Tag Archives: regulation

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.

Regular todas las sustancias psicoactivas: una propuesta racional

Jun 22 2017, 5:17pm

En vez de seguir en una ruta de criminalización, guerra y violencia, deberíamos buscar la paz, la justicia y un reconocimiento de la realidad.

Por ZARA SNAPP and JORGE HERRERA

Este artículo forma parte de la campaña Apoye. No Castigue que busca visibilizar los abusos y las violaciones a los derechos humanos cometidos en el nombre del combate al narcotráfico, así como difundir de estrategias innovadoras basadas en salud que ayuden a la reforma en la política de drogas. Las opiniones en este artículo son a título de los autores.

El mundo sigue avanzando en la regulación de los mercados de cannabis. Lo hemos visto en Estados Unidos, que ahora tiene nueve estados con cannabis para uso adulto (o recreativo). El gobierno uruguayo ha anunciado que van a empezar a vender cannabis para uso personal en las farmacias en julio. Otros países como Colombia y Jamaica van avanzando en sus modelos de cannabis medicinal. Hasta México pasó una ley, muy débil por cierto, para poder importar y algún día producir productos farmacológicos de cannabis, aunque seguimos en espera de los criterios de la Secretaría de Salud.

Vemos que el mundo está cambiando. Vemos que la regulación puede ser una alternativa a las políticas punitivas basadas en guerra, discriminación y miedo. Sin embargo, seguimos viviendo en un mundo donde hay un escepticismo hacía la mariguana, y ni hablar de otras sustancias. “Lo mío esta bien, pero lo tuyo es malo”. “Esto es mi medicina, es una planta sagrada”. Y está bien. Que cada quien determine qué quiere hacer con su cuerpo y cómo quiere alterar su conciencia, dentro de ciertos límites como no dañar a terceros y no promover el consumo en menores de edad. Hasta la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación ha reconocido el derecho constitucional del consumo de sustancias vinculado a los derechos del libre desarrollo de la personalidad, autodeterminación y libertad individual, todos en relación con el principio de dignidad humana, así como del derecho a la disposición de la salud, con el fallo de noviembre 2015 sobre el cultivo de cannabis para consumo personal.

A veces lo que falta son propuestas más allá del cannabis. Por eso, muchos de nosotros abogamos por una regulación de todas las sustancias, entendiendo que la regulación es la propuesta más sensata, mientras que la idea de poder prohibir el consumo es algo radical que nunca se va lograr. En vez de seguir en una ruta de criminalización, guerra y violencia, buscamos la paz, la justicia y un reconocimiento de la realidad del consumo a través de la regulación.

En nuestra vida cotidiana, los gobiernos y las sociedades regulan productos que conllevan riesgos (veneno, café, alcohol), y conductas que pueden ser peligrosas (manejar coches). Aunque el Estado tiene sus debilidades (y el estado mexicano tienen más aún), es preferible que el estado regule estos riesgos, y no el crimen organizado. Después de años de investigar y estudiar el tema, estamos convencidos que una regulación responsable es la mejor manera de proteger y defender los derechos de las y los usuarios, además de reducir los ingresos del crimen organizado; liberar los recursos gubernamentales que hoy en día se gastan en la erradicación, persecución y encarcelación de personas; y reducir los posibles riesgos del consumo mientras aumentan los posibles beneficios. Por estas razones y muchas más, proponemos lo siguiente en cómo regular las sustancias hoy en día ilícitas.

Cómo regular MDMA para uso adulto o terapéutico:

MDMA o éxtasis es un estimulante que induce una sensación de euforia e intimidad con los demás, aumentando los niveles de serotonina, dopamina y noradenalina. El gobierno de EU lo ilegalizó en 1985 y es una de las sustancias más usadas en los espacios de fiesta u ocio. Según la Encuesta Global de Drogas, 18.8 por ciento de los encuestados (todos usuarios de sustancias legales o ilegales) habían consumido MDMA en el último año. En general, suele ser la sustancia sintética más popular en el mundo, sin altos niveles de toxicidad, ni dependencia o síndrome de abstinencia. Lo más peligroso de consumir MDMA tiende a ser los adulterantes que agregan a la sustancia como metanfetaminas o cafeína. En los casos de sobredosis, normalmente está vinculado a las condiciones de consumo como alta temperatura, no haber tomado suficiente agua o no tener suficiente ventilación. Bajo un modelo regulatorio, estos posibles riesgos podrían disminuir significativamente. Además, según un estudio del Reino Unido de 2009, hay poca evidencia a largo plazo de daño cerebral después de haber consumido MDMA.

