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’s Disastrous Drug War and the Plan to End It
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.
TV UNAM con Pedro Salazar y Amaya Ordorika
Hablando de la iniciativa de cannabis y la necesidad de regular con un enfoque de justicia social
Las semillas de la transformación: debemos preservar las variedades mexicanas de marihuana
por Zara Snapp en VICE:
https://www.vice.com/es_latam/article/ywyvmk/las-semillas-de-la-transformacion-debemos-preservar-las-variedades-mexicanas-de-marihuana
Tras obtener un amparo para cultivar, este es el proceso para conseguir las semillas de cannabis en México
Tener una planta de marihuana en casa ayuda a normalizar, a sensibilizar, y a darse cuenta de lo absurdo que ha sido la prohibición de estas plantas y sustancias psicoactivas. Hemos lanzando una guerra contra plantas, contra semillas, contra la naturaleza, y eso debe parar.
México pasa por un cambio de paradigma en materia de políticas de drogas, y este cambio se debe en gran medida a los esfuerzos de activistas y la sociedad civil: cada vez más gente se quiere sumar a la causa y más pacientes exigen sus derechos; al mismo tiempo, aumenta la frustración institucional causada por la falta de resultados de la política prohibicionista. Nos hemos movido de un debate moral hacía un debate basado en evidencia. La discusión ahora gira entorno a cómo se debe regular el mercado de cannabis, en vez de si debe o no hacerse.
PUBLICIDAD
El camino no ha sido fácil: en 2015, la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación (SCJN) otorgó permisos a cuatro personas para cultivar cannabis para su consumo personal bajo los derechos de libre desarrollo de la personalidad y la autodeterminación. Los medios salieron a anunciar que ya se había legalizado la marihuana en México, pero fueron festejos prematuros. Para llegar a la jurisprudencia, necesitábamos cinco casos consecutivos, usando los mismos criterios legales, algo que no sucedió hasta el 31 de octubre de 2018. En esa primera decisión, el Ministro Zaldívar escribió una resolución cuestionando la prohibición absoluta de cannabis y reconociendo derechos constitucionales dentro del artículo primero de la Constitución. Empezó a crear una literatura jurídica sobre este tema.
Lo que no había era una mención de las semillas. Entonces la SCJN reconoció derechos, pero no dio instrucciones sobre como ejercer esos derechos en la realidad. El abogado constitucionalista, Andrés Aguinaco, quien llevó el caso del primer amparo para consumo, empezó a buscar nuevos quejosos, y así, matizo la ruta hacía la jurisprudencia.
Yo tuve la oportunidad de representar un caso con Andrés que fue atraído por la Segunda Sala de la SCJN. Puedes leer más sobre ese viaje aquí. El tema de las semillas fue central en mi caso. En la resolución, se solicita a un organismo del Estado el resolver la forma en la que serán adquiridas las semillas para mi consumo personal. Además de querer seguir impulsando la jurisprudencia y los escritos jurídicos, yo sí cultivo. Yo quería y quiero cultivar plantas legales.
Relacionados:
Después de lograr la resolución en mi caso (junto con dos otros quejosos), emprendimos la ruta para conseguir las semillas. Mi caso fue resuelto en julio 2018. En octubre 2018, recibimos los requisitos por parte de COFEPRIS para la importación de semillas: libros de control para registrar las transacciones de las semillas y del material vegetal que obtengo de las semillas, una solicitud de importación de las semillas, información sobre las semillas que compramos, incluyendo la variedad, la cantidad de semillas y la justificación de las semillas, un certificado taxonómico o de análisis de las semillas por parte del fabricante, información del proveedor del las semillas, e información del lugar donde voy a cultivar dichas semillas.
Después de meses de buscar, finalmente encontramos una empresa que nos ayudó con la gestión (La Cañameria Global) y a comprar las semillas por parte de un banco de semillas en Holanda: Dutch Passion. Aunque las compramos desde enero de 2019, todavía no las tengo. ¿Por qué? Los tramites nos lo han impedido hasta ahora. Yo sigo con la esperanza de que lo vamos a lograr, pero ha sido un gran aprendizaje para la regulación que queremos. Tampoco es que no existan semillas de marihuana en México. Tenemos múltiples variedades, y una extensa genética de semillas que deberíamos estar cuidando, explorando y mejorando. Yo guardo todas las semillas que tengo y me han salido plantas muy bonitas, aunque sigue siendo muy novata en el cultivo. Lo que no tenemos es una cultura del autocultivo de cannabis, por las altas penas legales asociadas con el cultivo. Sé que hay muchos cultivadores en México y que existe un conocimiento tradicional, pero desde mi experiencia, es poco común que una persona que consume cannabis, cultive para su auto abastecimiento.
