22 votes

Uruguay marijuana move 'illegal' - UN drugs watchdog

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".

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



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Can a country withdraw from the UN?

From wiki:

The U.N. Charter deliberately made no provision for the withdrawal of member governments, largely to prevent the threat of withdrawal from being used as a form of political blackmail, or to evade obligations under the Charter. Japan’s withdrawal from the League of Nations in March, 1933 (to signal its repudiation of the League’s condemnation of Japan’s invasion of China) was very much on the minds of the Charter’s drafters. (The other two major Axis powers, Germany and Italy, also withdrew from the League.) Some have questioned, therefore, whether it is even permissible for Members to withdraw from the U.N. The only other example of an effort to withdraw — by Indonesia in 1965 — actually tends to show that withdrawal, at least in the short term, has no force or effect.

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift

UN?? What is this UN??

And what authority do they have?

Tell them to shove it where the sun doesn't shine, Uruguay

Entangling alliances are always a poor idea in any case. If they continue to speak against this decision, I think Uruguay should leave the UN.

May the UN suffer the same fate as the League of Nations. Both were shitty ideas in any case.

Last I heard, Uruguay is a

Last I heard, Uruguay is a SOVERIEGN NATION. And it's people can decide to legalize any plant made by God, put into nature for man's use for medical uses at the least. The UN can go to Hell in a first class cabin on the High Speed Express.

So now those who rule the UN claim to rule the world

Last I checked those who live in this world have not consented, nor agreed to have the UN as the dictator over their lives. How bold these liars theive cheaters and mass murderers who claim world control. How bold

sovereign

Bad move, Uruguay.

You will now be accused of having WMDs, colluding with terrorists,or whatever reason du jour decided upon by TPTB, because you don't mess with the drug cartels or CIA profits. Witness the now burgeoning heroin crops in Afghanistan. You, Uruguay, may be the next Afhganistan. Sorry, you don't mess with Uncle Sammy!!!

Decriminalize, don't legalize.

What people don't seem to understand is that legalization in the manner done in Uruguay is nothing more than an attempt by one drug cartel to eliminate the competition of all other drug cartels. It is a government monopoly to deal drugs. Governments have done this many times in the past. Alcohol for example used to be produced and sold freely, but governments step in to issue licenses, in limited number, to those with connections. Another example is that of State lotteries monopolizing gambling. In this case the government of Uruguay wants to monopolize the marijuana market. Then perhaps later the business will be privatized with licenses to those meeting "government standards".
Would be better to decriminalize marijuana and treat addiction as a medical condition, treating patients if necessary.
grant

Honestly, arguing over the term is fruitless...

Legalization vs. de-criminalization...

Both terms essentially mean the same thing.

In CT and other states, possession of small amounts of marijuana (less than 1/2 ounce) is 'decriminalized' . You only get a $100 fine, instead (not a crime, but not legal). Yet, somehow, in my former home state of CT, despite state LAW, individuals are still arrested and CONVICTED for possession of small amounts of marijuana. Technicalities like, for instance, possession of a paraphernalia (normally a lesser charge than possession of marijuana itself) still land people with criminal charges. Having it in a 'baggie' (weed is often sold in these baggies) means 'intent to sell', even if the charges don't stick.

In these cases, the term 'decriminalization' is no better than the interpretation of 'legalization' in Uruguay.

Uruguay says it has legalized marijuana. No it hasn't. It has legalized a specific process for producing and obtaining the substance.

In conclusion, the terms 'decriminalization' & 'legalization' are essentially the same thing, and arguing over which term to use is pointless.

What DOES MATTER however, is WHAT EXACTLY DOES the WORDING of the 'Legalization/decriminalization LAW SAY???!!!

What specifically is the law legalizing/decriminalizing?

That's the point.

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

You both make good points.

I don't think the term decriminalize necessarily means what he thinks it means, but on the other hand whether the term means what he thinks it does, he's right that creating a new, legalized drug cartel really isn't the ideal solution.

Arguably big pharma, along with their FDA attack dog, kills way more people than South American drug cartels have ever in their sickest dreams.

But.. regardless, however the legalization occurs it will damage the revenue stream of the prison-police-state industrial complex, so it's a plus even if done the worst way.

No doubt...

"I don't think the term decriminalize necessarily means what he thinks it means, but on the other hand whether the term means what he thinks it does, he's right that creating a new, legalized drug cartel really isn't the ideal solution."

- No doubt he is right about Uruguay's "legalization of marijuana" is not the ideal solution.
That is because it is NOT legalization of marijuana, but of a specific, government controlled process by which marijuana can be produced and sold to the public, under supervision of the state.

As I said, "legalization" or "decriminalization", it doesn't matter what you call it... What matters is the specific wording of the law that is written.

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

In a free market nothing is legal, regulation is voluntary.