Tomando esto en cuenta, sugerimos un modelo de regulación donde una farmacéutica podría producir MDMA en dosis individuales, pero donde uno puede fácilmente solo consumir la mitad. Las distintas dosis podrían estar en los rangos de 40-75 miligramos, 60-90 miligramos, 75-125 miligramos y 110-150 miligramos, dependiendo del tamaño y tolerancia de la persona. Todo en empaques que sean a pruebas de niños. La sustancia podría ser distribuida a través de farmacias, con un registro previo confidencial, después de haber tomado un curso sobre la sustancia, como se debe consumir, y prácticas para mitigar daños y aumentar los beneficios. El curso sirve como una base de conocimiento y cuando la persona lo compra en la farmacia, también le pueden dar un folleto sobre la sustancia. Además, hay mucha utilidad de esta sustancia para un uso terapéutico, especialmente para parejas o personas con condiciones terminales. Actualmente, la organización MAPS en EU está implementando estudios clínicos con el uso de MDMA en la psicoterapia para ayudar con el daño emocional del asalto, guerra, violencia, autismo y trastorno de estrés postraumático.

Como regular LSD para uso adulto y terapéutico:

El LSD forma parte de los alucinógenos y fue sintetizado por Alberto Hoffman en 1938. Fue usada durante varios años por parte de farmacéuticas como una sustancia con uso psiquiátrico hasta que finalmente fue prohibido por los EU en 1968. En México, fue la sustancia sintética más consumida en 2016, según la Encuesta Global de Drogas, con 31.9 por ciento de los encuestados consumiéndola. Igual que el MDMA, el LSD tienen muy bajos niveles de toxicidad y potencial dependencia. Hay vulnerabilidad si una persona tiene posibles problemas de salud mental, pero la sustancia en sí misma tiene bajos riesgos. Otra vez, le peligrosidad de LSD esta en los posibles adulterantes. Mucho del LSD que hoy en día se vende en el mercado es realmente NBOMe, una sustancia sintética con mayores niveles de riesgo, más barato de producir, que puede tener una dosis fatal, y que suele ser mucho más intenso. Con un mercado regulado, podrías imaginar que NBOMe dejaría de existir en el mercado porque se podría asegurar la calidad de la sustancia.

Un mercado regulado implicaría la producción de LSD en farmacéuticas, con venta en farmacias pero donde (otra vez), la o el comprador debería formar parte de un registro previo confidencial, después de haber tomado un curso sobre reducción de riesgos y daños, como aumentar el placer, la importancia de dónde y cómo se va a consumir. El precio sería fijo y sin fines de lucro. El empaque sería a prueba de niños y sin publicidad de cualquier tipo. Las dosis serían individuales con distintas categorías de microgramos (ug) de: 20-75 ug, 50-150 ug, o 150-400 ug dependiendo de la tolerancia y tamaño de la persona. El uso terapéutico también puede ser explorado ya que sabemos con evidencia que tiene un impacto positivo en personas con ansiedad, depresión o para tratamiento de alcoholismo cuando se administra con sesiones de psicoterapia.

Como regular la cocaína para uso adulto:

La cocaína es un alcaloide que actúa como un estimulante para el cerebro. Para poder elaborar la cocaína, se toman las hojas de la planta de coca (que desde hace cientos de años se usa para fines culturales, medicinales y terapéuticos), se transforma en una pasta base, y de ahí, se convierte en clorhidrato de cocaína (el nombre científico).

Mientras que generalmente la pasta base se produce en los campos de cultivo, por agricultores, el segundo proceso requiere de otros componentes químicos, por lo que su elaboración sucede en laboratorios, hoy en día clandestinos. Esto permite que se puedan incluir otro tipo de sustancias, como la cafeína o el polvo de talco, que a veces se utilizan para aumentar su potencia, pero otras veces buscan aumentar su volumen para aumentar el margen de beneficio del vendedor.

Un mercado regulado permitiría la producción de la cocaína en laboratorios farmacéuticos o instituciones de investigación (universidades) que tengan un convenio con el Estado, y por lo tanto, deben apegarse a rigurosos lineamientos de salubridad, para proteger al consumidor. El Estado estaría encargado de su venta en distribuidores especializados. En estos centros, se entregaría información con recomendaciones sobre las dosis, y la mezcla del producto con otras sustancias, permitiendo actividades de reducción de daños y asesoría profesional.

Se ha demostrado que cuando los usuarios están bien informados, entran en un esquema de autorregulación, en el que ellos mismos mantienen un uso moderado, ya que son conscientes de los posibles efectos adversos relacionados con el consumo. La Encuesta Mundial de Drogas indica que el 53% de los consumidores de cocaína en México, consumieron tan solo de 2 a 10 veces en el último año.

La regulación de la cocaína permitiría que el gobierno tuviera control y pudiera fijar los precios del producto, al tiempo que se asegura un ingreso a los agricultores que cultivan y producen la pasta base de la hoja de coca. Los centros especializados para su distribución, con actividades de reducción de daños, protegerían al consumidor a tal grado que permitirían que éste mantuviera un consumo autorregulado.

Como regular opiáceos para uso adulto y medicinal:

Los opiáceos son los alcaloides presentes en la resina de la planta de amapola. Hoy en día, según Naciones Unidas, México es el tercer productor a nivel global en amapola en el mercado ilegal. Se puede consumir opiáceos de muchas formas; algunos menos riesgosos como tomarlos en alcohol, fumar opio o en un té, y otras formas más riesgosas como una inyección de heroína. La forma de consumo tiene mucho que ver con los riesgos asociados con la sustancia.

