Uruguay: A laboratory for controversial drug policies?

Critics of Uruguay's marijuana legalization plan say it will bring corruption and create a black market for drugs. But Uruguay is a small and relatively stable, so why not try, asks a guest blogger.

• A version of this post ran on the author's blog, bloggingsbyboz.com. The views expressed are the author's own.

I can think of a lot of problems Uruguay's marijuana legalization/nationalization proposal. Creating a giant state-run bureaucracy to manage the growth and sale of marijuana is going to be complex and rife with potential corruption, especially given the huge market demand in Brazil. The proposal is still going to have artificial limits on the quantity and quality of marijuana, which will create a parallel black market. Drug-related crime in Uruguay is less centered around weed than it is cocaine, meth, and various other harder drugs, meaning this proposal is unlikely to impact crime.
 
 Yet, in spite of those criticisms, why not? Given its small size, stable economy, and relative security, Uruguay seems like the perfect laboratory for the hemisphere to try out a legalization experiment. Being that Uruguay already has a de facto decriminalization for personal use, the proposal is unlikely to increase drug use rates by any significant amount. Secondary effects might hit Brazil and Argentina, but those markets are so big that Uruguay can't be a major supplier for them. Even the most unlikely worst case scenarios that a drug warrior can imagine (narco-state!) could be contained by Uruguay's neighbors. The far more likely outcomes are a mixed bag of good and bad from which we can all learn while debating reforms in other countries.

Uruguay's biggest challenge is going to be the need to adapt its proposal once it hits problems. The government seems certain that it can manage this market with the right planning effort. I give them credit for discussing the specific details of their proposal, but they should plan for continuous (and potentially reversible) reform rather than try to get all the details correct on the first shot.

James Bosworth is a freelance writer and consultant based in Managua, Nicaragua, who runs Bloggings by Boz.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.