PUBLICIDAD
El mercado ilegal ofrece cualquier calidad de cannabis que una persona quisiera; desde onzas de 200 pesos a onzas de 2400. (Pueden tomar esta breve encuesta para ayudarnos a entender el rango de precios y calidad en el país). Cultivar es un lujo, germinar unas semillas para ver cuántas agarran, cuidarlas hasta ponerlas en la maceta, darles la mejor tierra, ver como crecen con el tiempo. Se convierte en un proceso y una apreciación única.
En la iniciativa sobre la regulación de cannabis en México, presentada por la entonces senadora Olga Sánchez Cordero y el senador Ricardo Monreal Ávila, no hay mención de las semillas. Algunos me han preguntado sobre eso y creo que es un punto importante. Al no hacer mención de las semillas, abrimos la posibilidad de que al día que publican la ley, todas las semillas que tenemos en México serían legales.
En vez de solo permitir la importación de ciertas variedades (algo que inhibe la innovación), México tendría la oportunidad de aprender de lo que ya tenemos. En lugar de pasar por un proceso lento y costoso para la creación de un registro y un banco único para la adquisición de semillas previamente autorizadas por el Estado, podríamos gozar de los beneficios que nos brinda la diversidad de semillas que existen hoy en día en el país.
Surgirían bancos de semillas en las universidades o desde el gobierno o el sector privado y sabríamos cuales son las variedades que más se dan en los climas de la Ciudad de México, Guanajuato, Veracruz, Sonora, Sinaloa, Guerrero, Michoacán y todos los estados donde quisieran (y donde están) cultivando. Podríamos pensar en bancos regionales de semillas e intercambios con otras latitudes.
Cannabis and Psychosis: a Critical Overview of the Relationship by Charles Ksir & Carl L. Hart
This weekend, two articles were published in anticipation of a book that will come out regarding cannabis, mental health and violence. From what I have read, both the New York Times and the New Yorker article continue to perpetuate myths around cannabis (and drug use more generally), generating histeria and stigma against people who use drugs and those who advocate for responsible regulation.
The book ignores the numerous studies and data that have been generated over the past decades regarding psychoactive substances and their use. It fails to recognize that the lack of research is directly related to prohibition and that we would, in fact, know much more if academics and researchers were provided easier access and funding to explore these fields.
One of the important myths to bust in this book is regarding the relationship between cannabis and psychosis. In order to learn more (and with permission from Carl Hart), here is an article which provides a critical overview of the relationship. Ksir.Hart2016
Let’s continue to think critically but also be pragmatic and forward thinking about these issues. It was quite disappointing to see an outlet such as the New Yorker promoting this sort of propaganda. Responsible regulation for adults must be considered due to the possible harms and the possible benefits that these psychoactive plants and substances can provide to society. Mexico is unfortunately one of the most devastating examples of the urgent need for regulation.
Canadá defiende su política de regulación ante la CND
Creo que vale la pena leer los argumentos de Canadá para legalizar y regular estrictamente el mercado de cannabis para uso adulto ante la Comisión de Estupefacientes. ¡Gracias al CND Blog por siempre mantenernos al tanto!
Canada would like to express its sincere appreciation for your efforts to guide us towards consensus on a work plan for the Commission’s preparations for the Ministerial segment in 2019. However, I take the floor today to discuss a different issue. Last week (on June 21), Canada’s legislation to legalize, strictly regulate, and restrict access to cannabis received Royal Assent. While the Cannabis Act is now law, it will only take effect on October 17, 2018, in order to give the provinces and territories in Canada time to prepare. At that time, individuals in Canada who are 18 years of age or older will be legally able to purchase, possess and consume limited amounts of cannabis, and authorized entities will be able to cultivate, produce, distribute and sell cannabis legally, under license. We recognize that the topic of cannabis legalization is a policy issue that is of great interest to the Commission and of concern to some States Parties to the drug Conventions. We are also conscious that it is an issue of concern to the International Narcotics Control Board and to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, as indicated by statements released on June 21. As you know, Canada has briefed the CND and the International Narcotics Control Board on our cannabis policy on several occasions in recent years and, I welcome the opportunity to do so again today.
Canada’s new Cannabis Act will: o restrict youth access to cannabis to protect young people from promotion or enticements to use cannabis o deter criminal activity by imposing serious criminal penalties for those breaking the law, especially those who import or export cannabis, or provide cannabis to youth o protect public health through strict product safety and quality requirements o reduce the burden on the criminal justice system o provide for the legal production of cannabis to reduce illegal activities o allow adults to possess and access regulated, quality controlled legal cannabis; and o enhance public awareness of the health risks associated with cannabis Four additional points about the content of the Act: 1. The Cannabis Act, for the first time, makes it a specific criminal offence to sell cannabis to a minor and creates significant penalties for those who engage young Canadians in cannabisrelated offences. 2. The Act contains strict and specific restrictions on packaging and labeling including strict requirements that packaging be child resistant and tamper evident. 3. The illegal movement of cannabis and cannabis products across international borders will remain a serious criminal offence as it is today. 4. Driving while impaired by cannabis or any other drug is, and will remain, a serious criminal offence. Law enforcement officers across Canada are trained to detect drug-impaired drivers. Madame Chair, having briefly described our new law, let me review some of the reasons why Canada has taken this approach. First, I want to be clear that Canada is undertaking this policy change to better protect the health and safety of Canadians, especially Canadian youth. The reality is that, in Canada at least, our former approach simply did not work. Despite nearly a century of strict criminal prohibition of cannabis, supported by substantial law enforcement resources, cannabis use has become widespread across Canada today and the drug is easily available to Canadian youth and adults alike. In fact, despite prohibition and the threat of criminal sanctions, the rates of cannabis use among Canadian youth are among the highest in the world. One in five Canadian youth aged 15-19, and one in three young adults aged 20-24, report having used cannabis in the past year.
This is the public health and safety problem Canada currently confronts. We are well aware that the health risks associated with cannabis use are particularly acute in young users, and these high rates of use are therefore of concern from a public health perspective. By contrast, we have seen the percentage of youth who use tobacco, which has been available for legal purchase in Canada for decades, drop from 27% in 1985 to 10% in 2015, due to a successful combination of strict regulation and sustained public education about its risks. This is a public health success story, and we have applied these lessons to inform our approach to the legalization and strict regulation of cannabis. Public education and awareness are fundamental to achieving our public health and safety objectives. For this reason, the Government of Canada has made significant investments to ensure that Canadians have access to information to understand the health and safety risks of cannabis use. The total planned investment in cannabis public education, awareness and surveillance is more than $100 million. Since spring 2017, our health ministry has targeted an ongoing public education campaign at parents and youth, using advertising, social media, web content, and articles aimed at helping Canadians learn the facts about cannabis, and also supporting parents to talk with their teens about cannabis use and health effects. Additionally, an evidence-based, public health approach is being taken with respect to the requirements for packaging and labelling of cannabis products to minimize its appeal to children and youth; protect against accidental consumption; and provide consumers with information they need to make informed decisions before using cannabis, including the potential risks and harms of cannabis use. The Cannabis Act includes specific restrictions on packaging and labelling of cannabis products: The packaging and labelling must not appeal to youth. Plain packaging and labelling will be required for all cannabis products. Cannabis packaging must be child-resistant and tamper-evident. These measures will be complemented by the ongoing public education campaign I mentioned a moment ago to educate Canadians, particularly youth and young adults, about health and safety facts about cannabis.
Madame Chair, our Government recognizes that our new approach will result in Canada being in contravention of certain obligations related to cannabis under the UN drug conventions. I want to emphasize that Canada has not taken this decision lightly. We wish to avoid doing any harm to the Conventions, though we recognize the concerns of some delegations that we nevertheless risk doing so, despite our best intentions. Based on extensive public consultations and the available scientific evidence as well as the experiences of other States, we have concluded that legalization and strict regulation is the best framework for Canada to respond to our domestic public health and safety challenges associated with cannabis. I want to be clear that this is strictly a domestic policy decision, designed to respond to current challenges in Canada. We do not advocate cannabis legalization as a solution for others, and we do not intend to legalize any other scheduled drugs. We have been asked whether decriminalizing cannabis, which could have kept us within the bounds of the Conventions, might have been a good alternative to legalization. It is our view that Canada’s challenges could not be solved by decriminalization alone, since it would preserve the illicit market that currently sells cannabis, including to our youth, and provides organized criminal groups with proceeds estimated at about $7 billion a year. CND members will recognize that that level of criminal activity carries with it a host of other social risks. These risks are not acceptable to the Government of Canada. Our experience with medical cannabis, which has been available in Canada for over a decade, has demonstrated that a well-regulated, licensed Canadian industry can produce cannabis products under secure conditions that are of high quality and meet our Government’s rigorous safety standards. In short, we believe we have an opportunity to reduce the role played by the thriving illicit market, with all its associated risks to public health and safety, in favour of a strictly regulated one that, when enforced by appropriate penalties for violations, will enable us to better meet our challenges.
