Translated by Danielle M. Antonetti
At last, it's over—the jam-packed hypocritical piety of Mexican politicians fawning over the Pope, humiliating themselves at the feet of a religious leader in total violation of the State's secularism. Nearly a week of our citizens being bombarded with arbitrary traffic closures, exaggerated displays of deference, false devotion, and surges in demagoguery. An important debate on hold for six days as television and newspapers dedicated themselves to reporting on every papal gesture and holding out for hope that his words held a hidden truth. A pathetic spectacle we were forcefully subjected to. Now, let's get back to business.
Let's get back to discussing corruption, violence, the disappeared, devaluation, and meager economic growth. Let's see whether, after the show of poverty as the stage for demonstrating mercy, we can return to seriously discussing inequality and privileges far from His Holiness' sanctimonious scolding. We continue the debate on a pressing matter of the national agenda: drug policy, the discussion of which is central to making changes to the obvious failure of the State's policy of prohibition.
In November 2015, the First Chamber of the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice granted an injunction to four persons who had applied, as a test case, to the Federal Commission for Protection Against Health Risks (COFEPRIS) for permits to grow marijuana for their personal consumption. The court ordered COFEPRIS to issue the permits on the grounds that prohibition of such violated the constitutional right to the free development of personality. For the decision to be generally applicable, the First Chamber needs to resolve consecutively four other similar amparos, also with four favorable votes. This led to government to organize a national debate on marijuana. The Congress also opened hearings on the issue. COFEPRIS recently announced that it has received over 200 more requests for pemits since last December and that it will reject them, which will lead to more appeals to the Supreme Court.While the Pope and his traveling circus made its way around the country, Congress continued its hearings concerning the regulation of marijuana, a space where this particular debate is being addressed, quite a contrast from the generalities presented in the forums called by the government. At the discussion in Congress, which concluded Wednesday, the terms of cannabis' possible regulation, for both personal use and development of its potentially therapeutic applications, are on the table.
The need for the regulation of marijuana is already imperative, not just because the Supreme Court has declared its total prohibition unconstitutional but because it would be the first step in developing a drug policy based on evidence that would correct the sobering atrocities committed in the name of public health during its prohibition: a counterproductive policy that has contributed to growing the influence of criminals, worsened the violence in this country, harmed the health of substance abusers, and impacted young Mexicans' life expectancy more potently than any disease.
The discussion should center on how to regulate the first substance to be removed from the ban. What are the objectives we want to be achieved with the new rules? First, according to the decision handed down by the Court, new legislation should recognize consumers' rights and protect them. It's time to remove marijuana consumers from the criminal environment, not just because they will no longer be considered criminals but because they will no longer have to deal with the criminal element into order to purchase it.
Two, successful regulation should aim to take away the marijuana business from organized crime. For that to happen, it's essential that a regulatory framework be created that reduces as much as possible the incentives to operate in the black market. A regulated marijuana market would put a stop to those operating in clandestine markets and would remove a significant source of revenue, weakening them. The regulation of marijuana will not put an end to drug-trafficking or violence but it would significantly cut into the resources with which cartels recruit and purchase weapons to maintain their armies. There is no magic wand, instead a public policy with clear objectives to be assessed when it is implemented.
Regulating cannabis cannot simply be done by creating a competitive legal market because it's not just any product. Clearly, the substance is not harmless, although relatively less dangerous than tobacco or alcohol. The negative experience to be had with those two substances makes a regulatory model that effectively restricts the business interests of producers and sellers absolutely vital. There are plenty of incidents to compare various scenarios, despite recent cases.
In two U.S. states, Washington and Colorado, for example, two distinct markets models have been developed. In the former, they established a standardized system of high taxes and strict stipulations on who is granted a license to produce and sell marijuana. The result has been ineffective in reducing the black market, as only 30 percent of its consumption is obtained via legal means. However, in Colorado, taxes are lower and the conditions for getting a license to produce and sell are less stringent, and legal marijuana sales are competitive with the black market, to the extent that 70 percent of the market is handled by formal businesses while the rest is sold on the grey market, in which marijuana is produced legally by domestic growers but sold illegally; to the extent that producing, possessing, and consuming are no longer crimes, the grey market means it's a crime against the market, and violence related to marijuana has all but disappeared.
Nevertheless, Colorado's business model has serious problems, if that is what the state is doing to maintain effective controls to prevent an increase in consumption and growth in associated health problems. The emergence of businesses with strong earnings has produced figures with sufficient powers of influence to sway the regulatory agency and relax the control standards. This doesn't seem like a good model for Mexico to follow.
For its part, in regulating cannabis, Mexico should adopt Uruguay's general sense on the matter. There, cannabis is controlled by the State leaving no profit margins for private interests and taking elements learned from experiences at Spanish cannabis clubs. In Mexico, we should move toward completely legalizing personal cultivation as the Supreme Court has ruled, regulating "clubs" like consumer cooperatives organized to grow it together, and instituting a state monopoly to buy farmers' excess supply in order to keep it out of the hands of the cartels, setting up standards of quality for both personal use and pharmaceutical, medical and therapeutic uses, packaging and labeling it with no identifying marks and safety information, and distributing it through controlled points of sale. Regulation would prohibit any publicity related to cannabis and establish measure to ward off consumption by minors.
The terms of possible regulation are on the table. Now, let's legislate it. Spanish original
*Jorge Javier Romero Vadillo is a political scientist, professor and researcher in the Department of Politics and Culture at the Autonomous Metropolitan University, Xochimilco Campus. He holds a master's in Political Science from the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) and a doctorate from the Faculty of Political Science and Sociology at the University Complutense of Madrid. He is a regular contributing columnist for Sinembargo. @Giorgioromero