
Uruguay legalises production and sale of cannabis - wslh
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/11/uruguay-cannabis-marijuana-production-sale-law
======
pstuart
It feels like we're just about at the tipping point with cannabis. Once enough
states in the US legalize it, the Feds will have to back down.

The next step will be for people to wake up to the fact that harder drugs need
to be legal too. Not so that more people can take them, but so we can have
less crime and eliminate a key justification for the growing police state.

~~~
spoiledtechie
No offense, but your thoughts are ridiculous. Do you really want to see the
country enter a shit hole? Ask those folks in Michigan on the other side of
the 8 Mile if they feel drugs need to be legalized. If they feel that drugs
didn't destroy their town and community.

Look at your history and check your ideas. While I will defend the fact that
you have ideas, you are grossly wrong.

~~~
thenmar
As unpopular as this comment is, it needs to be said. Privileged, white, upper
class libertarians simply don't care how drugs affect poor communities. The
free market will sort everything out.

~~~
nate_meurer
And other folks don't appear to care how criminal records for minor non-
violent drug offenses (like simple possession) affect poor communities.

~~~
thenmar
Selective enforcement of drug laws is only one of many ways that poor and
minority communities are abused by the "white supremacist capitalist
patriarchy" to quote bell hooks. Legalizing drugs won't magically change
anything except for rich white kids whose parents would otherwise have to pay
a fine when they get arrested.

~~~
nate_meurer
Wait, so "selective enforcement of drugs laws" is abusive to poor communities,
but reforming those laws won't change anything?

Why do I suddenly have the feeling that I'm being trolled?

~~~
thenmar
You're missing the forrest for the trees. Reforming drug laws won't solve
racism, classism, or sexism. Anyway, everyone here is in favor of reforming
drug laws - this thread of discussion is within the context of talking about
the relatively radical position of legalizing all drugs without any supportive
educational or healthcare programs.

~~~
nate_meurer
Ah, silly me. I hadn't realized that I reject "any supportive educational or
healthcare programs". I thought I supported stuff like that, but you've
educated me.

Now I'm pretty sure that you're either playing me, or you really are one of
those "folks" I mentioned above.

------
chimeracoder
Until today, the only places in the world where marijuana was legal are two
states in the US (Colorado and Washington)[0], and the entire country of North
Korea[1].

Other jurisdictions have decriminalized marijuana, but most of us haven't seen
the legal sale of recreational marijuana in our lifetimes (in the US, it was
all-but-illegal since 1937, and truly illegal since 1970 - there were only 6
months in 1969 during which there were technically no laws prohibiting its
sale).

These are exciting times we live in.

[0] Technically these haven't gone into effect yet, but I'm still counting
them.

[1] Surprising, but (as far as we can tell) true. Less surprising when you
consider that exports of drugs that need to be engineered (like
methamphetamine) are one of North Korea's biggest sources of foreign currency.

~~~
lake99
Huh? Come to India. You won't have too much trouble finding government-run or
government-authorized cannabis (bhang [1]) shops.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhang](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhang)

~~~
Crito
This
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_countr...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_country))
page says:

"Used during observance of certain Hindu rituals. Government-owned shops in
holy cities like Varanasi sell cannabis in the form of bhang. _Despite the
high prevalent usage, the law makes it illegal to possess any form of the
psychoactive. However, this law is rarely enforced and treated as a low
priority across India._ Further, large tracts of cannabis grow unchecked in
the wild in many parts of northern and southern India in many states such as
West Bengal, Tripura, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, and Tamilnadu.[56]
Many states such as West Bengal, Tripura, and the North East have their own
laws allowing cannabis, locally known as ganja."

------
bitsoda
Al Jazeera English posted a really good interview with Uruguay's president,
Jose Mujica. If you haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend it.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu12Dhoma0k](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu12Dhoma0k)

~~~
delian66
Thank you ! This interview is really very good. I wish that more people, in
positions of influence and power, become as humble and clear in their
reasoning, as this man is.

