Uruguay legalizes marijuana--U.N. not happy

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**DarkTraveler777**

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-25340324

Uruguay's decision to legalise the production, sale and consumption of marijuana violates international law, the UN drugs watchdog says.

The International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) warned that the move would endanger young people and "contribute to the earlier onset of addiction".

The new law will allow registered Uruguayans over 18 to buy up to 40g (1.4oz) of the drug a month.

The government hopes it will help tackle drug cartels.

INCB chief Raymond Yans said he was "surprised" that the government in Montevideo had "knowingly decided to break the universally agreed and internationally endorsed treaty".In a statement, Mr Yans said claims the law would help reduce crime relied on "rather precarious and unsubstantiated assumptions".

The INCB is an independent body of experts established by the United Nations to monitor countries' compliance with international drug treaties.

After nearly 12 hours of debate on Tuesday, senators gave the government-sponsored bill their final approval, making Uruguay the first country in the world to legalise the production and sale of marijuana.

Dozens of supporters of the bill proposed by the left-wing President Jose Mujica gathered outside the Congress in Montevideo to follow the vote.

Presenting the bill to fellow senators, Roberto Conde said it was an unavoidable response to reality, given that the "war" against drugs had failed.

"We have the duty as the state to give a specific answer to an open territory, small and non-producing," Mr Conde said, adding that Uruguay's borders were used by cartels to smuggle drugs into neighbouring countries.

But many senators also spoke out against the bill, before it was passed by 16 votes to 13.

Opposition lawmaker Alfredo Solari said Uruguay should not "experiment" on its people.

The project had already been approved by Uruguay's lower house in July.

The historic approval comes amid growing debate over drug legalisation in Latin America.

A group of former presidents and influential social figures, including Brazil's Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Mexico's Ernesto Zedillo and Colombian ex-leader Cesar Gaviria, have called for marijuana to be legalised and regulated.

But President Mujica recently asked during an interview why the former leaders only spoke out about the legalisation of marijuana after they had left office.

In July, without naming Uruguay directly, Pope Francis criticised drug legalisation plans during a visit to Brazil.

So, what does this mean for Uruguay? I am unfamiliar with the INCB, but if Uruguay breaks a treaty it signed what are the consequences?

**Frazzled**

You know what they say. So goes Uruguay, so goes the world!

**-Shrike-**

Hold on, what are you Yanks trying to legalise? Isn't that marijuana as well?

**DarkTraveler777**

-Shrike- wrote:
Hold on, what are you Yanks trying to legalise? Isn't that marijuana as well?

Yep. That is why I am curious about the consequence of ignoring these international treaties. If there is going to be international fallout from legalizing pot in the US then I am surprised I haven't heard more of that argument from the pro-prohibition side of the issue.

**LordofHats**

The Netherlands seem to get by just fine.

**-Shrike-**

Well, Wikipedia didn't turn up anything useful regarding the USA and UN Drug Treaties. I guess I'll just have to wait to see what happens, then.

**Ensis Ferrae**

-Shrike- wrote:
Well, Wikipedia didn't turn up anything useful regarding the USA and UN Drug Treaties. I guess I'll just have to wait to see what happens, then.

Well, we Americans probably wrote the treaty. And we probably wrote it in such a way that ensures that the "good guys" can legalize everything up to Meth and Krokodil, but "not as good guys" or "bad guys" like Mexico, Uruguay, Paraguay, quadraguay, etc cannot.

**Krellnus**

Good move Uruguay, lets see if any other countries will follow suit.

**Dreadclaw69**

I'm sure the UN will write them a sternly worded letter

**Jimsolo**

I'm obviously not a diplomat or a political scientist or anything, but off the top of my head, my initial thought would be that if we break our written agreements because we no longer find them to be relevant, then it makes it harder for us to get other nations to make agreements with us. It's better if we at least try to come to an agreement with the other treaty signatories to dissolve the agreement (or at least portions of it) to show that the US takes it's foreign agreements seriously.

**Frazzled**

Jimsolo wrote:
I'm obviously not a diplomat or a political scientist or anything, but off the top of my head, my initial thought would be that if we break our written agreements because we no longer find them to be relevant, then it makes it harder for us to get other nations to make agreements with us. It's better if we at least try to come to an agreement with the other treaty signatories to dissolve the agreement (or at least portions of it) to show that the US takes it's foreign agreements seriously.

Meh. Foreign agreements only seem to get us into wars or ship our jobs to former enemies. No thanks. Washington was right.

**sebster**

The treaty in question is the Single Convention of Narcotic Drugs, and it's been around since the 1960s. I believe every single nation in the UN is a signatory. It allows use for medicinal purposes and subsequent findings appear to consider possession for personal use legal, and its scope beyond that is somewhat up for debate - while it would certainly be a breach to allow domestic producers to export to other countries where marijuana is banned, it may be possible that licensed local producers purely supplying a domestic market may not breach the treaty.

The thing to understand is that the treaty was written by the wealthy countries of the world attempting to put some requirement on the countries that were major drug producers at the time, like Turkey and Pakistan, to stop exporting drugs to the wealthy countries. And in that sense the treaty makes sense. While it's provisions could possibly be extended to penalise a country that is simply allowing domestic production, effectively doing so is unlikely, and it's even more unlikely that anyone would have the political desire to try.