Se podría plantear un mercado regulado para consumo adulto a través de productos derivados de amapola como té, que podría ser vendido como otros productos parecidos y a la vez, el mercado podría restringir otros productos como pastillas orales con prescripciones. Además, para los usuarios que ya han demostrado su consumo de heroína, se podría implementar un programa parecido a lo que existe en Suiza, donde hay terapia de heroína médica. Las personas que acceden al programa se registran de antemano y tienen la oportunidad de ir a un centro dos veces al día donde les suministran su dosis (la cantidad depende de su consumo), además de ofrecerles los posibles otros medicamentos que requieran. Asimismo, se implementarían programas de intercambios de jeringas, para evitar la transmisión de enfermedades por vía intravenosa. Los beneficios de estos programas han sido reconocido mundialmente, especialmente en su éxito de reducir tasas de VIH y ayudar a los usuarios a acceder a servicios de salud y sociales.

En el movimiento de reforma por una política a las drogas, el reflector ha estado postrado mayoritariamente en la necesidad de regular el mercado del cannabis. Sin embargo, vivimos en un mundo en el que la demanda de sustancias ha marcado con urgencia la obligación del Estado de proteger a los consumidores. Más allá de entrar al debate sobre el derecho a consumir, se trata de asegurar el derecho a la salud. Los gobiernos tienen la oportunidad de comenzar a configurar una política de drogas, desde una perspectiva de salud pública.

Existen alternativas eficientes, novedosas, y basadas en evidencia para la regulación de todas las drogas, que protegen a las y los usuarios, asegurando sustancias de calidad, estableciendo precios fijos y adecuadas al contexto. De esta manera, se evita el continuo enriquecimiento del crimen organizado mientras se implementan programas de reducción de riesgos y daños. Solo así, se podrá estar en control, y se podrá proteger a los ciudadanos de todos los efectos negativos del modelo prohibicionista actual, efectos que generalmente son más dañinos para la humanidad que el consumo mismo de las sustancias.

Zara Snapp es consultora en políticas de drogas y maestra en políticas públicas por la Universidad de Harvard y colaboradora en ReverdeSer Colectivo.

Jorge Herrera es director ejecutivo de Ágora México y internacionalista por el Tec de Monterrey. Colaborador en ReverdeSer Colectivo.

Como parte de la campaña Apoye. No Castigue, el domingo 25 de junio, en el Cine Tonalá, se llevará a cabo un foro sobre reducción de Riesgos y Daños de Espectro Completo para hacer un llamado a reformar la política de drogas. Conoce toda la información acá.

Temen políticos analizar legalización: Snapp

Los políticos en México no están listos para proponer y analizar una posible legalización de las drogas, pues tienen miedo, expresó Zara Snapp, politóloga de la Universidad de Colorado con una maestría en Políticas Públicas de la Universidad de Harvard

Antonio Olazábal 

03/05/2017 | 04:00 AM

Temen políticos analizar legalización: Snapp

Foto: Noroeste

Los políticos en México no están listos para proponer y analizar una posible legalización de las drogas, pues tienen miedo, expresó Zara Snapp, politóloga de la Universidad de Colorado con una maestría en Políticas Públicas de la Universidad de Harvard.

Durante su participación en Motivos para la Paz, Zara Snapp señaló que México tiene que aceptar la realidad en la que está sumergido en lo que a la problemática de las drogas se refiere.

En su conferencia “Políticas de Drogas en el Mundo”, la veracruzana señaló que el Gobierno mexicano debe de tomar las riendas del tránsito y comercio de las drogas en el País, y no el crimen organizado, dado que este último no tiene ninguna obligación social e institucional con el País.

“Porque del Gobierno sí podemos exigir rendición de cuentas, transparencia, información… queremos construir instituciones más fuertes, eso no lo podemos hacer con el crimen organizado, y por eso es cambiar de paradigmas, hacia dónde podemos apostar… Los políticos no están listos para proponer, y tienen mucho miedo”, opinó.

Añadió que en el País se han tomado decisiones en torno a las drogas que no han beneficiado ni a la economía, ni en bajar los índices de violencia, dado que el camino que se ha tomado es el de la prohibición, sin embargo ese camino no es acorde a la realidad que viven México y Latinoamérica, dado que el consumo y producción no ha disminuido en el mundo.

“México tiene que partir desde la realidad, producimos cannabis, amapola, la cocaína transita por el País, ¿qué es lo que vamos a hacer entiendo que no hemos tenido ni un resultado en bajar los consumos en Estados Unidos y Europa?”, detalló.

“Colombia va a seguir cultivando hoja de coca, y haciendo cocaína que va a ir a los Estados Unidos, México va a seguir cultivando amapola y va a ir a los Estados Unidos, ¿qué vamos a hacer con eso?”, profundizó.