Animal Politico: Víctor Gutiérrez and Tania Ramírez*
November 6, 2019
The last weeks have been critical for the regulation of cannabis in our country. Until a few days ago, we knew that the Congress of the Union had October 31 as the deadline to regulate the cannabis market and thus fulfill the mandate given by the Supreme Court after the creation of jurisprudence on the matter.
So what happened during all this time that led to this? How is it that a Congress--that had dozens of proposals available to create the law, organized countless forums and had received valuable inputs from civil society--failed to fulfill its work in a timely manner? In this article, we will try to assess the damages and explain how we got to the point where, in an unprecedented exercise, the Senate declared itself incompetent to fulfill its obligations.
The legislative process: a lot of noise and few results:
Dozens of initiatives have been presented during recent legislatures by virtually all political parties. Of these, 10 were arbitrarily chosen for the preparation of a bill by the United Committees of Justice, Health and Legislation Implementation Studies, with input from the Public Security Committee and the entire Senate. In parallel to the process of writing a bill, a countless number of forums, public conversations, exhibitions, public sessions of the Senate, and talks, among other actions, were carried out. Although there was participation by civil society, medical experts and patients, these exercises gave priority to listening to the voices of participants from the large industry existing in Canada and the United States, who on several occasions spoke about their business models.
Proposed regulations favor large foreign businesses:
The result of this process? On October 24, the Justice Commission announced the “Draft Bill for the Regulation of Cannabis Law”. It is a draft that only benefits large industry, over-regulates, prevents access to the market by small actors and maintains a punitive approach. After months of work, the Senate handed us a document of poor legislative composition which makes use of over-regulation, erroneous definitions, excludes vulnerable groups, favors only large companies and reproduces prejudices and inertia.
Regarding the first aspect, for example, the "Cannabis Institute for the Pacification and Reconciliation of the People" is established and empowered to provide the basis for "fair tax collection", when in our country changes in tax collection could be done by modify the appropriate existing laws, which is the responsibility of the Chamber of Deputies. Moreover, the draft legislation establishes 25 different definitions for words as basic as “store,” “smoke,” “transform" and “benefit from”, which translates into over-regulation, which will produce confusion and legal loopholes.
Of all the errors incurred, the one that worries us most is the creation of barriers to small producers and farmers. In establishing criteria for testing and tracing of cannabis seeds, plants and products, these vulnerable groups are ignored because complex procedures are required whose cost cannot be met by small actors who wish to participate in this activity.
Finally, it is nonsense to continue to maintain criminal law through, for example, the participation of the Secretariat of Citizen Security and Protection in the governing board or the criminalization of women who consume. If we add to the above that this project leaves intact article 198 of the Federal Criminal Code (criminalization of individual planting, cultivation and harvesting of cannabis plants [which the Supreme specifically ruled unconstitutional]), we have a system that will punish those who cannot pay the costs of the administrative procedures necessary to enter a regulated market, that is, vulnerable populations.
Incredibly, after so much feedback from experts in the field, a compilation of international experiences and even an outline from the Supreme Court, which, through its rulings, gave guidelines to the Congress on what a regulation tailored for our country should contain, the drafting committees failed to meet the challenge.
"Let's get some more time"
Fortunately, the warnings raised by civil society groups and academics, in which the dangers of such legislation were denounced, succeeded in curbing the progress of this legislation. In response to the badly achieved draft of the Committee chaired by Senator Menchaca, Ricardo Monreal, the parliamentary coordinator of Morena [Movement for National Regeneration, the dominant party], acknowledged that there were pressures and that they would suspend the debate so that it is not those interests that drive the new law, regardless of the deadline given by the Supreme Court, which expired on October 31.
Therefore, in an unprecedented exercise, the Justice Committee of the Senate was in dire need to request an extension from the Court that "allows them to complete the corresponding legislative process." In a plenary session, also by means of an historic decision, the Supreme Court determined that, as an exception and for only one occasion, owing to the complexity of the matter, an extension would be granted that expires on April 30, 2020.
Thus, the Senate got one more session for the Congress as a whole to fulfill its obligations in the matter. It should be remembered that during that time discussion must also take place in the Chamber of Deputies, where the corresponding tax issues should be dealt with. Meanwhile, the contradiction between the prohibition that still prevails in the law and the declaration of unconstitutionality by the Court keeps us in total uncertainty, without clear rules, with obstacles in the effective exercise of our rights and with a criminalization policy that remains as in force as ever.
It is urgent to regulate marijuana now and it is urgent to regulate it well, with a complete, balanced, careful, inclusive legislation that can be evaluated and which puts public health, human rights and social justice at the center in regards to the groups most affected by the previous ban. The discussion will "cool down" only if we allow it to. Therefore, we at Mexico United Against Crime invite you to pressure the authorities and demand your rights. The #CannabisConPermiso campaign explains to you, step by step, how to obtain a court injunction, at no cost, that permits growing and consuming marijuana for adult personal use. Join it! Spanish original
*Víctor Gutiérrez and Tania Ramírez are staff members of the Drug Policy Program of Mexico United Against Crime (@MUCD.
November 6, 2019
The last weeks have been critical for the regulation of cannabis in our country. Until a few days ago, we knew that the Congress of the Union had October 31 as the deadline to regulate the cannabis market and thus fulfill the mandate given by the Supreme Court after the creation of jurisprudence on the matter.
