Court Says Marijuana Grown For Personal Use Is Legal
A federal court in Buenos Aires ruled Tuesday that a law banning personal pot plantations is unconstitutional. The court said that pot farms are legally kosher as long as the plants are potted for personal use only. The law in question calls for up to two years in prison for those who plant, cultivate or even store marijuana seeds with the aim of producing drugs.
Legal scholars and supreme court justices have long maintained that the personal consumption of drugs is legal under Argentina’s constitution. Courts have frequently ruled against attempts to penalize personal possession. Despite this, law enforcement officials in various parts of the country have at times cracked down on individuals for the personal use and transportation of drugs.
Argentina is not a major drug producer or exporter. However, in recent years the country has become a key gateway for the transportation and triangulation of drugs produced in elsewhere in Latin America for export to the US and Europe. A drug enforcement official told The Argentine Post that almost everyday at least one flight out of Ezeiza contains a drug smuggler. Officials often allow the smugglers – or mules – to reach their country of destination so that they can then be arrested and tried for violating drugs laws in both countries.
This is a little hard to believe without any citations, names, links or any other proof!
Hey anonymous,
Good point. It’s not so much hard to believe as it is an example of a hastily written post. I had a federal judge confirm the details of the story and I should have mentioned this in the post. And I did cite a “drug enforcement official” who talked about drug smuggling and his belief that smugglers try to get drugs out of EZEIZA on a daily basis. Perhaps it would have been better had I simply quoted him, without revealing his identity, instead of paraphrasing him. In any case, this assertion is common knowledge among drug enforcement officials. I could not name this source, but I could have explained why the person declined to be quoted on the record. That may have helped readers understand the context better.
Cheers and thanks for the critique,
TAP