Monopolizing (And Legalizing) Marijuana

The Article: Uruguay takes ‘war on drugs’ in new direction: state monopoly over the production and distribution of marijuana in The Christian Science Monitor.

The Text: Uruguay has long been at the vanguard of social reform in Latin America. Today, it is on the verge of passing into law one of its most radical ideas yet.

The Broad Front – the center-left coalition that holds power – is proposing a state monopoly over the production and distribution of marijuana, making Uruguay the first national government to sell cannabis directly to citizens. The government says the measure is necessary to combat rising drug-related crime, decrease health risks for users, and counter ineffective US policies on drugs. But within Uruguay, interest groups have labeled the legislation totalitarian, while some international bodies argue it breaches global conventions.

“We’re putting this forward as international policy,” says Sebastian Sabini, president of the parliamentary commission created to debate the bill. “The war on drugs has failed. There are more consumers and more violence.”

“Uruguay is opening up a new path,” he says.

Pushing the envelope

Uruguay is often overshadowed by the far larger economies of its neighbors Brazil and Argentina. But the country has made a name for itself with a long history of pushing the envelope on social issues.

In 1918, Uruguay became one of the first countries in the region to officially separate the state from the Roman Catholic Church. It implemented South America’s oldest mandatory pension system in 1896, and a bill to decriminalize abortion is expected to pass later this year.

But the bill proposing the legalization of marijuana has been denounced by the United Nations for breaching its 1961 convention on narcotics, and Uruguayans are also skeptical: Polls say just 40 percent approve.

“We’ll end up with people who don’t use marijuana buying it to sell on and make a quick buck,” says Hugo Lacasa, a street trader in Montevideo.

In early September, a parliamentary commission began a six-month debate to refine the bill, which will next be voted on in Congress. The Broad Front has a majority in both houses, but given the audacity of the proposal, President Jose Mujica, a former leftist guerrilla, has said it must have a minimum of 60 percent approval by lawmakers. Usually, just a 51 percent simple majority is required.

‘Tackling’ black market

The government introduced the bill in part because of “the failure of the global ‘war on drugs,’ ” according to the text of the proposed law. It also believes that by separating the marijuana and hard drug markets, less people will become addicted to the latter – especially “paco,” a cocaine-based paste.

Violence linked to the black market for drugs will plummet too, says Julio Calzada, secretary general of Uruguay’s National Committee on Drugs. “Uruguay’s criminality rate has increased by approximately 10 percent in the last few years,” Mr. Calzada says. “We can tackle that by regulating the $40 million marijuana market.”

But legalization campaigners insist the plans would place too much control in the hands of government while the UN is irked by the “grave violation” of its drug interdiction strategy.

Alternative to the ‘war on drugs?’

The war on drugs was instigated by President Nixon in the 1970s in an attempt to curtail the consumption of drugs in the US. Since then, a similar strategy of zero tolerance has been adopted by politicians across the Americas, aided by Washington. Amid pushback from drug-trafficking cartels, violence has escalated, and tens of thousands of people have died.

Uruguay’s bill has been depicted as an alternative to that strategy, and other Latin American countries like Bolivia and Guatemala have expressed their support.

The Uruguayan government argues that the war on drugs can never achieve a “world without drugs.” Cannabis use rose by almost 9 percent worldwide between 1998 and 2008, proponents of the bill say.

Uruguay, a country of just 3 million people, has also supported Bolivia’s calls to legalize the coca leaf – the key ingredient of cocaine but also traditionally used in its natural state for medicinal purposes, and to stave off hunger and altitude sickness.

President Mujica said the government will require around 150 hectares, or 370 acres, of plantations to meet the needs of what they estimate are Uruguay’s 18,000 regular marijuana consumers. Most of the current supply is trafficked from Paraguay.

A ‘totalitarian’ bill

Mr. Sabini, the president of the parliamentary commission, says that if the state controls cultivation, smokers will be assured of a safe product.

A monthly limit of 40 grams per person will also be imposed, Mr. Calzada says. Foreigners will not be allowed to purchase the cannabis, as has been the case in popular party destinations like Amsterdam, Holland.

“The bill is there to resolve Uruguay’s problems,” said Mujica. “We don’t want drug tourism.”

However, in what may come as a surprise, the proposed legislation has not won over marijuana legalization activists, who label it totalitarian.

Juan Vaz, a leading campaigner once jailed for growing cannabis plants, is lobbying lawmakers to ensure they also allow private, domestic production. The current law would mean that individual growers keep breaking the law, and only state-run production would be legal.

“The government should regulate home cultivation rather than seek a monopoly,” says Mr. Vaz.

Mujica has said the proposal puts Uruguay “at the vanguard” once more. “The problem isn’t the marijuana in itself,” he said. “It’s the trafficking and the violence associated with the black market.”

