In my opinion there are many things wrong and must change. And instead you have to talk. The solutions have to come down, us, Village. There are several things to talk about and discuss how the development of a law on abortion or on the decaying state of mass media.
It is worth clarifying that I do not believe, nor in the least, more relevant the item I'll talk soon. But it costs me a lot to dump my thoughts in a letter and now I got this. Maybe tomorrow I go to write something about why we were born and where are we? (Joke).
On this occasion I would like to open a topic little discussed. One issue that we may not touched or involve everyone personally and closely. But I think it is interesting to develop to see that there is a discourse of some politicians (senators, congressmen and even councilors) who say - "the laws and are all done, just need to meet them." The laws, first and foremost, I think there are all made, much remains to be done. Second, there is no logic and there are several already constituted unconstitutional. Of the latter I in my ignorance, sometimes I think less than that of several judges, exposing my thought is about a particular case: the criminal case of "possession of narcotics for personal consumption."
Here's a little history (dark and above all things contradictory) court on this issue. In 1978, according to a bug called "Colavini" drug possession for personal use is punished. The situation changed in 1986 with the failed "Basterra" guarding the privacy of those who had drugs for personal use.
But things changed again today in Argentina, thanks to a ruling that the Supreme Court's Office issued in 1990 (called the ruling "Montalvo"), was established as a crime, possession of drugs for personal consumption . No change to the type of drug. In this offense, it is for a term which can range from one month to two years in prison. *
Having a criminal case like this in Argentina may lead you to go to jail, to live with the fear and humiliation of to go to testify before a judge as you would a person who killed or raped and mainly to get a job not having a criminal case. Worth clarifying that prosecution is not for use on public roads but only for possession. That is, having today, such as a marijuana cigarette in your pocket you can pass any of the consequences previously described.
Having explained briefly and without airs the situation, to support my position on this issue, step to reproduce verbatim in Article 19 of the Constitution (Argentina, despite the redundancy): "The private actions of men who no way offend public order and public morality, nor injure a third party, are only reserved for God and free (free) of the authority of judges (governors, judges, etc.) "..
Showing this article of the constitution is not to say we appear before the judge, showed it, and hopefully with this decision to dismiss the case and tell us: - "You know you're right." But I want to demonstrate the extreme contradiction in which justice is Argentina. I mean that in our constitution there is a right to privacy with what might be considered rather consider unconstitutional punish the possession of narcotics.
With his private life everyone can do he pleases (ie giving you pleasure), while not harmful to a third party or public health (ie drinking in public places). As the great writer Artaud (which I recommend reading) in the Letter to the legislators of the Law on Narcotics (1917): "It is mostly a matter of conscience." The ruling that blames consumers in any way does not prevent drug trafficking. Because I believe that the only way to truly fight would have kept the state legalized the use of drugs, an idea that does not expose or support in this context, because we can not ask this in a society (underdeveloped Third World) where no health, education, or protection social dignity.
Finally I give a possible reflection or conclusion because I think the laws are so discordant with each other and why the state does not effectively combat drug trafficking. I think, you know, that guns and drugs are the two largest businesses of the neoliberal system. And our "representatives" and members of "justice" as good players in this system, do not dare to confront the powerful (in many cases are themselves, such as the pony of Lomas de Zamora) that move the drug cards in this perverse chess called Capitalism. Not wanting to overdo
more, I think the conditions are to change the law or fault penalty drug possession. Therefore, as the government claims to be as progressive as fair and justice, could begin to resolve this issue, although many do not want to say or do, involves a large part of citizens. I think it is time that the issue be reviewed by the Court of "Justice" of the Nation, at least at this point is very "contradictory"
Now, I love to read your doxa (opinion). Mine is to be synthetically decriminalize drug possession for personal consumption.
Only one more thing, I would like to add something that was also written by Antonin Artaud, is the closing of the letter to the legislature (that is to reflect Do not think that I like him):
"Your ignorance of what a man is matched only by your stupidity pretending limit. I want your law rests with your father about your mother, about your wife and children and all your posterity. And meanwhile, stand your law. " Fernando
Capece
* Information was extracted three failures exposed the newspaper Clarín day 22/5/2007.
