Prompted by “Uruguay Authorities Discover ‘Gray Market’ for Pot”: http://www.hightimes.com/read/uruguay-authorities-discover-gray-market-pot
This may seem small and irrelevant to you, but keep reading to learn the contrary.
Uruguay became the first nation to approve marijuana legalization and regulation in 2013.
The law also allows Uruguayan adults to buy up to 40 grams of marijuana from pharmacies once a month. But there have been delays in implementing the pioneering plan.
National Drug Board chief Milton Roman said Thursday that the so-called “gray market” is not good for the marijuana legalization program and legal pot-growing clubs are being warned that violations of the law won’t be tolerated.
Amid the constant chants proclaiming ‘tax and regulate’ exists the contrary truth against that painfully strong momentum.
Certain Drug Prohibition (by all measures, based upon the whole truth and nothing but) is an obvious and complete failure. You can read the full set of fundamental details of that failure in our Liberty Shield informational roots (with a law focus) and our Respect Cannabis informational roots (with an intentional perception alteration focus), but suffice it to say here — the war on some drugs is blatantly unconstitutional, ineffective, destructive, expensive, and (at least scientifically in the case of cannabis) unwarranted.
After our judicial branch clearly illegally redefined the Commerce Clause from “regulate commerce” to ‘regulate any activity having a substantial effect on commerce’ (according to the public record combined with the English language) several decades ago, our public servants have deeply wildly rooted themselves like a strangling vine all throughout our lives with no sign of stoppage.
That includes regulating the mere possession of a certain relevant plant in a nation supposedly obligated to uphold an unalienable right to liberty without exception (but factually has yet to do so, after over two centuries and sadly counting without national care to the detriment of all persecuted minorities — including certain drug users factually not harming anyone).
By regulating, turns out that includes outright banning.
So traditional (not really progressive) political leftists leverage cannabis’ minor-but-sizable popularity to strengthen their application of the historically and logically baseless notion that we can trust the government enough to define risk management and therefore inevitably liberty against our fundamental rights, and that result somehow has created a safer society against abusive private sector practices and other threats upon good health. Has it? You be the judge. Let the continuous cry for even more regulations among the tens of thousands of pages of them perhaps shape your judgment. Also remember that our nation was established in a seriously bloody revolution described as necessary (in the United States Declaration of Independence) to oppose the abuse of law itself — logically the worst form of abuse due to its mainly broad scope of destruction.
Proponents for that unethical and illegal power allocation cite various pros of the resulting laws, while badgering (or such) anyone citing the obvious cons (e.g. blanket burden upon the masses to perhaps prevent the overwhelming minority of people from abusing something — e.g. a gun, a certain plant, etc.)
A regulation is a ban, so regulation is a euphemism. Who sanely doesn’t want regulation for better societal stability, right?
Regulations tell us what we can’t do, so function as relatively smaller prohibitions, which all fail for the same reason as any prohibition — there’s always a way around the ban costing taxpayers a lot of money and constituting mass rights infringement (e.g. burdensome formality with “legal” precedence forming the aforementioned vine strangulation/judicial muddying).
Just ask the determined teenagers desiring alcohol experimentation, despite the ironically illegal age limit that really serves to unintentionally encourage rebellious youthful behavior during the age of asserting their individuality as a natural part of reaching towards maturity.
Replacing prohibition with prohibition (even a relatively textured prohibition) makes no sense, until you realize the true (and political) agenda is to further empower our oligarchy spanning the public and private sectors (public safety largely, if not completely, never actually considered in the publicly dangerous process).
The prompting article focuses upon Uruguay, but we expand points therein to cover our nation, where serious cannabis regulation is also encouraging a “gray market” (i.e. black market blended with the white market).
Subjectively importantly note that I’m really disgusted by using (actually inevitably abusing) coloration and light to define good and bad, btw (e.g. darkness sometimes protects the innocent). That’s why I prefer to use negative and positive (or “neg” and “pos” for simpler and therefore more efficient and clearer communication), so neg market and pos market (there really is no gray market btw), but enough of my creativity challenging your familiarity.
During this torturous and obviously (to a caring society) illegal exercise to define risk and reward by government force, millions of non-violent people have suffered for several decades and largely counting due to the aforementioned failure that has failed to create even an “illicit”-drug-free prison system. Contrast that suffering with the most prohibitionist-favored statistics of drug abuse (not use, which is scientifically harmless, if you righteously believe in conclusive science), and we clearly see the prohibitive “cure” is way worse than the correspondingly targeted illness (so logically purely a health issue, not a criminal issue, fittingly btw).
If you want to greatly expedite the righteous collapse (i.e. repeal) of Certain Drug Prohibition (saving many millions of non-violent lives), then the increasingly strong chant among the masses should be to expose the blatant hypocrites (logically traitors) relying upon the instantly assumed credibility from just leveraging a badge to try to surreptitiously enrich themselves (and their necessary “friends” in the neg market whom keep the prohibition cycle alive) by sanctioned thuggery in the “land of the free”.
Also in the “home of the brave”, increasingly strongly chant the fact that risk must be solely defined in one place in a nation with an unalienable right to liberty — purely in the realm of education (formal and otherwise), so never law. That obviously includes drug use.
Otherwise, it’s reasonable to powerfully assume that law abuse will sadly again prompt enough of the masses to revolt, as instructed by the United States Declaration of Independence — scarier as time passes upon the increasingly comparable list of abuses perpetrated via the pre-national-independence version of British rule with currently increasing judicial “regulation” (i.e. increasing oligarchical oppression).
We must do better now, and that starts with (y)our reasonable press against thuggery combined with reason abuse — the true enemy of civility (obviously including justice).