“It’s time for a new approach,” says Mr. Calzada.

Email

Re-Envisioning The Israeli Enemy In The Arab Spring

The Article: Arab Spring and the Israeli enemy by Abdulateef Al-Mulhim in Arab News.

The Text: Thirty-nine years ago, on Oct. 6, 1973, the third major war between the Arabs and Israel broke out. The war lasted only 20 days. The two sides were engaged in two other major wars, in 1948 and 1967.

The 1967 War lasted only six days. But, these three wars were not the only Arab-Israel confrontations. From the period of 1948 and to this day many confrontations have taken place. Some of them were small clashes and many of them were full-scale battles, but there were no major wars apart from the ones mentioned above. The Arab-Israeli conflict is the most complicated conflict the world ever experienced. On the anniversary of the 1973 War between the Arab and the Israelis, many people in the Arab world are beginning to ask many questions about the past, present and the future with regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The questions now are: What was the real cost of these wars to the Arab world and its people. And the harder question that no Arab national wants to ask is: What was the real cost for not recognizing Israel in 1948 and why didn’t the Arab states spend their assets on education, health care and the infrastructures instead of wars? But, the hardest question that no Arab national wants to hear is whether Israel is the real enemy of the Arab world and the Arab people.

Continue Reading

Email

Votes Don’t Matter

The Article: Your vote doesn’t matter by Jonathan Bernstein in Salon.

The Text: Want to make the world change? Get involved – and that doesn’t mean voting.

This all comes from a little bloggy dust-up over the last couple of weeks. Conor Friedersdorf got lots of people riled up by saying that because of drone wars and other Obama administration civil liberties and national security actions he hates, he would not vote for Obama. Now, as a libertarian Friedersdorf has a natural candidate in Gary Johnson anyway. But the resulting debate has been quite interesting, with Friedersdorf maintaining that everyone has “deal-breakers” that would lead them to go third party even if they believe the candidate of their party would ultimately be better than the other party’s candidate, while others argue back that the only responsible choice is to vote for the lesser of two evils in almost any circumstance.

Perhaps the best of the arguments made in response to Friedersdrof was by Jamelle Bouie, who argues:

If you want the American political system to become more responsive to the concerns of civil libertarians, you have to make it more responsive. And you do that by utilizing the tremendous influence available to dedicated interests within the system. The two parties aren’t particularly centralized — they draw their talent and resources from smaller state parties, who in turn draw from local and county parties. It’s possible for a dedicated group of people to take control of a local party, field a candidate, win, and expand outwards. It’s hard work — and a lot of time and persuasion — but it can happen.

Continue Reading

Email

Who (Else) Didn’t Pay Taxes Last Year

The Article: Buffett Rule Rorschach: 7,000 Millionaires Paid No Income Taxes in 2011 by Derek Thompson in The Atlantic.

The Text: The White House’s new campaign banner/economic principle is the so-called “Buffett Rule,” which holds that no millionaire should pay a lower effective tax rate than a typical middle class family. Sound sensible, yes? Of course it does. The tax code is progressive and purposefully so. Marginal income tax rates increase with income. The more you make, the greater share of income you pay. Disagreeing with this general principle puts you to the right of a typical Republican.

But the Buffett Rule wasn’t meant to hold up to strict constructionism. “You cannot build a tax code on the principle that no millionaire, ever, should ever have an effective tax rate lower than their secretary,” my Atlantic colleague Megan McArdle wrote this morning. Well, you could, she allows, but you’d have to give the IRS extralegal responsibilities to seize rich people’s income beyond what they owe.

To understand why, consider the 76 million people who don’t legally owe individual income taxes in 2011 (please, please note: does not include payroll, excise, state and local taxes). The vast majority of this group was poor. They didn’t owe individual income taxes because they didn’t owe a lot of money to start, and various exemptions, like the earned income tax credit, wiped out the rest.

Continue Reading

Email

More Young Americans With Health Insurance? Thanks, OBAMA!

The Article: Obamacare Results in Largest Drop in Young Adult Uninsured Rate… EVER. in The People’s View.

The Text: This is what Mitt Romney and the Republicans will repeal: The share of young adults without health insurance fell by one-sixth in 2011 from the previous year, the largest annual decline for any age group since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began collecting the data in 1997, according to a new report released on Monday.

I wonder what could have resulted in this. Oh, right, the socialist Kenyan usurper plot to institute death panels by guaranteeing access to health care for more people, aka Obamacare.

The study’s author, Matthew Broaddus, a research analyst at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said the increased coverage for young people was almost certainly due to a provision in the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act that allows children to stay on their parents’ insurance policies until their 26th birthday.

Continue Reading

Email

Hot On The Web