Regulate cannabis or keep prohibiting it? The answer seems obvious: it is better to regulate than to prohibit. If the plant and its derivatives were regulated, the State would have control over production, distribution, and consumption. Today, under prohibition, that control belongs to traffickers.

The State could implement health controls, guarantee product quality, and provide information about composition, dosage, and possible adverse effects; traffickers avoid these guarantees.

On the other hand, state control would mean subjecting production and consumption to taxation and, even though this is not the main argument for advocating a regulatory framework, it is not negligible either. Naturally, traffickers do not pay taxes or collect VAT, pocketing the entire premium of prohibition.

Special mention should be made of prevention and harm reduction: for the State, it is easier to implement a policy of preventing undesirable consumption under a regulatory framework than through repression; for example, by using distributors as messengers of prevention.

Within a very precarious legal framework, Cannabis Associations like ours have already been carrying out many of these functions: such as guaranteeing the quality of our cannabis, which is exclusively available to ADULT members, while also promoting a harm reduction policy.

This is already the case with cigarette packs, which include health warnings on all four sides (“Smoking kills...”, “Don’t smoke: stay alive for your loved ones”), along with the ban on sales to minors and information about where to seek help to quit, all accompanied by often very harsh images that reflect the consequences of consumption. All of this is carried around in the smoker’s pocket and seen every time they take out the pack.

None of this can be done under prohibition, no matter how many general campaigns are launched to indicate the risks of certain unregulated consumption. Moreover, it is obvious that a trafficker does not warn about the risks of consuming the illegal substance they sell, nor do they offer help for quitting, nor ask a young person for ID to check their age and refrain from selling to them.

All of the above would already justify opting for a regime of state regulation and control of cannabis. But there is more: prohibition has been a failure. It has not achieved its declared goal of “a drug-free world”; quite the opposite, since there are now more different drugs, in greater quantities, more dangerous, cheaper, and more accessible to anyone, including minors. Furthermore, we all now know the “unintended side effects” of prohibition: organized crime, street delinquency, very dangerous substances on the streets, corruption, etc.

When it comes to cannabis, we can say that regulatory regimes are here to stay: Uruguay, more than eleven U.S. states, Canada, and Germany are just the first.

The clearest case is the United States: despite the restrictive policies of the current president, reacting against the previous Democratic administration, legalization referendums for recreational cannabis were won during Trump’s term.

Special mention should also be made of medical cannabis. In this case, it is not only that regulation is preferable to prohibition. More than that: regulation, which does not contravene international law, is an ethical imperative, and prohibiting a cure or relief violates the dignity of patients.