Mexico has removed custodial penalties for possession of personal use quantities of drugs. But many law enforcement agents along the border are upset that the change in Mexican law will make it easier for Americans to go to Mexico, purchase drugs, and bring them back across the border.

Other countries in Central and South America have taken similar steps. Brazil and Uruguay have removed jail penalties for possession of personal use quantities. Columbia has removed jail as a penalty for personal use amounts of marijuana and cocaine. The Argentine Supreme Court has ruled out jail as a penalty for marijuana possession.

Portugal has limited the penalties for possession of up to a ten day supply to treatment, a fine or probation.

If there are four things we know about drug use they are:

1. Drug use leads to addiction.
2. Addiction is a chronic disease with relapse as a common result.
3. Putting people in prison or jail does not cure the disease.
4. The cost of putting addicts in prison is much greater than treating the disease

While legalization may be a while off in the United States bills legalizing the use of marijuana have been introduced in Massachusetts and California.

The Federal government dismissed methamphetamine conspiracy charges against Zhenli Ye Gon. The Chinese native and Mexican businessman was accused of selling pseudoephedrine/ephedrine used in the manufacture of methamphetamine knowing that the methamphetamine would end up in the United States. But two years after Gon was indicted and incarcerated the government is admitting that it cannot prove its case.

Gon, the owner of one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in Latin America went to Mongolia where he purchased 19.797 tons of hydroxy-benzil-N-methyl-acetetamine. Prior to the arrival of the chemicals in Mexico authorities seized them and used them as an excuse to search Gon’s Mexico City residence in March 2007. While they did not find any drugs in the mansion they seized 207 million U.S. dollars, 18 million Mexican pesos, 200,000 euros, 113,000 Hong Kong dollars, 11 centenarios (Mexican gold bullion coins made of 1.20565 oz t (37.5 g) of pure gold), and a great amount of jewels. Also seized were two dwellings of approximately 20 million pesos, a lab in construction of unknown value, and seven vehicles.

The seizure, which was the largest of its kind in the world, led to his indictment in the United States and to charges in Mexico. He was arrested in a Wheaton, Maryland restaurant in July 2007, but the government’s case failed to jell. Major witnesses recanted. The Mexican government refused to turn over evidence and the Chinese government put too many conditions on the US prosecutors when they wanted to depose witnesses in China. Finally the government admitted that they did not have a case and moved to dismiss.

Now Gon faces extradition to Mexico where he faces methamphetamine and weapons charges. While his lawyers will fight the extradition it is likely that he will be extradited. And that is probably what should happen. If he committed crimes those crimes occurred in Mexico–not the United States. Until 2005 the importation of pseudoephedrine was legal in Mexico. Gon legally imported it and sold it. The use of American imperial courts to charge people with drug and terrorist crimes that occur elsewhere in the world with the claim that the crimes have an effect on the United States is just an example of American imperialism. In the Twenty-First Century with the global economy practically everything has an effect on the United States. We cannot be the policemen of the world. Here the crimes, if any, occurred in Mexico. Mexico requested extradition two years ago and apparently they can do a lot better job of prosecuting Gon than the United States which kept him locked up for two years before the government realized they had no evidence against him.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the conviction of Gary Roberge for attempted manufacturing methamphetamine, possession of a gun in connection with narcotics and possession of materials necessary for the production of methamphetamine.

Roberge was arrested after his then 16 year old daughter told the people that she babysat for that her father manufactured meth. They told a reserve police officer who employed them. Cleveland, Tennessee police Lieutenant Brumley then interviewed Roberge’s daughter and then got a search warrant for his house.

The affidavit supporting the search warrant requested permission to enter the residence without give knock notice. In support of the request Brumley wrote that Roberge owned guns, that he had previously been taken to a mental hospital, and that he had a bad temper. The court found that this was sufficient to find the exigent circumstance necessary to give permission for the police to enter Roberge’s residence without knocking on the door, giving notice of their presence and their purpose prior to entering the residence.

The police then went to Roberge’s residence, entered it without giving knock-notice, found him asleep in his bed with a gun nearby, and seized methamphetamine related equipment.

The trial court found that probably cause is not necessary to avoid giving the Fourth Amendment’s knock notice requirement prior to entry. A reasonable suspicion that knock notice would be dangerous, futile or interfere with the investigation is all that is needed. But the police officers must have an objective and particularized reason for their suspicion.

Whether or not the no-knock order was appropriate the Sixth Circuit, citing the US Supreme Court’s decision in Hudson v. Michigan, declared that failure to comply with the knock-notice requirement does not mandate suppression of the evidence.

Without excluding the evidence as a remedy for entering a residence; without giving knock-notice; does the knock-notice rule have any relevance. Why should police give notice if there is no penalty for the failure to give notice. True in this case, Roberge was sleeping. But if he was awake in his livingroom and heard the police entering, he could have shot shot the police. Apparently the chance of this happening is immaterial to the police because, knowing that Roberge had a gun, they still entered the residence.

Roberge was sentenced to 295 months in prison. Does anyone outside of Tennessee believe that a man should get nearly 25 years in prison for manufacturing methamphetamine for his own use, considering that while he had guns, he did not use them? Sentencing Roberge to 295 month cannot be considered a victory for the War On Drugs. Nor will it decrease the amount of drugs in circulation. But it will cost the government a lot of taxpayer dollars.