Let me explain what I understand "to decriminalize" something means. In order for something to be decriminalized, it has to have first been made illegal. To legalize something means to give license to an act, thereby putting it under regulation of law by a governing body, with a threat of violent force for non-compliance. To make something illegal means to not give a license to do something and enforce it's prohibition with violent force. Rain for example, as far as I can rationalize, is impossible to legalize or make illegal, however the collection of water and commercialization of water can be and has been legalized or in some cases made illegal; since to do so, an individual, company or corporation, by law, must be licensed or follow limitations established by law. If an entity is not licensed or fails to follow limitations establish by the government, then the government will have them fined or arrest individuals for non compliance. In a absolutely free market, nothing is legal, or in other words licensed by government and enforced by violence. Instead regulations and standards can and should be simple educational tools, available for individuals to make reasonable choices.
grant

Great... What does it matter?

Mental masturbation...

History is already written. They've already made it "illegal".

All that matters is changing the current laws, and making sure the new laws are written the way we want/need.

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

"International law"? Fie!

"International law"? Fie! It's legal in several US states now... so does that mean "international forces" should invade?

P.O.T. says F the UN

...

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

Correct me if I'm wrong

But 40 grams doesn't seem like a whole bunch.

Ehh Kinda

I am a habitual mary jane smoker, and i come nowhere close to this. i reach maybe 25 per month? just about a gram a day.

Doesn't seems very healthy.

Seems to me smoking marijuana is harmful to your lungs. Wouldn't it be better to process the THC into a butter and consume it in the form of baked goods?
grant

Yes!!!

Down voted for making a reasonable observation and asking a question.
grant

Didn't down vote you but...

Making edibles, butter, concentrates, etc., is expensive if you can't readily produce your own, or acquire it cheaply.

Smoking is very effective, and baking can be hit-or-miss.

Smoking is the easiest, most efficient way to ingest.

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

I think the other

I think the other ("healthier") way these plant chemicals are ingested come from vaporizers, like e-cigarettes.

Regulation

Why I hate government? So much regulation on a plant simply becuase the government wants to make money off its people. Im becomng more anarcho everyday!

Why is it that in every rare

Why is it that in every rare instance that some government entity takes a step in the right direction there's always another, bigger, more assholeish government entity threatening to shut it down?

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

their just opening a space up

their just opening a space up for the peoples voice to become just as relevant to their assumed authority.....which the people has always had a right to, but these actions weaken their suppresion of it, plus, the internet

The Interntional Community

is a lie, there is none. The United Nations are a bunch of nation states listening to each other talk. Sovereign Uruguay made the courageous choice, will not be long before the rest of the world will follow. The International Narcotics Control Board can scream and shout, but their ability to halt a Nation's action is very much in doubt.

Really?

"...endanger young people and "contribute to the earlier onset of addiction".

How about it is more likely to induce:
inspirational interconnectedness with the entire universe

enable prevention of brainwashing

Enhanced creativity

Lead to investigating the ancient shamanistic techniques of deeper mind expansion with natural psychedelic substances and deep meditation techniques

Less Stress

Healthier Living

Cannabis is already a natural right endowed by nature and is not within the lawful authority of any man or body of men to legalize, prohibit, or regulate in any way. Any belief that legislative action has any application of man using a plant is confusion away from real law.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

You seem to have forgot

It decreases the chance of being killed by the police.

BULL-shitIn the same vain,

BULL-shit

In the same vain, you'd have to illdgalize ciggeretes and alchohol, and unless they actually do that.......BULL-shit

Im not against have guideline, an age limit, but not authority to do ANTHING for someone simply putting something into their body, you can talk to them, try to persuade them, but only if they want to hear and choose to take advice........i say tell the un where to stick it, and if they dont like that, then they should prepare to be dismantled by public opinion, ......im not saying that everyone, even here, see's it that way, im saying that if YOU dont, there are those that DO, and the'll be questioning the un's role very critically if these are the actions they choose to take

I propose the UN be replaced by a global constitution, is something i DONT think they'd like the sound off, and im not talking about one that is influenced by big ANYTHING, requesting help from those who have SHOWN a genuine respect for individual right, asking for opinions, asking for debates, locking you pricks out once and for good, words truelly self evident, a lawyers worst nightmare

The UN needs to be dismantled

and not replaced with anything.
Let nations live and trade as they see fit, we don't need a watch dog.

Exactly.

.

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

a constitution on how nations

a constitution on how nations can deal with one another, in the same spirit as the us constitution, but does not supercede the local constitutions, based on defensive rights and not authorative rights, so that nothing needs be enforced, but give a nation the right to defend themselves.....understand, that not all nations are lucky enough to have their rights represented as a "law of the land".........im dont have all the answers, but i feel, we should all have something like the constitution to fallback on, not to supercede our local ones, should we be lucky enough to have one, but to compliment and really drive home the importance of our rights......im not talking about something quickly patched together, im talking about something that may take generations, something your forefathers would be proud of, and i have no delusions that ill be fighting against attempts made by "big" to circumvent the reason for wanting such a thing

It is just an idea jill, im not about to start making plans here, im under no compultions in thinking that there may not be a better man or woman out there with a better idea