Madame Chair, we know that the success of this policy change will depend upon whether it meets the goals of better restricting youth access to cannabis and displacing organized crime. Our Government is committed to measuring the health and social impacts of our cannabis policies and Canada has, moreover, offered to share outcome data with other CND members. I would like to reiterate an important point: Canada remains a strong supporter of the international drug control system, as established by the three Conventions. We are committed to finding solutions that promote the health and safety of Canadians, while maintaining the international drug control framework as the foundation for international collaboration on drug policy. We recognize that our treaty partners are pursuing different policy approaches to cannabis, and we do not intend for our system to negatively impact their efforts. Thus, I also want to emphasize that the illegal movement of cannabis and cannabis products across our borders will remain a serious criminal offence under Canadian law. Canadian law enforcement agencies will continue to work with their international partners to combat drug trafficking. In addition, the Government is establishing a Cannabis Tracking System with the purpose of tracking highlevel movements of cannabis throughout the supply chain to help prevent diversion of cannabis – that is, the movement of both legal cannabis to the illegal market and illegal cannabis to the legal market. Any person authorized to conduct activities with cannabis will be required to report into the Cannabis Tracking System. We will continue to work in the CND and with our international partners to advance the objectives of the international drug control framework, including through the exchange of information and intelligence on new and emerging drug threats, sharing expertise on approaches to mitigate the harms of problematic substance use, and supporting capacity-building to combat international drug trafficking. While our domestic law on cannabis has changed, Canada’s commitment to international cooperation to counter and address the world drug problem has not changed in any way. I hope that this short briefing on Canada’s new Cannabis Act has been of interest to the Commission, and we look forward to continuing the dialogue on this issue.
Russia: We would like to draw your attention to the dramatic developments in the international drug control policy related to the recent measures taken by the Canadian authorities. Last week the Parliament of Canada adopted by majority vote the legislation on marijuana legalisation. Upon completing final procedures this legal initiative is due to come into force quite soon. When implemented this undertaking will tangibly breach the UN drug control conventions, which as we all know limit the production and use of drugs exclusively to medical and scientific purposes. It is worth recalling that the UN Secretary General’s Commentary of 1973 highlighted this basic principle as one of the most important achievements of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961.Today the “initiative” of the Canadian side brings this achievement under question. In this regard the International Narcotics Control Board, which is mandated to monitor the compliance of States with their legal drug control obligations, forwarded to the Canadian parliamentarians in April this year a written brief with its assessment of the developments. Then the Board underlined that the bill was incompatible with the treaty obligations which Canada is bound to. The INCB believes that the adoption of the legislation constitutes a fundamental breach of those international treaty provisions that are “absolute and unequivocal in nature”. In its latest statement on this subject dated the 21stJune the Board used even more precise and definitive language: legalization of cannabis constitutes a violation of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and undermines the international legal drug control framework. It is worth mentioning in this context that the international community, including Canada, unanimously reaffirmed in the outcome document of the 2016 2 UN General Assembly Special Session on the world drug problem that the UN conventions of 1961, 1971 and 1988 constitute “the cornerstone of the international drug control system”.
The intention of the Canadian authorities to legalize so-called recreational cannabis threatens to shake this cornerstone. It is regrettable that the INCB warnings were totally ignored in Canada. The process of cannabis legalization in Canada is proceeding at full speed. What is more, Canadian authorities frankly acknowledge that the draft law contradicts the UN conventions, but consider it to be admissible. Advocates of the so-called recreational marijuana legalization try to validate their position by Paragraph 1 of the Preamble of the Single Convention of 1961 and argue that this measure will contribute to protecting the health and welfare of people. This argument is completely false and means a switch of the notions. It is for the sake of safeguarding the health and welfare of humankind that the conventional norms were adopted. As for the Canadian initiative, it would by the very meaning of the conventions be detrimental to the health and wellbeing of the humanity. This was reconfirmed by the INCB once again in its statement of the 21st of June. Apparently, it is assumed in Ottawa that this serious violation of the drug control conventions will pass unnoticed by other States Parties to these international treaties. This assumption is absolutely wrong. We need to remind our Canadian counterparts that the above-mentioned conventions constitute the legacy of the entire international community. As the INCB rightly pointed out they are founded upon the principle of common and shared responsibility of their States Parties. Ottawa has no right to make unilateral decisions, which are meant to impact the integrity of the international drug control conventions, and promote a selective approach to their implementation, thus opening the Pandora’s box. If other countries choose to follow the path taken by Canada we will see the international legal drug control regime undergoing deep erosion and potentially being destroyed.
This is totally unacceptable. The intention of the Canadian authorities to legalize drugs is all the more defiant bearing in mind that this country is currently a member of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs. A CND Member State, which by virtue of this status should safeguard the strict adherence to the conventions, is in fact destroying them from inside. We strongly believe that this development, if the new bill enters into force, must become a subject of a thorough scrutiny by our Commission, including during the forthcoming ministerial review of the global drug control situation in 2019. We would like to use this opportunity to express our full support to the strong stance of the INCB that is scrupulous in carrying out its mandate. We would like to underline the importance of responsible and comprehensive instead of selective implementation of the UN conventions by all their parties.
