Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Burning stages: Thoughts on the rules of the Law Regulating Cannabis Markets in Uruguay By: Hernán Delgado * In early May, the decree of regulations to the law that controls legal access to cannabis for recreational use was introduced in Uruguay. Change is beginning to slowly materialize in Uruguay, and coping with anxiety has been a real challenge. Because if this southern corner of the world has been taken as the progressive model, those of us who are living the day to day of a Uruguay lead by a gerontocracy that unveils conservative values – escaping from redundancy – every step taken turns into a new crusade. Much has been said about the positive elements that make the regulation of cannabis markets a solid and viable alternative to prohibition. With the premise that the Uruguayan Law is the best of its kind, I will focus on some of its weaknesses, as well as in some of the main challenges that, having now the regulation in hand, will certainly arise in the future. In general terms, the decree did not bring too many surprises. The Institute for Regulation and Control of Cannabis will be created, institution to be in charge of regulating the three ways of accessing the substance: supply in drugstores, the establishment of cannabis clubs and self-‐cultivation. With marked willing to control, the establishment of arbitrary limits to individual consumption has been confirmed, setting a maximum monthly consumption of 40 g through drugstores and clubs, and an annual harvest limit at home of 480 g. The decree also confirmed the installation of a system for the registration of users. Of an unjust nature, this registration is a thorn in the users’ side and their will to become a part of the legal market. It is true, one might venture that this is the price for Uruguayans to pay for being the first country to promote a model for legal regulation. Time will tell if eventually, in a regional favorable scenario, it ends up being eliminated. However, beyond claiming that personal data will be protected and will not be publicly available, politicians have not stopped too much to think about this issue. Far from trying to build trust with users, but more worried in providing security for the rest of the population -‐ as if mutually exclusive – decided from the very start not to incorporate into their arguments the advancement in rights this law means, argument only vindicated by social organizations. Under a law that incorporates elements of exaggerated social control and integrates a paternalistic public health approach, based on the perspective of a President that does not distinguish recreational use of drugs from problematic dependency, the selected communications strategy has aggravated the fact that user registration will become one of the obstacles to overcome. At times, it seems the government forgets that the success of this policy is intimately related to the adherence of users to regulated markets.
On the other side, the emergence of new dynamics of micro trafficking that will replace the ones already existing will be inevitable. A non-‐existent gray market will be conformed, which will offer quality cannabis from regulated establishments, but in a context of illegality. Legal markets do not consider the supply to three populations that today are accessing the substance through the black market: minors under 18, tourists and those who are consuming over 40 g. Small leaks of cannabis will be the norm and the conformation of this gray market will become one of the main pitfalls capable of undermining the credibility of the new model before public opinion. In contrast, the development of cannabis trafficking networks of greater complexity and high profitability is unlikely. This is one of the strengths of the regulation. The implementation of evaluation and monitoring mechanisms that the law possesses will be of utmost relevance in generating trustworthy indicators that underpin the Uruguayan experience. Perhaps the fact that has generated more confusion among social organizations is that the regulation poses excessive bureaucratic requirements for cannabis clubs, discouraging their formation and proliferation. To this must be added that no apparent criteria was set to a maximum of 45 members per club, which jeopardizes the economic viability of self-‐managed and not-‐for-‐profit organizations. Nonetheless, beyond these provisions, the biggest disappointment has been to confirm that those thinking drug policies in Uruguay continue underestimating the ability of drug users as valid stakeholders. The regulation forbids clubs to undertake any kind of activity or initiative of information dissemination addressed to people outside the club intended to improve drug use practices. Those of us at social organizations working in drug policy understand that cannabis clubs constitute a new space for drug users to be introduced in the social movement, and the ideal vehicle in the conformation of a new comprehensive discourse of prevention and harm reduction, enriched by the better articulation of institutions and citizens. It is paradoxical to find little technical elites that ignore the powerful transforming potential of decentralized spaces of 45 organized users, and that still strive to address the reality of drug use from their desk. Latin America has slowly begun to learn from the European experiences of working together with drug users. Meanwhile, today Uruguay seems to be wasting the opportunity to diversify citizen participation spaces in the design of public policy.
Finally, it is important to note that regulations regarding cannabis control for medical use and industrial hemp will be ready during the second half of the year. Uruguay will join a still incipient market and of an invaluable demand, that given the current situation, presents unprecedented economic opportunities for the country’s development. The discussion about the production model for exporting cannabis is slowly beginning to be promoted. It would be desirable to pursue the creation of a national supply chain of a high added value, that among other things, foster social development through the incorporation of family farmers and cooperative workers. Such model would consolidate the most effective harm reduction policy associated to the use and abuse of drugs: wealth distribution. Definitely, Uruguay is moving forward. Echoing its own history, it returns to the forefront of human rights; it is a fact that must be recognized in its magnitude and cause for celebration. However, it has not yet been understood that in order to drive a deep transformation on drug policies, it must be incorporated the vision of a stakeholder that so far has been invisible: the drug users. * Member of ProDerechos, Uruguay