MV Note: Under Mexican law, the Supreme Court had to rule on five identical petitions from individuals regarding their right to grow and consume marijuana to make it legal for anyone to do so. They made the first such ruling in Nov. 2015. The fifth such ruling was made in Oct. 2018. While the court ruled that public health and criminal laws prohibiting such actions were unconstitutional, based on the Constitution granting the right of individuals to be in control of their personal development, that did not abrogate exisiting laws. Instead, the Congress had to abrogate them and pass a new law defining how the production, sale and consumption of marijuana was to be carried out in Mexico. The court gave the Congree until Oct. 31 of this year to complete this process.However, this did not happen and, at the request of Congress, the Court extended the grace period until the end of the next [spring] session, that is, until April 30.
So what happened during all this time that led to this? How is it that a Congress--that had dozens of proposals available to create the law, organized countless forums and had received valuable inputs from civil society--failed to fulfill its work in a timely manner? In this article, we will try to assess the damages and explain how we got to the point where, in an unprecedented exercise, the Senate declared itself incompetent to fulfill its obligations.
The legislative process: a lot of noise and few results:
Dozens of initiatives have been presented during recent legislatures by virtually all political parties. Of these, 10 were arbitrarily chosen for the preparation of a bill by the United Committees of Justice, Health and Legislation Implementation Studies, with input from the Public Security Committee and the entire Senate. In parallel to the process of writing a bill, a countless number of forums, public conversations, exhibitions, public sessions of the Senate, and talks, among other actions, were carried out. Although there was participation by civil society, medical experts and patients, these exercises gave priority to listening to the voices of participants from the large industry existing in Canada and the United States, who on several occasions spoke about their business models.
Proposed regulations favor large foreign businesses:
The result of this process? On October 24, the Justice Commission announced the “Draft Bill for the Regulation of Cannabis Law”. It is a draft that only benefits large industry, over-regulates, prevents access to the market by small actors and maintains a punitive approach. After months of work, the Senate handed us a document of poor legislative composition which makes use of over-regulation, erroneous definitions, excludes vulnerable groups, favors only large companies and reproduces prejudices and inertia.
Regarding the first aspect, for example, the "Cannabis Institute for the Pacification and Reconciliation of the People" is established and empowered to provide the basis for "fair tax collection", when in our country changes in tax collection could be done by modify the appropriate existing laws, which is the responsibility of the Chamber of Deputies. Moreover, the draft legislation establishes 25 different definitions for words as basic as “store,” “smoke,” “transform" and “benefit from”, which translates into over-regulation, which will produce confusion and legal loopholes.
Of all the errors incurred, the one that worries us most is the creation of barriers to small producers and farmers. In establishing criteria for testing and tracing of cannabis seeds, plants and products, these vulnerable groups are ignored because complex procedures are required whose cost cannot be met by small actors who wish to participate in this activity.
Finally, it is nonsense to continue to maintain criminal law through, for example, the participation of the Secretariat of Citizen Security and Protection in the governing board or the criminalization of women who consume. If we add to the above that this project leaves intact article 198 of the Federal Criminal Code (criminalization of individual planting, cultivation and harvesting of cannabis plants [which the Supreme specifically ruled unconstitutional]), we have a system that will punish those who cannot pay the costs of the administrative procedures necessary to enter a regulated market, that is, vulnerable populations.
Incredibly, after so much feedback from experts in the field, a compilation of international experiences and even an outline from the Supreme Court, which, through its rulings, gave guidelines to the Congress on what a regulation tailored for our country should contain, the drafting committees failed to meet the challenge.
"Let's get some more time"
Fortunately, the warnings raised by civil society groups and academics, in which the dangers of such legislation were denounced, succeeded in curbing the progress of this legislation. In response to the badly achieved draft of the Committee chaired by Senator Menchaca, Ricardo Monreal, the parliamentary coordinator of Morena [Movement for National Regeneration, the dominant party], acknowledged that there were pressures and that they would suspend the debate so that it is not those interests that drive the new law, regardless of the deadline given by the Supreme Court, which expired on October 31.
Therefore, in an unprecedented exercise, the Justice Committee of the Senate was in dire need to request an extension from the Court that "allows them to complete the corresponding legislative process." In a plenary session, also by means of an historic decision, the Supreme Court determined that, as an exception and for only one occasion, owing to the complexity of the matter, an extension would be granted that expires on April 30, 2020.
Thus, the Senate got one more session for the Congress as a whole to fulfill its obligations in the matter. It should be remembered that during that time discussion must also take place in the Chamber of Deputies, where the corresponding tax issues should be dealt with. Meanwhile, the contradiction between the prohibition that still prevails in the law and the declaration of unconstitutionality by the Court keeps us in total uncertainty, without clear rules, with obstacles in the effective exercise of our rights and with a criminalization policy that remains as in force as ever.
It is urgent to regulate marijuana now and it is urgent to regulate it well, with a complete, balanced, careful, inclusive legislation that can be evaluated and which puts public health, human rights and social justice at the center in regards to the groups most affected by the previous ban. The discussion will "cool down" only if we allow it to. Therefore, we at Mexico United Against Crime invite you to pressure the authorities and demand your rights. The #CannabisConPermiso campaign explains to you, step by step, how to obtain a court injunction, at no cost, that permits growing and consuming marijuana for adult personal use. Join it! Spanish original
*Víctor Gutiérrez and Tania Ramírez are staff members of the Drug Policy Program of Mexico United Against Crime (@MUCD.