One last point. The Canadian authorities often advocate for a rules-based world order. Regrettably in the drug control matters they are in effect going in the opposite direction by undermining the basic rules, which are of a legally binding nature. We would like to recall once again that in accordance with Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties a party to an international treaty must perform its obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda). Moreover Article 27 of the same Vienna convention states that “a party cannot invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty”. We call upon our Canadian counterparts to return to the fold of the international law and bring their policy in line with the principles and goals that they declare. As we understand it, the new law is supposed to become operational on 17th October. That means that Canada still has sufficient period of time to reconsider its current policy and to refrain from a gross violation of international law, which may have very destructive implications. We hope that a responsible approach will finally prevail in Ottawa.
USA thanks Canada for the comprehsive explanation and encourages CND members to not single out member states and politicize treaty compliance – we consider it unproductive and distracting from serious serious challenges, such as improving approach to NPS that contribute to 1000s of deaths worldwide. It is up to state parties to interpret convetions and implement them in consultations with the INCB and its members. The USA suggests a brief on national developments during a standalone event outside of CND.
Japan’s perspective is that control conventions are the cornerstones of the international legal frame and in addressing the world drug problem. CND had been aiming at a united response so it is of cruicial importace that each state party implements the conventions in line with the work of INCB.
Kyrgyzstan: In accordance with the 3 conventions, it is our common obligation to limit activities related to drugs. Countries should assure that these activities are punished. We regret the decision of the Canadian government as it undermines the national legal framework of drug control. Despite the fact that Canada is a party to all 3 conventions, they initiated a process that is in breach of them. The free sale of marijuana will lead to drug dependence among young adults and INCB noted that legalization is in contrary to the conventions.
Singapore: INCB and UNODC both issued a statement on the 21st of June to express their concern over the decision of legalization of cannabis for non medical use. This contravenes with the conventions and undermines the legal framework and world order. The 3 conventions are cornerstones and full compliance has been reiterated during recent meetings, joint action plans, etc. All member states reaffirmed collective determination in 2016 and while countries have freedom to legislate in a way that best suit national environments, it has to be within the framework. Some texts are open to interpretation but legalization of recreational use is not one of those. This is a delibareate breach of the conventions and undermines the UN system. We urge member states to comply to our agreements and the international community to uphold the system.
New Zealand: Canada recognizes the availability of illicit cannabis and aimed to distrupt the black market. Their decision has not been taken lightly and they have been consulting for several decades. Our perspective is that Canada is a responsible contributor to the drug control framework and we support a health focus to drugs and are interested to hear about alternative approaches.
Tajikistan: There are serious risks with the non medical use: serious threat to our societies, expecially regarding smuggling of drugs originated from Tajikistan. We are deeply concerned by the circulation of illegal substances and we ratified the conventions with transnational crimes taken into account. We adopted a national strategy 2013-2020 and it is regretfull that some member states adapt laws that deliberately contradict these efforts. Canada’s decision to legalize cannabis is highly alarming, may impair the international work and carry serious national consequences. We remain, more than ever, committed to the conventions and call on the CND to consider this issue seriously.
Netherlands thanks the through brief of Canada. Providing context is essential to fulfil our mandate. We are confident that Canace will continue to monitor the effectiveness of new policies and report on it. With ongoing developments, member states may feel the need to discuss new realities and we stand ready for an open debate. It is a sensitive matter and such debates have key elements: in the Vienna spirit, we don’t support member states being singled out, it is not constructive and it is not useful to focus on treaty compliance. We attach importance to evidence based and well prepares discussions that do not happen in the expense of other important elemtns including human rights issues, access to medicine, law enforcement, etc.
Pakistan: This is a standing item, nothing unusual to discuss this. The conventions are the cornerstones of our work and essential to counter the world drug problem. There were several resolutions where we reiterated the central role of conventions. We have serious concerns in some regions regarding legalization of non medical use. It might impede the effects of our efforts to counter the world drug problem. We urge the commission and INCB to play an active role within their respective mandates to address this.
Syrian Arab Republic shares the concern regarding the violation of the treaties and the collective efforts of 2009. The UNODC and ICNB stated how Canada’s decision is contravening and undermines the status quo. National action should be taken in line with the 3 treaties and member states should be comprehensively abiding to the treaties, no exceptions. We call on Canada to consider the reprecussions of their noncompliance.
