The debate over the need to legalize cannabis and reform drug policy in Mexico is not new. However, the increase in reform-oriented efforts coincides with two crucial factors: entering the debate of actors not associated with the fight against cannabis and intensifying the sense of urgency to stop not only the war, but also its legal implications – in particular, the exceptional regime for prosecuting drug-related crimes that has been made possible since 2008. when Calderón allowed the Arrafio. be brought before a judge within 4 days of arrest (and not within 48 hours, as provided for in the Penal Code for all other offences), solitary confinement in prison, detention in special prisons and the right to anonymity of the prosecutor vis-à-vis drug-related offenders (Madrazo, 2012). This article then aims to discuss what can be the best legal regulation of drugs in a democracy. To answer this question, the text begins by presenting the different alternatives for the legal treatment of problems related to the use of psychoactive substances: maximum criminal law, harm reduction, regulated legalization and liberalization. Then, the book asks which of these strategies might be most acceptable in a democracy The exhibition, after taking a brief tour of the debate on the justification of penalties, defends the perspective of regulated legalization, both from arguments for the protection of personal autonomy, human dignity and pluralism. (since drug use does not in itself affect the rights of third parties), because it is based on a utilitarian analysis of costs and benefits, since prohibitionist strategies have failed in their objectives but have caused enormous suffering to our societies. However, this research raises a number of objections that should be briefly addressed. On the one hand, some see the lifting of the ban as a moral capitulation.
But – as we have shown – this argument is based on a fundamentalist and a misconception of the meaning of criminal law: it is believed that it exists to punish at all costs any behavior considered immoral. And this is not true: a democratic and modern conception of criminal law limits its intervention to preventing some citizens from harming others as long as there are no other ways to prevent such harmful behavior. Since its inception in the 1970s, TNI has always believed in the need to find global responses to global problems, has been a strong advocate of multilateralism, and has advocated for a well-functioning UN that is a guarantor of universal human rights. As far as drugs are concerned, our position is very clear: drug control must respect human rights. Ironically, the increasing militarization of the fight against drugs, which today extends to other crimes, has only contributed to undermining public safety, thanks to the perverse incentives generated by the presence of the army on the streets. In 2010 alone, the combination of insecurity and systematic human rights violations along the US-Mexico border area led more than 230,000 people to flee their homes (Norwegian Refugee Council, 2010). This specific migration, in turn, is fueled by the increasing number of civilians killed in military operations. According to research by Dr. Catalina Pérez-Correa, of the Center for Economic Research and Education (CIDE), the Mexican army`s case fatality rate has reached a level of 19 civilians killed per wounded (Forné, Pérez-Correa, Gutiérrez., 2015); A phenomenon that could even be interpreted as de facto empowerment to destroy alleged criminals without bringing them to justice. Within the European Union, Spain and Portugal do not consider that possession of drugs for personal use is punishable. Possession for personal use remains illegal in the Netherlands, Germany and the Czech Republic, but guidelines have been established to ensure that police, prosecutors and courts do not impose penalties, including fines, of up to a certain amount.
Other countries impose administrative penalties, and only a few, such as Sweden, Latvia and Cyprus, provide for prison sentences for small quantities. [4] The three conventions begin with preambles expressing concern for the health and well-being of humanity. However, human rights appear explicitly only once in the three treaties: in Article 14, paragraph 2, of the 1988 Convention (see below). Nevertheless, these treaties must be read and interpreted in accordance with competing human rights obligations. Although the protection of health and well-being can be considered the basic principles of the drug conventions, the values of judging drugs and those who produce, trade and consume them, accompanied by punitive and warlike reactions, have played too important a role in their implementation. Finally, the policies of total liberalization further reduce secondary problems, since it is not even necessary to control possible parallel markets, since there would be no special regime for psychoactive substances; However, in the absence of adequate preventive and therapeutic strategies, it is likely that the main problems associated with drug abuse could increase significantly.