------
stplsd
It is a shame that all legalization efforts goes to cannabis - the drug that
causes the least problems by being illegal.

What we really need is to legalize "hard drugs"[1] - heroin, methamphetamine.
These drugs cause the most harm by being illegal and it is a shame, because,
for example, pure heroin is gentle and harmless drug.

Too bad I am not see this happening in the next 100 years. But I am sure that
it will happen eventually. Future generations will see the "war on drugs" the
same we see slavery today.

[1] "hard drugs" is meaningless term

~~~
misterjangles
Not sure I agree about heroin being gentle and harmless, but I do think that
making any drug illegal immediately creates a black market, which in turn
leads to violence and powerful, wealthy crime organizations.

I'm not sure where the line should be. I'd like to say make all drugs legal,
but as soon as the first high school kid is killed in a drug-related car
accident we will see an army of furious parent organizations screaming about
making stricter laws.

~~~
enkephalin
it isn't a matter of opinion. heroin is in no way a harmless drug. it's highly
addictive and easily lethal if taken in to high a dose or combined with other
drugs, like e.g. alcohol, or benzodiazepines.

EDIT: the same goes for most other opiates/opioids.

~~~
stplsd
> highly addictive

hacker news is highly addictive, should we ban it too?

> and easily lethal if taken in to high a dose or combined with other drugs

Just use common sense. Water is lethal taken in to high a dose [1]. Almost
every substance is lethal if taken to much for body to handle. And mixing
heroin with benzos is just plain stupid. Of course if heroin would be legal,
it could be printed with warnings, etc. And people take heroin (or other
opioids) with benzos for two main reasons:

a) Unknowingly take a mix then dealers mix diluted opioids with benzos for
better effect and to hide that their shit is weak

b) Users mix themselves then opioid is weak or doesn't produce enough high
(methadone, etc)

If users should have cheap source of medical grade heroin no one would use
them with benzos. So legal heroin have only benefits. Of course some people
are plain stupid (for example taking too much paracetamol and end being
without kidneys)

So just don't do heroin alone, have a Naloxone for worst case scenario and
heroin will be safe as milk.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication)

~~~
devcpp
Your body generally prevents you from drinking too much water, and from eating
too much food, etc. Besides, water and food is a necessity while heroin is not
(far from it, almost no one will ever need it).

And that's what the person above meant: it's not the highly addictive or the
easily lethal nature of heroin that is a problem, but the combination of both.
Most things that combine these two attributes are illegal.

However, I go agree that there is a problem with the fact that it is so
addictive that making it illegal makes things worse because of low quality
products. Doesn't undermine the point of the post above though. In an ideal
world, no one would try to get heroin.

~~~
stplsd
>In an ideal world, no one would try to get heroin

It's a sad statement.

In what ideal world? Brave new world type "ideal world"? World with "shiny,
happy" people which you see in TV commercials? And in an ideal world, no one
would try rock climbing and BASE jumping? Because these activities are far
more dangerous than doing heroin.

You see, some people like hacking on perl, some playing PC games, some enjoy
rock climbing and some love doing heroin. Now the tragedy comes then
government makes some things so more dangerous for the user and society by
making them illegal.

~~~
diydsp
I think we three might be able to agree the quote could be downgraded to:

"In an ideal world, heroin would be one of many fringe activities, like rock
climbing, BASE jumping, etc."

In the mean time, many who pursue heroin aren't doing it as a hobby/for the
exploration, but as a replacement for responsible living, a thrill as they
grind their productive lives into the ground. That is the real tragedy, not
that anyone, anywhere does it.

------
cfontes
Uruguai's president, José Mujica is a truly unique old man.

He is a very interesting Character. I advise everybody to learn a bit about
him and his way of leading the country.

