibicionistas de la Ley General de Salud 235,  237, 245, 247 y 248, como lo hiciera en el caso SMART.

Ni siquiera Andrés Aguinaco, uno de los creadores de la estrategia SMART, logró obtener otro amparo para el uso lúdico y recreativo de la mariguana.

“Cuando metí las solicitudes de consumo de mariguana de la SMART hace tres años, Cofepris me respondió y me negó el permiso en menos de tres meses, porque en esa época no estaba prevenida de que venía un litigio estratégico en su contra. Contestó lo que tenían que contestar, que no estaba autorizado, que no nos podía dar esa licencia, porque la Ley General de Salud prohíbe todos los usos del cannabis”, aseguró Aguinaco.

Con este antecedente, la Cofepris actuó para que su respuesta no se convirtiera en la base de una oleada de amparos en la Corte y prefirió dejar sin una contestación a 47 de las 52 solicitudes que envió el movimiento juvenil del PRD, violando el artículo 17 de la Ley Federal de Procedimiento Administrativo, donde se estipula que cualquier dependencia u organismo descentralizado no podrá exceder de tres meses la resolución de cualquier petición ciudadana y en caso de hacerlo, el funcionario involucrado será destituido o inhabilitado.

“Cofepris trató de asegurar, mediante esta respuesta, que como las solicitudes de consumo personal que ingresamos no se autorizaron ni se negaron o las dejó en blanco, entonces no pudiéramos impugnar los artículos de la política prohibicionista ni llegar a la Corte”, explicó Aguinaco.

Violaciones

Ante esta falta por parte de Cofepris, Sergio Leyva, secretario nacional del movimiento juvenil del PRD, demandará a la institución por violar sus derechos de petición.

“Estamos convocando a todos los solicitantes del PRD que se reúnan el próximo 7 de noviembre en las instalaciones de la Cofepris para clausurar el edificio simbólicamente e interponer una denuncia ante el Órgano Interno de Control por esta omisión y para exigir la renuncia de los funcionarios involucrados”, aseguró Abraham Rojas Martínez, secretario técnico de las juventudes de izquierda del PRD.

Entre las 47 solicitudes del PRD que se quedaron sin respuesta estaban precisamente las de Sergio Leyva y las de Abraham Rojas, quienes las llevaron personalmente a las instalaciones de la Cofepris hace casi un año y se las entregaron en sus manos al entonces coordinador de asesores, Patricio Enrique Caso.

Excélsior preguntó a la Cofepris cuál era el motivo para haber dejado la solicitudes sin respuesta y culpó a los ciudadanos de haber ingresado documentos con información incompleta o haber abandonado o haber dejado de lado su propio trámite.

“Nosotros jamás pudimos haber abandonado el trámite, porque para abandonarlo hubiera sido necesario que respondieran algo y nosotros no seguir esa contestación, pero jamás volvimos a tener noticias de la Cofepris. También es una mentira que las solicitudes llegaran incompletas si las elaboramos casi idénticas a las del caso SMART y hasta integramos un punto qué ellos no habían tocado, el permiso para importar las semillas de mariguana”, aclaró Abraham Rojas del PRD.

En el caso de las diez solicitudes que Andrés Aguinaco ingresó, la Cofepris también excedió el plazo de tres meses para resolverlas, sólo que en lugar de negarle la autorización de uso de cannabis como lo hiciera en 2013 con las cuatro de los integrantes de la SMART, esta vez las desechó y no negó la autorización para cerrar el paso a cualquier tipo de amparo.

“La Cofepris no contestó en tiempo y tampoco tuvo ningún recato en violar la ley. Para nosotros es evidente que quiere empantanar y obstruir todos los juicios de amparo de uso personal, porque según ellos no tienen la facultad para negar los permisos de consumo de mariguana, prácticamente están diciendo que le pedimos a la autoridad equivocada. Es como si hubiéramos llegado a solicitar una licencia de matrimonio”, argumentó Aguinaco.

Además, en el informe justificado que envió a Andrés, junto con las solicitudes que desechó, la Cofepris, representada en ese documento por Itzel Karym Vargas Robledo, se equivocó en una cifra al argumentar que  7% del total de causas de fallecimientos de las personas en México “eran atribuibles al consumo de dicha droga (la mariguana)”, dato imposible, pues ni la ingesta elevada de alcohol, que es una droga legal y la más consumida del mundo, ha alcanzado ese porcentaje de muertes a nivel internacional, de acuerdo con la Organización Mundial de la Salud, OMS, que es de 5.9 por ciento.

