Translated by: Amanda Coe
Last week, the second forum of the National Debate on Marijuana was held in Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, and this was my presentation at one of the roundtables.
In April 2011, the most important Constitutional reform since 1917 was implemented, its harmonization with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Since then, legal principles guiding the country are not only the letter of the law but also the interpretation of this in accord with the Constitution and international treaties, and in the best interest of the person.
Why are we discussing whether the right to health care is respected or not? As Article 4 of the Constitution notes, “everyone has the right to protection of health” and requires establishing conditions to enjoy this protection. Yet the prohibitive, and now unconstitutional, regulation is precisely in the Health Act.
How many people have died without the therapeutic benefit of the drug? Hasn’t our prudishness caused enough pain while we continue to discuss indisputable science?
Why are farmers not able to cultivate marijuana with the best techniques and quality control? Why is this activity exclusive to merchants of death? Why are industrialists and business people not able to take advantage of this area of opportunity?
Regarding recreational use of the drug, the Supreme Court has declared it unconstitutional to prohibit “acts related to personal use for recreational purposes.” In comparing opportunities for consuming alcohol, tobacco, energy drinks, unhealthy food, as well as for developing addictions such as impulse shopping, gambling and betting in casinos, with opportunities for using marijuana, to prohibit the latter and allow the rest is discriminatory.
We cannot limit the right to the free development of personality with persecutory laws. This means, in the Court’s words,
*Gustavo De la Rosa is director of the Office of Work and Human Rights and a research professor of education at the Autonomous University of Juárez City (Ciudad Juárez), Chihuahua.
Last week, the second forum of the National Debate on Marijuana was held in Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, and this was my presentation at one of the roundtables.
MV Note: In November 2015, the First Chamber of the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice granted an amparo, 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. 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. This led the government to organize a national debate on marijuana, to conclude by the end of March. Congress is also holding hearings on the issue.What legal changes should we make to respect a fundamental right? People should have the right to benefit from the therapeutic qualities of marijuana, enjoy the fun effects it produces, and do business within the production-marketing chain.
In April 2011, the most important Constitutional reform since 1917 was implemented, its harmonization with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Since then, legal principles guiding the country are not only the letter of the law but also the interpretation of this in accord with the Constitution and international treaties, and in the best interest of the person.
MV Note: Article One of the Mexican Constitution states: "Laws relating to human rights will be interpreted in conformance with this Constitution and with international treaties, at all times awarding persons the broadest protection."With these legal principles, updates ought to be made of laws that restrict the human rights of anyone who steps on Mexican soil. Mexicans have the right to benefit from the therapeutic effects of marijuana because Article 15 of the International Treaty on Cultural, Social, and Economic Rights says:
"The States recognize the right of everyone to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications. To benefit from the protection… of scientific products.If patients have the right to receive the best treatment available to cure their disease or relieve pain, why are doctors not able to prescribe marijuana when they professionally believe that the alternative is adequate?
Why are we discussing whether the right to health care is respected or not? As Article 4 of the Constitution notes, “everyone has the right to protection of health” and requires establishing conditions to enjoy this protection. Yet the prohibitive, and now unconstitutional, regulation is precisely in the Health Act.
How many people have died without the therapeutic benefit of the drug? Hasn’t our prudishness caused enough pain while we continue to discuss indisputable science?
Why are farmers not able to cultivate marijuana with the best techniques and quality control? Why is this activity exclusive to merchants of death? Why are industrialists and business people not able to take advantage of this area of opportunity?
Regarding recreational use of the drug, the Supreme Court has declared it unconstitutional to prohibit “acts related to personal use for recreational purposes.” In comparing opportunities for consuming alcohol, tobacco, energy drinks, unhealthy food, as well as for developing addictions such as impulse shopping, gambling and betting in casinos, with opportunities for using marijuana, to prohibit the latter and allow the rest is discriminatory.
We cannot limit the right to the free development of personality with persecutory laws. This means, in the Court’s words,
“a radical rejection of the ever-present temptation of State paternalism, thinking it has a better understanding of what’s in people’s best interest and what they should do with their lives.”The right to freely decide how to develop one's personality, after turning 18, is one of the fundamental rights, which obligates the government and its officials to always respect those whom it governs. Spanish Original
*Gustavo De la Rosa is director of the Office of Work and Human Rights and a research professor of education at the Autonomous University of Juárez City (Ciudad Juárez), Chihuahua.