Put that aside I think that way of working one works on small Countries or
Cities with small populations.

~~~
ggambetta
I advise everybody not to stop at the current state-sponsored propaganda of
Mujica as a wise old man; for completeness, also read about his colorful,
shooting-cops-in-the-back-of-the-head, soviet-union-financed terrorist
activities background, or the way education, everyday violence and society in
general have gone to sh*t since he's in charge. He has almost single-handledly
destroyed the country.

This is the reason why I left three years ago; it got to a point I couldn't
take it anymore. A lot of young, qualified people are running away for the
same reasons. Even if the government changed overnight and started doing
everything right, the damage they've done in the last 5-10 years will take
generations to reverse :(

~~~
thisiswrong
I hope you've settled somewhere with a more conservative gvt that has
everyone's best interests at heart (sarcasm). Perhaps your new home is in the
land of the free?

~~~
elohesra
Hang on now, at no point did the parent comment state that he was looking for
a more conservative government, nor did he state that there was anything
politically wrong with Mujica. Instead he rebutted the homely, nice, old man
image that was being presented of Mujica by pointing out the decidedly
unpleasant things that Mujica has supposedly done (I can't comment on that; I
know nothing of Mujica or his history).

If the parent had said something along the lines of "Mujica is a commie, pinko
bastard who loves the USSR!" and had stated _that_ as the flaws with Mujica as
a leader, then your rebuttal (as I rather charitably term it) would perhaps be
more valid. But to launch into a not-so-subtle criticism of right-wing
governments in response to the parents comment seems, frankly, like rather a
non-sequitur.

To preempt the inevitable comment that the parent had mentioned Mujica's
"soviet-union-financed terrorist activities", and thus clearly had a problem
with left-wing politics: the "soviet-union-financed" adjective seems rather
less relevant than the "terrorist" adjective in both that sentence and the
general theme of violent rule in the parent's post.

~~~
GFischer
Mujica's history has a lot of shades.

During the 60's, there was an uprising in violence in Uruguay. As a response,
the right-wing governing party became more totalitarian and allied with the
military.

Each side accuses the other of starting the violence, but the thing is a left
wing guerrilla movement was started - the "Tupamaros", with Mujica as a
founding member, based on the Cuban revolution ideals, and started taking
military action, bombings, etc (some predate the founding of the "Tupamaros"),
in which Mujica took part. The government responded with more violence, ending
in the military coup of 1973 and subsequent dictatorship.

Mujica was imprisioned twice, he once staged a cinematic escape from prision,
but he spent a decade in prision overall.

After the reestablishment of democracy, he joined the left wing party Frente
Amplio (Broad Front), which ended up winning in 2005. He's now more subdued,
but he doesn't deny his guerrilla past.

------
vezzy-fnord
I'm surprised there's still people who are so concerned with punishing people
for putting things in their body. Many of these things actually being present
in over-the-counter medicines.

Also I despise it when people treat alcohol and tobacco as distinct from
"drugs". _Illicit_ drugs, yes.

~~~
toyg
Alcohol and tobacco _and coffee and Coke and energy drinks_.

Yes, fellow geeks, we're all addicts.

~~~
enkephalin
i'm actually pretty surprised that most people totally ignore their caffeine
addictions, or don't realize that they actually have a problem at all
(probably due to the fact that they just don't stop taking it).

as little as one cup of strong coffee a day can lead to physical dependence,
which for some people can cause quite extreme withdrawal symptoms.

~~~
andyhmltn
I certainly didn't. I've been drinking Tea all my life (British) and when I
went without it for 3 days when I went abroad it was surprisingly hard.

------
stplsd
"Why is the drug czar of this country - Well, lets go back. Why do we have a
drug czar in this country, a)? b) Why is he a cop? Why isn’t he a guy in
recovery, who’s had alcohol and/or drug addiction and overcome it? And why
doesn’t he help people with the same problem with compassion rather than
condemnation? Why do we put people who are on drugs in jail? They’re sick.
They’re not criminals. Sick people don’t get healed in jail. See, it makes no
sense."

\-- Bill Hicks

------
fiorix
I like the quote from Uruguai's president, José Mujica: We just regulated an
existing market.

~~~
alan_cx
This for me is the whole point. Not only regulate, but tax too.

I still cant get my head around the idea that government leaves regulation and
profits to the black market. Its just makes no sense what so ever.