As for the actual penalty clauses, basically the treaty allows signatories to ban imports from a country that is in breach of the treaty. Which makes sense in the context of a traditional producer of narcotics, like Pakistan, if they allowed opium producers free reign to smuggle their goods to other countries. It makes little sense in the context of Uruguay, unless they suddenly have producers colluding with government to export marijuana overseas.

And even if someone was to freak out about Uruguay's new law and start restricting trade with them... there is no fething way anyone would do that with the US. Too big a trading partner, never going to happen.

TLDR - What does all this mean for Uruguay - probably nothing, unless a really unlikely series of circumstances turns the country in to an exporter of narcotics. What does it mean for the US - absolutely nothing, no matter what.

Frazzled wrote:
Meh. Foreign agreements only seem to get us into wars or ship our jobs to former enemies. No thanks. Washington was right.

And allow you to maintain your economy by continuing to sell massive quantities of high end manufactured goods. And allow you to maintain your standard of living by importing a massive number of goods at much smaller cost than you could produce them domestically.

**Frazzled**

Quiet dern ferenner-you're too busy typing and not watching for that killer drop bear sneaking up on you. All your manufacturing jobs are in China too...Once your coal runs out you'll be like the Middle East when the oil runs out.

**Gutsnagga**

Krellnus wrote:
Good move Uruguay, lets see if any other countries will follow suit.

Not sure if trolling?

**Ensis Ferrae**

Gutsnagga wrote:
Krellnus wrote:
Good move Uruguay, lets see if any other countries will follow suit.

Not sure if trolling?

Even if he is, there is a precedent that shows making a product legal kills most of the black market for that good. Look at the US. during prohibition, gangsters made their money off of booze. Certainly they still had underground casinos, brothels and other things that are typically done with booze, but the money was in the booze. Making that legal again meant that the gangs were forced to move to other products. Narcotics being one of their big ones now.

**Frazzled**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Gutsnagga wrote:
Krellnus wrote:
Good move Uruguay, lets see if any other countries will follow suit.

Not sure if trolling?

Even if he is, there is a precedent that shows making a product legal kills most of the black market for that good. Look at the US. during prohibition, gangsters made their money off of booze. Certainly they still had underground casinos, brothels and other things that are typically done with booze, but the money was in the booze. Making that legal again meant that the gangs were forced to move to other products. Narcotics being one of their big ones now.

I think thats both the point and the hope. It may be the only thing that can put the stake in the cartels.

**DarkTraveler777**

sebster wrote:
The treaty in question is the Single Convention of Narcotic Drugs, and it's been around since the 1960s. I believe every single nation in the UN is a signatory. It allows use for medicinal purposes and subsequent findings appear to consider possession for personal use legal, and its scope beyond that is somewhat up for debate - while it would certainly be a breach to allow domestic producers to export to other countries where marijuana is banned, it may be possible that licensed local producers purely supplying a domestic market may not breach the treaty.

The thing to understand is that the treaty was written by the wealthy countries of the world attempting to put some requirement on the countries that were major drug producers at the time, like Turkey and Pakistan, to stop exporting drugs to the wealthy countries. And in that sense the treaty makes sense. While it's provisions could possibly be extended to penalise a country that is simply allowing domestic production, effectively doing so is unlikely, and it's even more unlikely that anyone would have the political desire to try.

As for the actual penalty clauses, basically the treaty allows signatories to ban imports from a country that is in breach of the treaty. Which makes sense in the context of a traditional producer of narcotics, like Pakistan, if they allowed opium producers free reign to smuggle their goods to other countries. It makes little sense in the context of Uruguay, unless they suddenly have producers colluding with government to export marijuana overseas.

And even if someone was to freak out about Uruguay's new law and start restricting trade with them... there is no fething way anyone would do that with the US. Too big a trading partner, never going to happen.

TLDR - What does all this mean for Uruguay - probably nothing, unless a really unlikely series of circumstances turns the country in to an exporter of narcotics. What does it mean for the US - absolutely nothing, no matter what.

Excellent. Thank you for that break down.

**sebster**

Frazzled wrote:
Quiet dern ferenner-you're too busy typing and not watching for that killer drop bear sneaking up on you. All your manufacturing jobs are in China too...Once your coal runs out you'll be like the Middle East when the oil runs out.

Constantly hammering at keys is the only thing that keeps the drop bears away - they're terrified of the noise.

And don't worry too much about losing manufacturing jobs. As wages are slowly equalising they're actually coming back to the US. Textile jobs are moving from China back to the US.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Excellent. Thank you for that break down.

Not a problem

**djones520**

sebster wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Quiet dern ferenner-you're too busy typing and not watching for that killer drop bear sneaking up on you. All your manufacturing jobs are in China too...Once your coal runs out you'll be like the Middle East when the oil runs out.

Constantly hammering at keys is the only thing that keeps the drop bears away - they're terrified of the noise.

I about lost my gak when I read that, while on the phone in an official capacity.

**Captain Fantastic**

The UN- A force for worldwide stagnation and the preservation of moronic ideals!

Good on them. Row Row Fight the powa'