Los rostros

Desde un inicio, Andrés Aguinaco y sus otros dos compañeros de clase del ITAM, con los que ideó esta estrategia legal sobre el consumo lúdico de la mariguana, sabían que conseguir el amparo para los integrantes  de la SMART era insuficiente para modificar la política prohibicionista de drogas desde el Poder Judicial; al menos necesitaban otros cuatro casos más para obligar a los jueces del país a otorgar más permisos en esa misma dirección.

“Inmediatamente después del 4 de noviembre, nos dimos cuenta que necesitábamos llegar a más de cinco casos para la jurisprudencia. Entonces, nosotros teníamos que replicar la estrategia cuatro veces más para que esto fuera vinculante. Y pensábamos que si lográbamos las cinco íbamos a obligar al Congreso de la Unión a legislar en esa materia”, comentó .

Por eso, ni siquiera habían transcurrido dos semanas de que los ministros de la Corte votaran a favor del consumo lúdico de mariguana para los integrantes de la SMART, cuando Andrés ya estaba trabajando en replicar su hazaña con otros diez quejosos y tratando de anticiparse a los aficionados que quisieran seguir su ejemplo.

“Nosotros queríamos ser de los primeros en llegar, para asegurarnos que así hubiera cierto control de calidad en los juicios, porque no sabíamos si otros solicitantes iban a llegar solos o a ser representados por alguien. Para que te des una idea, la Corte resolvió el 4 de noviembre y todas las solicitudes de nuestro grupo fueron presentadas ante la Cofepris entre el 11 y 13 de noviembre”, comentó.

Andrés buscó de inmediato a diez mexicanos con un currículum ejemplar y que aceptaran ser parte de esta estrategia legal.

Algunas de las personalidades que pertenecen a este grupo son: Josefina Santacruz, catalogada por Larousse como una de las 20 mejores chefs del país; la neurobióloga Herminia Pasantes, de 79 años, ganadora del Premio UNAM en Investigación en Ciencias Naturales; los consejeros de México Unido Contra la Delincuencia Francisco Javier Mancera, de la Universidad de Georgetown, y Fernando Ramos, así como Cecilia Autrique, doctora en historia por la UNAM; Aram Barra, maestro en política y administración pública por New York University y University College London y Zara Snapp, Oficial de Política y Comunicación de la Comisión Global sobre Políticas de Drogas y maestra en Políticas Públicas por Harvard.

“A los quejosos que representamos nos aseguramos que aceptaran ya sea, porque estaban interesados en el uso de la planta, o bien, porque estaban interesados en cambiar la política Nacional de Drogas”, afirmó Aguinaco.

Aram Barra y Zara Snapp, por ejemplo, son unos luchadores incansables a nivel nacional e internacional en contra de la política de drogas prohibicionista que va encaminada hacia la guerra, pero también son abiertamente consumidores de mariguana.

“La idea es seguir presionando bajo la misma línea y que se abra el debate de la despenalización de la mariguana”, aseguró Aram.

Zara Snapp ha trabajado a lado de personalidades como el expresidente colombiano César Gaviria, quien pasara a la historia por la captura del narco Pablo Escobar, intentando cambiar la política prohibicionista de drogas.

Esta autora del Diccionario de Drogas, de Ediciones B, aseguró que el uso de la mariguana no era algo que la definiera. Simplemente aceptó que fuma mariguana, porque el consumo de cannabis era algo que le funcionaba mejor que el alcohol en espacios sociales.

“Yo no me siento tan juzgada por mi consumo de mariguana, porque trabajo con estos temas, como consultora de política de drogas, y sinceramente mi mamá ya sabe, entonces quién más me podría juzgar, mi familia está muy orgullosa del trabajo que puedo hacer y de mi maestría en Harvard. De cierta forma, ya he legalizado mi consumo dentro de mi comunidad y dentro de mi familia y eso es un paso importante, porque para mí eso funciona”, concluyó Zara Snapp.

Así que ella, jamás imaginó la Cofepris iba a ser tan dura, al desechar su solicitud para consumir mariguana.