Kazakhstan is deeply concerned about cannabis for recreational use. All member states should actively support the implementation of the 3 conventions and only allow scientific and medical use. We also highly support the INCB.
China shares concerns, fully supports UNODC, INCB and their June 21st statement made it clear that this decision is in breach of the conventions that are the cornerstones of the international drug policy framework. According to the latest data, with the decrease in problematic drug is in China, drug control measures are effective and China fears the negative rippel effects of Canada’s decision across the World. China urges all member states to act responsibly, in coherence with international agreements and deeply regrets this decision.
Iran regrets Canada’s decision and warns that domestic legislation should be in line with all the treaties. Any legislative measure allowing the non medical or scientific use of cannabus is incompetible with the treaties and pose serious threat to the international. This decison is against recent consensus in 2016 where the commission unanimously underscored the importance of the treaties. It might carry sersious reprecussions on other states and so this debate is important and should not be labelled as politically motivated.
Belarus: Nonmedical nonscientific use is incompatible with the conventions on which the international community relies on.
Algeria is concerned with the trend of recreational use. Canada’s decision is not consistent with the spirits of the internationally agreed framework. The conventions are the cornerstones of the international drug control system.
Malaysia agrees that the conventions are the cornerstones of the international drug control system and allowing other than medical and scientific use are clear violations. Malaysia calls all member states to adhere to the conventions.
Germany associates with the Dutch statement. Great interest in INCB and not against the debate on legalization of Cannabis but we don not consider this spontaneous peer, review finger-pointing to member states, in line with the Vienna spirit that is focused on cooperation.
France understands the differences in domestic dialogues and is against nonmedical use. Nevertheless, this forum should not serve to single out member states – it is not in line with the Vienna spirit.
Namibia is concerned with the decision of Canada and calls on member states to respect the rules set out by the conventions that are the cornerstones of the international drug control system.
Armenia fully shares Russia’s position.
Canada thanks the comments and is conscious of the strong positions and diverse national circumstances on policies. Canada will report home and is eager to engage more as they always respected the views of colleagues and continoue to do so. Such discussion needs to be carefully prepared for and needs active participation on topics that go beyond the subject explored today.
Russia welcomes the intention of reporting accurately on this discussion, but thinks Canada does not necessarily have a comprehensive understating of the international situation. A number of Canadian senators were concerned with the prospective international response to which the minister’s response was “don’t worry, they will digest everything”. Today’s discussion shwos this might not be entirely correct, which Russia finds very good. Russa can’t believe New Zealand supports the violation of international rules. Russia doesn’t think what is happening is fingerpointing as Canada is singling itself out by refusing to comply. The drug control regime will go into erosion if delegations accept excuses for not complying.
La Hora de Opinar: 30 Enero 2018
Leo Zuckermann, Gerardo Esquivel y Zara Snapp platican sobre la propuesta de legalizar la marihuana y los costos de seguirla prohibiendo
La primera persona con plantas legales de cannabis
México tiene la oportunidad de cambiar el paradigma y su forma de pensar. En vez de ver el tema de los cultivos de cannabis (y amapola) con un estigma, y como algo negativo, podemos verlo como una oportunidad de desarrollo económico en las zonas rurales del país.
Comentarios
Por: Zara Snapp (@zarasnapp)
El miércoles 4 de julio fue otro día histórico en la lucha para la reforma de la política de drogas en México. Llegamos a la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación con tranquilidad. Lo más probable era que iban a posponer la decisión sobre mi amparo que, junto con dos otros quejosos, buscaba acceso a semillas de cannabis para poder cultivar para consumo personal.
Todo empezó en noviembre de 2015 después del fallo en el caso SMART y vale la pena resaltar que esto no hubiera sido posible sin el trabajo de México Unido Contra la Delincuencia y los abogados en el despacho de Andrés Aguinaco. Ya llevábamos años haciendo cabildeo con legisladores y ellos abrieron el espacio para imaginar esta estrategia. Pasamos por la COFEPRIS desechando la solicitud para cultivar, por el Juez de Distrito que nos concedió el amparo respecto de los artículos reclamados dentro de la Ley General de Salud, auto-impugnamos esa decisión por la falta de claridad sobre cómo conseguir las semillas. Así, finalmente llegamos a la Suprema Corte.
Este es el primer caso sobre cannabis que llega a la Segunda Sala de la Suprema Corte y como esa sala tiende a ser un poco más conservadora, sabíamos que tal vez no lo iban a aprobar. Sorpresa tras sorpresa, primero decidieron resolver el caso ese día y segundo, los cuatro Ministros en la Sala ¡votaron a favor!