------
waingake
I suspect that nearly everyone here will be of the opinion that this is a good
idea. If you are up for an alternative ( and yes I know, oh so unfashionable )
point of view, then I recommend watching this.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36L0p2w_jtA](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36L0p2w_jtA)

Its a fascinating and well put argument by Peter Hitchens that legalisation
isn't beneficial to society. Yes imagine that.

~~~
cookingrobot
I watched the video for a few minutes, and I found that everything he said was
very stupid. But I do want to hear some good (unfashionable!) arguments for
that point of view.

Can you summarize some of his better arguments here?

------
alexeisadeski3
Uraguay is actually the second _current_ nation to legalize this. North Korea
being the first. Cannabis is not regulated as a drug at all in North Korea.

~~~
Crito
For anyone else wondering the same thing as I was, it seems this legality
extends beyond just tourists, and marijuana is available too, so it's legality
isn't just a technicality. Interesting stuff:
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/08/marijuana-in-
north-...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/08/marijuana-in-north-
korea_n_4067341.html)

~~~
jpatokal
It's not as straightforward as that. A followup from the original author of
the blog post:

[http://www.thebohemianblog.com/2013/11/smoking-weed-in-
north...](http://www.thebohemianblog.com/2013/11/smoking-weed-in-north-korea-
critical.html)

~~~
Crito
Interesting, thanks for the link.

------
smtddr
I can't wait for the results of this to come out so I can use it in debates
with people who are against legalization. I'm almost certain Uruguay will be
better off for this. The resources involved in trying to suppress cannabis is
ridiculous; especially for a substance that doesn't even do as much harm to
society as some other things that are perfectly legal.

~~~
pstuart
You have Portugal as a reference already:
[http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/evaluating-
drug-d...](http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/evaluating-drug-
decriminalization-in-portugal-12-years-later-a-891060.html)

Edit: yes decriminalization is not legalization. But whole point of illegality
has ostensibly been to "protect people from themselves." This shows that it's
not necessary.

~~~
TylerE
That's decrim, not legalization. Big difference.

~~~
coldtea
Pedantically maybe. Practically I don't see any big difference.

~~~
alexeisadeski3
Decrim feeds organized crime syndicates, legalization shuts them down.

~~~
veemjeem
I don't think decrim feeds crime syndicates. California has had decrim for
cannabis for a long while now. Dealers can't really make money selling
cannabis because it's already so cheap at dispensaries. Most of these dealers
move to states where cannabis is still illegal. In a way, dealers are not
monetizing "drugs" \-- they are monetizing security.

Cannabis is extremely cheap to manufacture since anyone with a bag of soil can
easily grow several thousand dollars worth of plant material. The real cost is
in securing the product and transporting it to the customer. In states that
have decrim, the police don't even bother arresting people with cannabis
because catching people running stop signs actually yield more money for the
police department. There's no money to be made transporting the goods because
the risk is so low.

~~~
Crito
California's decriminalization has been accompanied by partial legalization.
In absence of any sort of legalization, the only place to buy drugs is through
the usual channels.

"Usual channels", _while not limited to_ , includes gangs.

------
blah32497
I'm all for legalization, but my concern would be that now gangs will grow pot
in Uruguay to export to neighboring countries. This may spark turf wars and
the like...

Given the limits on how much you can buy at have, hopefully they can still
tackle large operations

EDIT: Let me expand, because I think people are missing the point. There are
drug gangs in the region that grow pot. After this law comes in to effect it
suddenly becomes easier to do business in Uruguay. Wouldn't that be an
incentive to move shop to Uruguay? It seems like if all the local countries
don't sign up, then you're signing yourself up for trouble.

~~~
Crito
Vicente Fox, former president of Mexico, believes that legalization of
marijuana in Mexico is the solution to the extreme cartel violence in Mexico.

Of course while he was in office he was prohibitionist; my understanding is
that he believes that faltering prohibition in America (primarily signaled by
legalization in Colorado and Washington, and near de facto legalization in
California) presents an opportunity to legalize in Mexico and choke out the
cartels.

