VZCZCXRO8890
RR RUEHCD RUEHGD RUEHHO RUEHMC RUEHNG RUEHNL RUEHRD RUEHRS RUEHTM
DE RUEHME #2638/01 2471313
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 041313Z SEP 09
FM AMEMBASSY MEXICO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 8137
INFO RUEHXC/ALL US CONSULATES IN MEXICO COLLECTIVE
RUEHWH/WESTERN HEMISPHERIC AFFAIRS DIPL POSTS
RUEABND/DEA HQS WASHINGTON DC
RUEHME/AMEMBASSY MEXICO 0037
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHINGTON DC
RHEHAAA/NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON DC
RHMFIUU/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHINGTON DC
RUEHME/USDAO MEXICO CITY MX
RHEHOND/DIR ONDCP WASHINGTON DC
RHMFIUU/HQ USNORTHCOM

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 MEXICO 002638 
 
PASS TO ODC 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL PGOV KCRM SNAR PINR MX
SUBJECT: CALDERON SIGNS NARCOMENUDEO LAW 
 
REF: MEXICO 1278 
 
MEXICO 00002638  001.2 OF 002 
 
 
¶1.  (SBU)  Summary:  On August 20 President Calderon signed 
into law a reform that decriminalizes small scale possession 
of drugs for the purpose of consumption, shifts the 
responsibility for prosecuting small scale dealers to state 
authorities, increases the penalties for small scale dealers, 
and mandates the Health Ministry to develop a national 
program for the prevention and treatment of drug abuse.  The 
new law, which President Calderon left unsigned for four 
months following its approval by both chambers of the Mexican 
Congress, represents an attempt by the GoM to establish a 
legal distinction between users and traffickers which the GoM 
believes is essential for cracking down on drug dealers. 
Critics of the law are concerned that prosecutors and health 
officials will not receive the resources they need to 
prosecute effectively small time drug traffickers and attend 
to the health problems of addicts.  End Summary. 
 
The Ins and Outs of the Law 
¶2.  (U)  Trafficking in any type of drug, regardless of the 
amount, will remain a crime punishable by up to 25 years in 
jail.  However, whereas federal authorities assumed the lead 
on any and all cases involving drugs in the past, the new law 
assigns state authorities the lead for dealing with consumers 
and traffickers in quantities less than one thousand times 
the established threshold limits, unless the activity is 
considered subject to federal organized crime law.  The law 
also establishes a middle ground of "shared jurisdiction" 
where either state or federal authorities can prosecute 
cases.  The Attorney General's Office (PGR) argues that the 
distinction between consumers and traffickers will enable 
consumers to get the treatment they need without being 
subject to extortion by law enforcement officials.  Equally 
important, PGR maintains the law should facilitate more 
effective investigation of drug traffickers by encouraging 
greater exchange of information amongst authorities and 
giving local and state officials the kind of lead  they need 
on investigations on crimes occurring in their jurisdictions. 
 
¶3.  (U)  Reftel speaks to legal definitions the law 
establishes for consumers and drug traffickers.  Individuals 
apprehended in possession of certain drugs in quantities 
smaller than those established as the threshold limit for the 
purposes of consumption but who do not demonstrate "symptoms 
of dependency" are considered consumers.  Once a prosecutor 
confirms this finding, he/she will send a file on the 
consumer to the proper health authority.  Only upon being 
registered in possession of this amount on a third occasion 
will a consumer be required to obtain drug treatment. 
 
Implementation Challenges 
¶4.  (SBU)  Emilio Pea, Director General of Human Rights for 
the PGR under former President Vicente Fox, conveyed several 
concerns with the new law.  While he appreciated the need to 
give local authorities a greater lead on small scale drug 
dealing in their states, he worried that local police lack 
the proper training, weapons and intelligence mechanisms to 
implement and enforce the law effectively.  Pea flagged a 
stipulation in the law that suggests traffickers will only 
face prosecution if found in possession of "pure" vs 
"tainted" quantities of certain drugs and wondered if this 
could impede the prosecution of traffickers.  Thirdly, Pena 
criticized the law for being vague on the question of what 
defined "symptoms of dependency" complicating efforts to 
determine when consumers suffered an addiction. 
 
Potency Matters 
¶5.  (U)  Other experts fault the law for failing to make a 
distinction between the effects of different drugs.  For 
example, while it recognizes that marijuana is a mild 
hallucinogen and is commonly prescribed to address a variety 
of medical conditions, the law does not acknowledge 
differences for example with methamphetamines, a much more 
powerful stimulant that can make the user psychotic and even 
violent at low doses.  These experts believe the law did not 
sufficiently take these kinds of distinctions into account. 
 
The Human Rights Perspective 
¶6.  (U)  Mexican human rights NGO CenterProdh signaled its 
 
MEXICO 00002638  002.2 OF 002 
 
 
support for the new law insofar as it keeps non-grave 
offenders out of jails.  CenterProdh favors a more holistic 
approach to dealing with challenges posed by illegal drugs 
that focuses on drug offender treatment and rehabilitation. 
It views jails in Mexico, in large measure, as breeding 
grounds for criminal activity.  As such, it worries that 
incarcerating minor offenders may only aggravate Mexico's 
crime problems.  Of course, a number of organizations 
questioned whether the GOM would make available the resources 
needed to provide drug abusers with the treatment they need. 
 
Squaring the Law with Drug Courts 
¶7.  (U)  Eduardo Medina Mora, the Mexican Attorney General 
(PGR), announced the opening of Mexico's first Drug Court in 
the northern state of Nuevo Leon in September 2009. 
However, it is unclear at this point whether or not first and 
second time offenders who commit crimes and are found 
possessing drugs below the threshold quantity will be subject 
to drug courts and mandatory treatment.  Mexican authorities 
hope the drug courts will help break the cycle of addiction 
and crime by mandating treatment for offenders.  The 
narcomenudeo law will complicate the task by not requiring 
first and second time offenders to seek treatment. 
Statistically speaking, the chance of catching the same 
offender a third time is probably not high. 
 
Comment 
¶8.  (SBU) With the adoption of this legislation, the Calderon 
administration attempts to project a more holistic approach 
to tackling the drug problems facing Mexico.  In the course 
of its first three years, interdiction initiatives took 
center stage while prevention and treatment took a back seat. 
 This reform represents the administration's first 
significant effort to address prevention, treatment, and 
rehabilitation.  Many see merit in assigning the states 
greater authority for dealing with these issues and 
distinguishing between dealers and users.  Others, however, 
worry a lack of resources will limit what authorities will be 
able to accomplish in terms of both health facilities for 
addicts and the investigation of traffickers.  It is too 
early to predict what contribution this law will make to 
Mexico's efforts to combat illegal drugs, but in view of the 
implementation challenges, some fear the decriminalization of 
drugs will prove its ultimate legacy.  Commentators offered 
mixed reviews on this bill when the Congress passed it last 
April with some conveying concern over the potential societal 
impact of decriminalizing drug consumption and others lauding 
the legislation as a welcome tool for focusing greater energy 
on fighting drug dealers in local communities.  Commentary 
this time around has been restrained thus far as many appear 
inclined to take a wait and see approach regarding its 
potential impact. 
Visit Mexico City's Classified Web Site at 
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/wha/mexicocity and the North American 
Partnership Blog at http://www.intelink.gov/communities/state/nap / 
 
PASCUAL