“Estamos un poco decepcionados, porque no están haciendo un trabajo de burócratas, como lo deberían de hacer. Lo que sí han hecho, es que dejaron pasar un solo caso, que es del abogado del exgobernador de Humberto Moreira, Ulrich Richter. Eso nos dice que tal vez el gobierno está intentando jugar de una manera sucia, porque nuestras solicitudes las está desechando, pero dejando pasar una a la Corte, al negársela, pero de alguien cercano al PRI”, reprochó

Regulando Amapola en México

Durante las últimas dos semanas, el debate sobre la regulación de amapola se ha ido calentando.  Sin duda, hay una necesidad de abordar el tema como manera de enfrentar la violencia en Guerrero, integrar campesinos en la economía formal y asegurar acceso a medicinas derivadas de amapola para cualquier mexicano que lo necesita.
Opiniones encontradas con José Buendía: 

Publimetro: Regulación de amapola complementa iniciativa sobre cannabis

Alrededor de 19 países en el mundo producen opio legal

Los medicamentos con estricto de cannabis estarán regulados a controles sanitarios

Los medicamentos con estricto de cannabis estarán regulados a controles sanitarios

cuartoscuro/archivo

La regulación de la amapola es algo que complementa las iniciativas sobre cannabis. Sin embargo, se trata de propuestas muy distintas, señaló Zara Snapp, representante de la Comisión Global de Política de Drogas en México.

La Comisión Nacional contra las Adicciones (Conadic) anunció que comenzará a analizar todos los aspectos relacionados con la siembra de amapola en México, esto ante la petición del gobierno de Guerrero de legalizar la siembra de esta planta.

Al respecto, Snapp señaló que actualmente 19 países alrededor del mundo tienen una producción de opio legal para uso medicinal, por lo cual si el gobierno mexicano quiere ser parte de esos países deberá tener el consentimiento de la Junta Internacional de Fiscalización de Estupefacientes (JIFE) de la ONU.

“Sabemos que existe la posibilidad de un mercado legal para el uso medicinal de la morfina y los opiáceos. Más del 75% de la población mundial tiene escaso o nulo acceso a este tipo de medicamento y cuando pensamos en personas que tienen cáncer o VIH en etapa terminal y mujeres en labor de parto, los opiáceos son lo más eficaz que un doctor puede prescribir”, señaló Snapp.

De acuerdo con la ONU, 92% de la oferta mundial de morfina es consumida por 17% de la población mundial. De tal forma que se explica una concentración en el norte mundial de consumo de estos opiáceos para consumo médico. Gente alrededor del mundo vive en un país donde no hay suficiente abastecimiento de estos medicamentos, detalló la especialista en política de drogas.

El 21 de abril, el presidente Enrique Peña Nieto, envió al Senado una iniciativa de reforma para regular el uso de la marihuana para fines medicinales, así como aumentar la posesión de 5 a 28 gramos para uso personal.

El mandatario firmó y envío al Congreso una iniciativa de reforma a la Ley General de Salud y el párrafo tercero del Código Penal Federal que de aprobarse se autorizaría el uso de medicamentos elaborados a base de marihuana y/o sus ingredientes activos. Además, otorgar registros de medicamentos que contengan marihuana y/o THC en el país, así como su importación.

Como todos los medicamentos, los elaborados con extractos de cannabis, también estarían sujetos a estrictos controles sanitarios, debiendo demostrar la calidad, seguridad y eficacia de sus cualidades terapéuticas.

También prevé autorizar la investigación clínica con fines de registro, para productos que contengan marihuana y sus ingredientes activos.

Passing through Checkpoints

1 Reply

As activists, we talk about the war on drugs on a daily basis. But you don’t really feel like you are in a state of war until you see the military on the streets, until you have to pass through a checkpoint. One of the scariest parts of these checkpoints is that you are never completely sure who is in charge. This insecurity permeates all parts of life and makes you dislike the military, or the state police, or whoever is forcing you to go through the checkpoint. This does not bode well for confidence in government institutions.

In Veracruz, where I’m from, my friends and family go through checkpoints on a daily basis. They have become accustomed to them. I visit on a monthly basis and I still get nervous going through them—even when I have no reason to feel this way. And the checkpoints have been changing as the political environment has changed.

Under the administration of former president Calderon, checkpoints were heavily guarded, you never knew where they were going to turn up. Rifles were aimed at you as you passed through, faces were covered. We were in a state of war.

As that government left and the new administration, led by Peña-Nieto has taken over, there has been a marked difference. A few months ago, we passed through the checkpoint and no one was there. It almost felt scarier to not having anyone guarding the post. It made you wonder where they were, if they were chasing someone, or if they would jump out from the jungle.

And now, they wave you through the checkpoint using a flashlight.

It has become clear that Peña-Nieto will not be using the same war rhetoric, but at the same time, the statistics paint a story that is very similar to that of the previous government. Drug-war related deaths still remain high. Human rights violations by the government are still occurring. Citizens are arming themselves as vigilantes because there is a lack of government presence. All of this does not bode well. Although some might think that Mexico is on the road to recovery, it will take much more to get us to a place where access to justice increased and people feel safe traveling across the country. Organized crime continues to have a stranglehold on our country and it will be up to civil society organizations, along with concrete policies to begin to turn that around.