En las declaraciones, los Ministros resaltaron que el proyecto reconoce el derecho para cultivar, pero que antes no había una manera legal de ejercer el derecho sin las semillas. Este proyecto especifica la vía de adquisición de las semillas para el derecho concedido y que la autoridad, en este caso COFEPRIS, tiene que asegurar el acceso. Adicionalmente, el Ministro Medina Mora estuvo a favor, pero con reservas, explicando que es importante conocer el efecto práctico y la realidad. Él declaró que este tema no debe ser sobre libertades y para las personas que pueden conseguir amparos, sino que debe ser abordado desde las políticas públicas y el poder legislativo. Él hizo un llamado al Congreso de atender este tema en lo estructural para construir una política pública, porque no es competencia de la Corte imponer un modelo, sino que eso les toca a otros poderes. Medina Mora siguió esta línea hablando de que era hora de pensar en la comercialización y no solo estar beneficiando a los amparados, incluyendo actividades de prevención y cómo asegurar el no dañar a terceros. No podría haber estado más de acuerdo.
Durante este proceso, nuestra meta es y va seguir siendo la jurisprudencia, pero a la vez, estaremos buscando una regulación responsable e integral del mercado de cannabis. México tiene la oportunidad de cambiar el paradigma y su forma de pensar. En vez de ver el tema de los cultivos de cannabis (y amapola) con un estigma, y como algo negativo, podemos verlo como una oportunidad de desarrollo económico en las zonas rurales del país. México ya cultiva cannabis y es momento de reconocer esa realidad y buscar la manera de formalizar ese mercado ilegal, extendiendo derechos y un salario justo a las personas que forman parte de la cadena de producción. Regresemos la dignidad al campo con los cultivos que ya existen.
Mientras Canadá, Uruguay y nueve estados en Estados Unidos han regulado el mercado de cannabis para uso personal y adulto (y lúdico y recreativo si gustan esos términos), México ha seguido una estrategia con resultados de violencia generalizada, corrupción a todos los niveles y miles de personas desaparecidas que nos hacen mucha falta. No podemos seguir así. Requerimos una estrategia que reconoce los derechos de las personas que usan sustancias y que no los criminalizan, una estrategia que genera orgullo en la producción de estas plantas y una estrategia que usa la reforma de la política de drogas como manera de reparar el daño que la prohibición ha causado durante las últimas décadas. Estos cambios son posibles y desde el movimiento reformista, estamos listos para poner propuestas en la mesa para trabajar en conjunto con los nuevos gobiernos a nivel local y federal.
¿Y ahora qué sigue?
En la vía jurídica, probablemente este amparo no cuenta para los cinco casos consecutivos que necesitamos para crear jurisprudencia porque lo resolvieron en la Segunda Sala y los otros tres casos anteriores (SMART, Ulrich Richter y Rios Piter) fueron resueltos en la Primera Sala. Entonces tenemos tres casos en una Sala y un caso en la otra. Seguimos esperando los demás amparos para extender este derecho a todos los adultos mexicanos. Sin embargo, cuando ya haya cinco casos en total en las dos Salas (es decir, cuando haya uno más en la Primera Sala), los Ministros podrían decidir unir los casos, hacer un proyecto de jurisprudencia y votarlo en el Pleno. Ya sabemos que los cuatro Ministros en la Segunda Sala están de acuerdo. Eso nos da mucha esperanza.
Al mismo tiempo, suena como que hay una voluntad política desde el gobierno electo para construir una nueva política de drogas. Una política que realmente pone en el centro los derechos humanos, la salud pública, la reducción del daño, un reconocimiento de la cultura y el desarrollo de México. Ahora puede ser una carrera para ver quién aborda este tema primero.
Aunque ahora tengo el derecho de cultivar, la lucha está apenas arrancando. La manera en cómo hablamos del tema en medios, la educación que damos a los jóvenes sobre las sustancias psicoactivas, el cómo tratamos a las personas que usan sustancias o que forman parte del mercado, tienen consecuencias. Esto es la base para que existan políticas represivas, que se traducen en una violencia injustificable en el territorio. Mientras vayamos cambiando el discurso, iremos trabajando en proyectos de política pública para crear una regulación dentro de un marco de justicia social, que permita el acceso a productos a quienes lo requieran y apoye a los grupos que han sido vulnerados por la política actual. Esto no es solo trabajo de los activistas o personas en gobierno, sino de todos nosotros. Les invito a sumar a esta lucha para cambiar el paradigma y construir un México mejor, pasando por una justicia transicional para llegar a la reconciliación y la paz.
* Zara Snapp es cofundadora de Instituto RIA (México), integrante del Colectivo Drogas, Política y Cultura, consejera de ReverdeSer Colectivo y asesora internacional con Acción Técnica Social (Colombia). Es autora de Diccionario de Drogas, publicado por Ediciones B en 2015.