~~~
almosnow
Vicente Fox is a shareholder and the public image of one of the first
'entrepenurial' companies that plan to distribute marijuana at a major
scale...

So yeah, that argument is kind of: 'but George Clooney said that I should buy
Nespresso!'

~~~
Crito
This would be the case if you completely ignore what he actually says. The
merit of his arguments can be evaluated, we don't need to just judge his
character.

And of course he flat out admits that he would like to grow and sell it. That
is no secret.

------
aaaahhhhh
I'm always surprised to see people arguing against legalization of any
recreational substance.

If this is your stance, I'm curious, how old are you? (serious question)

~~~
enkephalin
in my experience age has nothing to do with it. it mostly boils down to
misinformation, or knowing or having known people who's lives have been ruined
by drug abuse (these people also often can't discriminate between 'use' and
'abuse'), and not stopping to think how this situation was brought about in
the first place, or how destigmatization of the whole topic could maybe have
prevented the whole thing from getting out of hand.

Edit:

taken from the commment directly below mine at the time of writing:

 _I 've got addicts and alcoholics in my family. My cousin died from overdose.
I've got close friends who killed themselves with drink. Lots of you do too.
Exciting times? IMHO, the last thing we should celebrate is new ways to get a
buzz on._

------
jusben1369
What's _so_ interesting here is that here's a government implementing this
against the will of the majority of its people. That's pretty rare period/full
stop. Fascinating here. True visionary bold leadership or blatant disregard
for democracy.

~~~
aianus
70% of Canadians support, at minimum, decriminalizing marijuana yet our
government recently increased sentencing for cultivation.

~~~
cracell
Why is that? I don't understand Canadian politics but the main explanation
I've read online for this is that it was due to US pressure. But since the US
government is allowing Colorado and Washington to go forward with their
legalization that explanation no longer makes sense.

Do Canadian citizens just not have an effective way to influence their
politics or what's the deal?

~~~
aianus
People choose who to vote for based on a variety of issues and I guess the
legal status of marijuana isn't a priority over things like healthcare, taxes,
fiscal policy, and 'job creation'. There's also the problem of having first-
past-the-post elections with one conservative party and two to three liberal
parties diluting the left vote.

------
bigsassy
This is somewhat relevant. One of the candidates for Governor is Maryland,
Heather Mizeur, is running on legalizing cannabis. You can see her discuss it
here:

[http://www.heathermizeur.com/news/wusa9-plan-to-legalize-
mar...](http://www.heathermizeur.com/news/wusa9-plan-to-legalize-marijuana-in-
maryland)

------
ioddly
It's a little depressing how relatively radical the attitude of the
legislators in the article is. It's not that they think this is 100%
absolutely going to work. It's just that they realize what they're doing now
isn't working and they need to change it and see if they can get better
results.

------
beloch
Up in B.C., I'd appreciate legalization with a "gondola" provision. i.e.
Cannabis would be legal, but if somebody insists on lighting up on a ski
gondola I'm going to be stuck in for the next ten minutes, I'm allowed to toss
him out if there's a nice soft snow-bank to aim for.

------
gclaramunt
My bet is just a lab test for Monsanto's GM cannabis. We're already a big
exporter of GM soy

~~~
WalterSear
Government weed has the Monsanto grandfather gene in it already.

------
ck2
BTW you can also marry whomever you want in Uraguay too, so they are way ahead
of the USA in many other more important ways.

Would be really strange if national legalization of recreational drugs is
legalized first before being able to marry whomever you love.

------
nwatson
A side effect: the sale of the tasty "chivito al plato" will soar (look it
up).

------
jollyjoe88
This changes everything. But we're yet to find out whether the US govt will
follow this precedent.

------
alexhutcheson
Reminds me of this interesting 2009 essay from Steve Yegge about the
complexity of legalizing marijuana: [http://steve-
yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legali...](http://steve-
yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legalized-marijuana.html)

------
redxblood
Ha, i'm from uruguay and i'm reading about it here. Go local news.

------
squozzer
US invasion imminent.

------
anoncow
Stop downvoting posts you don't agree with.

~~~
bdcravens
I agree that downvotes are for poor comments, not differing opinions, but look
at how HN doesn't work. If I say "patent lawsuit protect innovation" with
supporting thoughts or "open source results in poor software", I'm likely to
be downvoted as well. In most cases, it's the result of someone disagreeing
with me.

~~~
toyg
In my experience that's not true. I've seen top-posts that in most other fora
would be moderated out of existence, thrive on HN when they're well-supported
with sources and rational thinking.

------
andyl
I've got addicts and alcoholics in my family. My cousin died from overdose.
I've got close friends who killed themselves with drink. Lots of you do too.

Exciting times? IMHO, the last thing we should celebrate is new ways to get a
buzz on.

There should be more discussion about how to minimize the incredible damage
caused by drugs and alcohol.

~~~
pdwetz
Well, alcohol is a much more dangerous drug. As far as I know, there are no
known fatalities from cannabis. It's also not physically addictive (unlike
alcohol or nicotine).

~~~
toyg
_> It's also not physically addictive (unlike alcohol or nicotine)._

That's debatable and irrelevant anyway (coffee is addictive, should we ban
it?).

~~~
BillyMaize
Can you support the coffee is addictive comment? I drink coffee daily but have
no issues short of a headache if I stop and I don't drink it on the weekends.

~~~
toyg
You can start with wikipedia:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine_addiction](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine_addiction)

------
almosnow
Legal drugs != less crime...

On one hand, yeah sure, some people won't end up in jail for
buying/selling/consuming drugs but those are just like little drops in the
sea.

The sea is actually the major criminal organizations that are perpetually
conflicting with each other in order to maximize their particular profits. A
situation where the demand becomes bigger (because it's not illegal anymore)
will only put more fuel onto their war.

And yeah, you would say 'it was the same way with alcohol'; NO it wasn't. That
was a problem of a very different society at a very different time; to put
that on perspective: when have you heard of ENTIRE countries employing
practically everyone (even children) to grow, launder and even murder for the
business?

~~~
aaaahhhhh
_some people won 't end up in jail for buying/selling/consuming drugs but
those are just like little drops in the sea._

No. At any given time, around half of the men and women incarcerated in the US
are there for non-violent drug offenses. To date, 31 million people have been
arrested on drug related charges.

 _A situation where the demand becomes bigger (because it 's not illegal
anymore) will only put more fuel onto their war._

This is just obnoxiously wrong. How can you not understand that drug cartels
won't even be a part of the picture after legalization? It will be LEGAL! It
will be exactly the same as any other commodity. Beyond that, available
evidence suggests that rates of drug abuse decrease when punishments become
less draconian (see Portugal).

~~~
almosnow
Ok wow, I didn't knew that the proportion of inmates related would be that
high! I didn't make my homework hehe.

But drug cartels will still be part of the picture; with police out of the way
they would have one less thing to worry about and they will still be fighting
between each other for the market. Those people will not give up at all.

~~~
freewhiffy
The police won't be "out of the way" if the cartels continue with murder,
selling to minors, underage workers, kidnapping, tax evasion etc. Those are
all still crimes even if hard drugs were made legal. The cartels would have to
choose between going legit, and delivering goods like coors, malboro etc, or
continuing their other illegal activities and get taken down by the police

~~~
almosnow
> ... or continuing their other illegal activities and get taken down by the
> police.

Yeah sure, just as they are being taken down right now. Haha, they even made
you consider to change the laws on their favor (yeah, if you think you came up
with that idea, think again). Also, implying that bad guys care about
police/law/wrong/right...

------
thesimpsons1022
see weed is bad. it turns you into north korea.

------
oakaz
[http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&ALID=2K1...](http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&ALID=2K1HRGQK1_Q')

See the heroin addicted family photo first, then make your freedom speeches.

~~~
aaaahhhhh
Heroin is illegal, and the family still got addicted... any neurons firing up
there yet?

