This intriguing question is being asked on an Atlantic.com article with same name. And the Mexican Supreme Court has responded with a limited quantified response of yes.
The country’s top justices concluded that national laws making it illegal to personally produce, possess, and consume marijuana violated the rights of Mexicans. The ruling itself has received considerable attention, but the rationale behind it less so. The high court’s decision was based not on marijuana’s effects on public health or impact on incarceration rates, but on fundamental human rights. In that respect, it’s pretty precedent-setting globally.
The article goes on to make good points. Mexico and other Central American nations have born the dark & deadly side of the We The Gringos (WTG) appetite for smoking & toking. The corruption that WTG causes is politely ignored through denial of the enabled cloudy haze.
The presumed & predominantly illegal right to toke & smoke should not deny our southern neighbors’ inalienable rights to life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness. But it does. It enables an evil culture of fear, violence & corruption. The pendulum of justice is now swinging away & hopefully towards their freedom.
The core of this unique argument is based upon the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Now the wheels start coming off of the bus. Rights exist only when balanced with Responsibilities. And the premise of the argument is based upon the ethereal phrase, “the free development of his personality”. So this free development is dependent upon a purple haze? I beg to differ, free development needs to be independent from the consumption of mind altering substances. If not, it is not free development at all. Instead, it is dependent development.
This all being said, this is a stumble in the inevitable direction. The full rule of law needs to be developed along the way towards preserving public safety through measured responsible consumption. What is that level? For alcohol, there are known, accepted & measurable levels. If this is the path to chosen, eventual legalization, then the path must go first through measurable levels of responsible consumption. Until then, the rights personal safe trumps the free development of personality.
Until the then, the laws of the land & court rulings remain in the effect & still take precedence. Employers with direct federal funding streams are obligated to maintain Drug Free workplaces. Employees will always have the responsible obligation to report to work without being under the influence of intoxicants of any legal status.