“Apoye, No Castigue”: cambiar las políticas de drogas para buscar la paz en México
Desmilitarizar, reparar de daños y dejar de criminalizar usuarios.
jul. 12 2018, 2:20pm
Fotos por Karina Muscarina.
Artículo publicado por VICE México
En diciembre de 2018 se cumplen 12 años de la intensificación de la guerra contra las drogas en nuestro país. La implementación de políticas represivas y de mano dura en materia de drogas han resultado en una espiral de violencia, violaciones a derechos humanos, corrupción e impunidad que forman un ciclo que se alimenta continuamente a sí mismo.
A partir del año 2012, una amplia coalición internacional de organizaciones que trabajamos política de drogas nos apropiamos del Día Internacional Contra el Uso Indebido y Tráfico Ilícito de Drogas para exigir un cambio en las políticas de drogas alrededor del mundo. Este esfuerzo lo realizamos bajo el paraguas de la campaña “Apoye, No Castigue”, cuyo objetivo es visibilizar los incuantificables deterioros que han generado las políticas de drogas en numerosas comunidades y pueblos a nivel global.
México se encuentra hoy ante la necesidad urgente de implementar políticas de reconciliación social. Necesitamos encontrar las maneras de apoyarnos entre todas y todos para sanar las profundas heridas que cargamos de manera colectiva. Esto solamente lo podremos lograr si podemos distanciarnos de la destructiva lógica de buenos y malos y nos proponemos una mirada de fondo de las complejísimas problemáticas que enfrentamos.
Para romper con este círculo vicioso necesitamos hacer las cosas de manera distinta. La campaña Apoye, No Castigue abre una perspectiva nueva desde la cuál pensar aproximaciones alternativas no solo a las drogas, sino a los estragos negativos que nos han dejado las políticas prohibicionistas.
Las personas que han sido más castigadas deben ser consideradas una prioridad para la reconciliación social. Entre ellas, resulta urgente destacar a las personas usuarias de drogas, las personas que se dedican al narcomenudeo y las personas que se dedican al cultivo y cosecha de plantas ilícitas, en especial cuando son también personas jóvenes, mujeres y/o personas en situación de pobreza.
Por esto, este 26 de se hizo un llamado a la reconstrucción nacional por medio del apoyo a las personas y comunidades que más lo requieren y la desmantelación de las políticas de mano dura que centran su objetivo en el castigo.
1. La reforma integral del sistema nacional de fiscalización de drogas, priorizando el cumplimiento de las responsabilidades internacionales que ha asumido México en materia de derechos humanos por encima de aquellas asumidas en materia de control de drogas;
2. El cese absoluto a la criminalización de las personas que usan y venden drogas y la excarcelación de las personas que se encuentran detenidas por consumo, posesión y narcomenudeo;
3. La desmilitarización absoluta de la seguridad pública en México y el enjuiciamiento a los altos mandos militares responsables de violaciones a los derechos humanos;
4. La reparación de los daños sufridos por las comunidades campesinas que se han dedicado al cultivo y cosecha de plantas actualmente ilícitas, las mujeres encarceladas por delitos relacionados con drogas y las personas víctimas de violaciones a los derechos humanos;
5. La implementación de políticas que permitan reconstruir públicamente los hechos de los últimos doce años para traer a la luz la verdad sobre las violaciones a derechos humanos cometidas en el marco del combate a las drogas.
En este sentido, las aportaciones de ReverdeSer Colectivo a la campaña Apoye, No Castigue 2018 se centraron en dos eventos. El primero fue la Jornada Cultural “Por una política de drogas sin guerra” que se realizó el 6 de junio frente a los Frontones en Ciudad Universitaria. Este evento fue organizado por la Dirección General de Atención a la Comunidad, la Brigada de Política de Drogas del INJUVE y ReverdeSer Colectivo. Te invitamos a ver el video:
La segunda acción fue el Festival “Apoye No Castigue – Contra la Criminalización de las Juventudes” que se llevó a cabo el viernes 29 de junio en el Circo Volador. Este evento fue organizado por la Brigada de Política de Drogas del INJUVE, Estudiantes por una Política Sensata de Drogas y ReverdeSer Colectivo.
La comprensión no es una muestra de debilidad, sino de fortaleza e inteligencia colectiva. Entendernos y apoyarnos es la mejor apuesta que tenemos para dar un giro de 180 grados y comenzar a construir la tan anhelada paz en México.
https://www.vice.com/es_mx/article/j5nq3g/apoye-no-castigue-cambiar-las-politicas-de-drogas-para-buscar-la-paz-en-mexico?utm_source=vicefbmx