Pubdate: Mon, 07 Jan 2013
Source: Cyprus Mail, The (Cyprus)
Copyright: Cyprus Mail 2013
Contact:  http://www.cyprus-mail.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/100
Author: Jeffrey Miron
Note: Jeffrey Miron is Senior Lecturer and Director of Undergraduate 
Studies at Harvard University and Senior Fellow at the Cato 
Institute. Miron is the author of Libertarianism, from A to Z. This 
article first appeared on www.themarknews.com

MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION IN URUGUAY

On December 23, Uruguayan President Jose Mujica signed a new law that 
fully legalizes marijuana in his country. Uruguay had already 
legalized possession, but the new law legalizes production and sale. 
This is an important victory in the fight against drug prohibition: 
it marks the first full legalization of an illicit drug since 
worldwide drug prohibition began in 1919. However, the broader and 
longer-term effects of the new law are far from certain.

Prohibition has proven to have little benefit, and comes with a long 
list of negative side effects: it generates violent, corrupt black 
markets that increase the use of dirty needles and the spread of HIV 
and other diseases; it results in civil-liberties infringements in 
the form of warrantless searches, racial profiling, and the 
unnecessary incarceration of thousands; and governments waste 
resources on police and prisons, and leave potential tax revenue as 
profit for illegal traffickers.

These consequences spring from the illegal markets for marijuana, 
cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and several other drugs. Since 
marijuana has already become de facto legal in many countries, its 
contribution to drug-related crime and corruption is more limited. 
Legalizing marijuana therefore addresses but one part of a larger 
problem, and may not reduce the negative effects of prohibition.

In fact, if marijuana legalization leads authorities to increase 
their enforcement efforts in other drug markets, then violence, 
corruption, and other ills due to prohibition may increase. It would 
then appear as though marijuana legalization had exacerbated the 
problems it claims to reduce, thereby supporting the arguments of 
prohibitionists.

Uruguay's new law is very restrictive: Individuals can purchase no 
more than 40 grams of marijuana per month (and must register in a 
government database), and producers can cultivate no more than six 
plants unless they join growers' clubs, which also face strict limits 
on production. Marijuana can only be sold in state-regulated 
pharmacies and cannot be exported or sold to tourists. A new 
Institute for the Regulation and Control of Cannabis will supervise 
all of this.

These restrictions on the legal market are somewhere between 
irrelevant and counter-productive. If marijuana users and producers 
have no trouble staying within these limits, then the limits 
themselves are irrelevant. More likely, however, these restrictions 
will keep the black market alive, undoing the key benefit of legalization.

Uruguay's approach attempts to eliminate the ills of prohibition 
while still controlling access to marijuana. This is an impossible 
task. Weak controls of the legal market have minimal impact, and 
significant controls keep the black market active. Policymakers must 
accept that drug use is an individual decision - not an appropriate 
realm for government interference - and that restrictions on the 
purchase and production of marijuana are counter-productive.

It is far too soon to conclude that the argument for legalization has 
been won. Even in Uruguay, majority opinion still opposes 
legalization, and other countries - particularly the United States - 
may yet intervene in Uruguay's marijuana legalization.

The United States pushed drug prohibition on the world via the Treaty 
of Versailles in 1919, and its role as "prohibitionist-in-chief" has 
continued under the UN's drug-control treaties - which, by the way, 
appear to bar Uruguay from legalizing marijuana. The UN may push back 
against the new law.

The pendulum of public opinion currently swings toward legalization, 
at least in the United States. But pendulums swing in both 
directions. While U.S. opposition to Uruguay's new law has so far 
been muted - perhaps because of recent marijuana legalizations in 
Colorado and Washington - the next U.S. president may take a harder 
line against marijuana. Recall that 14 states decriminalized 
marijuana in the 1970s, only to see the United States escalate its 
"War on Drugs" in the 1980s.

Uruguay's new law constitutes real progress in dismantling 
prohibition, but it will not be a lasting victory unless supporters 
embrace more complete legalization, and for all drugs. Supporters 
should not restrict their case to claims about lower crime rates or 
increased tax revenue; they should also argue that, out of respect 
for personal freedom, policy must let individuals, not governments, 
decide who produces and uses drugs.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom