By: Bob Hopkins

Bob Hopkins — Sun, 20 Dec 2015 10:17:38 +0000

Wayne Hall only very briefly touched on Uruguay’s legalisation of cannabis except to say that it was opposed by a majority of citizens. Given the process they undertook in their legislation this doesn’t add anything to the policy discussion.
President Mujica was concerned to undercut the power and influence of the drug cartels, a multi-billion dollar industry that has resulted in thousands and thousands of deaths in Mexico and has brought about the effective downfall of civil order and government rule. Try reading ‘Çartel’ by Don Winslow if you want to understand how the war on drugs caused the drug trade to become more about power and greed than about drugs: the drug trade just made it financially possible.
Mujica introduced a policy that was as dissimilar to the US trend as is the political philosophy underscoring it. All users who wish to legally use must register and that allows them to buy 40g of government supplied pot per month. At a low price. The pot was not the genetically modified high THC strain but the same as that naturally occurring in cannabis plants before the chemists started cranking up the potency.
Registered users could ALSO join a growing club or produce a specified number of plants but were restricted from selling what was produced.
The registration of users meant that governments could track health, mental health effects, crime and other social issues in relation to users. Bear in mind that cannabis has not been legally available for nearly a century so there is no social impact data based on user records that is anywhere near useful in this regards. And no-one knows what the effects of an aggressively promoted range of cannabis, especially high THC, will result in. Given that most legitimate research has indicated a close correlation with mental health issues, especially amongst young people, dangers involved in cannabis intoxicated automobile driving, possible other health consequences such as cancers … we just don’t know what the impact will be, thus Uruguay’s attempt to track the effects on and of users under a legal cannabis regime.
The USA has by virtue of its uniquely citizen referenda managed to get cannabis legally available via a campaign that associates it with medicinal use. Mostly by virtue of anecdotal evidence rather than legitimate academic research, such as that required of pharmaceuticals. My own personal research of respected and legitimate clinical trials shows that there is very little published data, though research is currently being carried out on the various cannabinoids with CBD, the element in the cannabis plant that acts as a modifier of the stupefying effects of THC, and provides promising possibilities. However double blind research is only now starting in areas such as infantile epilepsy where anecdotal reports indicate positive results.
In the states in the USA where cannabis is legally available there is quite alarming evidence of a noticeably higher rate of use amongst young people … and that’s often amongst really young people as a consequence of the availability of cookies and confectionary using high THC which enters the home by way of adults but is being consumers by minors … and a worrying increase in the number of cannabis impaired drivers in fatal automobile incidents. Amongst other things.
Due to the pressure of the USA notions of civil liberty there is no tracking of effects upon users. To my mind this is a worrying factor. The neoliberal free market philosophy of the USA encourages anything that turns a profit, irrespective of consequence. Take climatic warming as an example of this.
The USA and its cohorts, like here in Australia, are not the nations we should be looking to for examples to follow. Portugal is a good positive influence but remember that there is mandatory re-hab for arrested users. While this has led to remarkable recorded impacts like addiction rates falling, the supply side is still in the hands of those operating outside the law i.e. criminals, and often organised crime.
The Latin American nations is where creative and coherent policy areas are being tested. It is vital that the supply side be considered and policy developed to take the removal of the criminal area of supply. The amounts of cash involved provide much scope for corruption, not only official corruption but corruption of otherwise ordinary citizens.
These people are often those driving the decriminalised changes as it opens up the markets a whole new range of consumers. It is in there interest for there to be no change to supply reform. Think not only Al Capone, Meyer Lansky and Joe Kennedy, but the fabulously wealthy patrones of the Mexican, Colombians, Central American cartels. There power must be broken. Its obscene and it challenges the health of democratic life.
I’d recommend Chasing the Scream, a 2015 published book that critically reviews the history of prohibition.
Anyone wishing to correspond with me and continue this important discussion can do so by e-mailing me at bobkins@hotmail.com

By: Barry Dean

Barry Dean — Mon, 14 Dec 2015 21:51:11 +0000

It would of been good if you had of touched on the decrease rate in crime and hard drug use in those States and countries that have legalized cannabis.something I rarely here of but blatantly obvious.

The fact that those countries no longer use debunked and exaggerated propaganda unlike Australia would likely be the cause of higher social acceptance amongst the public.

Comments on: Legal in the USA: the consequences of cannabis laws

By: Bob Hopkins

By: Barry Dean