It is worth clarifying that I do not believe, nor in the least, more relevant the item I'll talk soon. But it costs me a lot to dump my thoughts in a letter and now I got this. Maybe tomorrow I go to write something about why we were born and where are we? (Joke).
On this occasion I would like to open a topic little discussed. One issue that we may not touched or involve everyone personally and closely. But I think it is interesting to develop to see that there is a discourse of some politicians (senators, congressmen and even councilors) who say - "the laws and are all done, just need to meet them." The laws, first and foremost, I think there are all made, much remains to be done. Second, there is no logic and there are several already constituted unconstitutional. Of the latter I in my ignorance, sometimes I think less than that of several judges, exposing my thought is about a particular case: the criminal case of "possession of narcotics for personal consumption."
Here's a little history (dark and above all things contradictory) court on this issue. In 1978, according to a bug called "Colavini" drug possession for personal use is punished. The situation changed in 1986 with the failed "Basterra" guarding the privacy of those who had drugs for personal use.
But things changed again today in Argentina, thanks to a ruling that the Supreme Court's Office issued in 1990 (called the ruling "Montalvo"), was established as a crime, possession of drugs for personal consumption . No change to the type of drug. In this offense, it is for a term which can range from one month to two years in prison. *
Having a criminal case like this in Argentina may lead you to go to jail, to live with the fear and humiliation of to go to testify before a judge as you would a person who killed or raped and mainly to get a job not having a criminal case. Worth clarifying that prosecution is not for use on public roads but only for possession. That is, having today, such as a marijuana cigarette in your pocket you can pass any of the consequences previously described.
Having explained briefly and without airs the situation, to support my position on this issue, step to reproduce verbatim in Article 19 of the Constitution (Argentina, despite the redundancy): "The private actions of men who no way offend public order and public morality, nor injure a third party, are only reserved for God and free (free) of the authority of judges (governors, judges, etc.) "..
Showing this article of the constitution is not to say we appear before the judge, showed it, and hopefully with this decision to dismiss the case and tell us: - "You know you're right." But I want to demonstrate the extreme contradiction in which justice is Argentina. I mean that in our constitution there is a right to privacy with what might be considered rather consider unconstitutional punish the possession of narcotics.
With his private life everyone can do he pleases (ie giving you pleasure), while not harmful to a third party or public health (ie drinking in public places). As the great writer Artaud (which I recommend reading) in the Letter to the legislators of the Law on Narcotics (1917): "It is mostly a matter of conscience." The ruling that blames consumers in any way does not prevent drug trafficking. Because I believe that the only way to truly fight would have kept the state legalized the use of drugs, an idea that does not expose or support in this context, because we can not ask this in a society (underdeveloped Third World) where no health, education, or protection social dignity.
Finally I give a possible reflection or conclusion because I think the laws are so discordant with each other and why the state does not effectively combat drug trafficking. I think, you know, that guns and drugs are the two largest businesses of the neoliberal system. And our "representatives" and members of "justice" as good players in this system, do not dare to confront the powerful (in many cases are themselves, such as the pony of Lomas de Zamora) that move the drug cards in this perverse chess called Capitalism. Not wanting to overdo
more, I think the conditions are to change the law or fault penalty drug possession. Therefore, as the government claims to be as progressive as fair and justice, could begin to resolve this issue, although many do not want to say or do, involves a large part of citizens. I think it is time that the issue be reviewed by the Court of "Justice" of the Nation, at least at this point is very "contradictory"
Now, I love to read your doxa (opinion). Mine is to be synthetically decriminalize drug possession for personal consumption.
Only one more thing, I would like to add something that was also written by Antonin Artaud, is the closing of the letter to the legislature (that is to reflect Do not think that I like him):
"Your ignorance of what a man is matched only by your stupidity pretending limit. I want your law rests with your father about your mother, about your wife and children and all your posterity. And meanwhile, stand your law. " Fernando
Capece
* Information was extracted three failures exposed the newspaper Clarín day 22/5/2007.
