Cocaine and Latin American Relations

Submitted by fyl on 4 March, 2008 - 10:53.

It seems every time an article related to cocaine (use, interdiction, "war on drugs", ...) is posted here the discussion degenerates. That is, it goes from what the article was actually about into some other more global discussion. So, I have decided to post this article as a starting point for that Politics of Cocaine discussion. Rather than a cohesive article, I am going to offer some talking points.

Primary Cocaine Producer Nations are Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. I don't have numbers (and clearly reliable numbers would be hard to come by) but it is clear cocaine is an important export for each of these countries.

Primary Cocaine Consumer Nations are the United States and assorted European nations. The U.S. is by far the primary consumer in the Western Hemisphere. While consumption happens in many other places, it is low level and, in many cases, a result of shipments passing through a nation on their way to a final destination. Or, put another way, people being paid for their services in cocaine.

Cocaine is an illegal drug much like alcohol was in the United States 80 years ago (when, by the way, marijuana was not illegal). While cocaine is not the only illegal drug "on the market", it clearly has a large market share. To put those numbers in perspective, here are some numbers from 50 Facts That Should Change the World by Jessica Williams.:

  • The world's trade in illegal drugs is estimated to be worth around $400 billion—about the same as the world's legal pharmaceutical industry.
  • The U.S. National Drug Control Strategy budget for 2003 was $19.2 billion with state and local governments spending at least another $20 billion.
  • The UN estimate for drug abusers around the world sits at 200 million.
  • In the Netherlands, marijuana is sold through "coffee shops" and the amount sold to each customer is regulated by police. The result: while 37% of Americans [usanos] have admitted to using marijuana at some point, only 16 percent of Dutch people had done so.

Finally, some countries (the UK, for example) have used "harm reduction" approaches to deal with some drugs. That means government sale and regulation to "addicts".

Now, let's look at what I think could best be called the law of Demand and Supply. I assert that in the drug industry or more accurately the illegal drug industry demand will drive supply. No matter how big the demand, there will always be increased supply to deal with it.

This is important because it means the control problem on the supply end will grow if the demand grows. Further, increased enforcement will cause a rise in prices increasing the incentives for the supply side to increase production.

In addition to private enterprise involved in the supply side, at least the U.S. government is involved and likely others. This assertion can be easily backed up from many sources if you don't believe it. Some easy web searches including cocaine and either Oliver North or Bill Clinton are a good place to start. Another good one is just cocaine cia. I only bring this up to point out that governments have an interest in preserving the status quo. That alone will make it hard to implement the following "plan".

The plan is simple: decriminalize cocaine. What would happen?

  • Immediately, a revenue stream for governments would appear. Just like the end of prohibition in the U.S., instead of a big enforcement cost, alcohol became a tax stream.
  • "Smugglers" become legal businessmen. More tax revenue. Being the ultimate in free market capitalists, these people want to make a profit. Being able to trade costs of avoiding law enforcement, bribes and general evasion for a simple revenue tax is a good deal for them.
  • Coca farming becomes a legal business decreasing the tax burden on the governments of the producer countries. In Colombia, much of the enforcement money comes from the U.S. government so we once again reduce costs to the U.S. government along with reduction of domestic enforcement costs.

Will the number of cocaine users increase? While most will guess no, should this be the driving force behind this decision? Here are some positives.

  1. Being able to admit that you have an addiction is the first step in getting over it. People can admit they are an alcoholic because alcohol is legal. People are much less likely to come forward if what they use is illegal.
  2. Likewise, education can be a lot more productive. People are a lot more willing to listen to "this is the problem" when it isn't laced with "and you are a criminal".
  3. With a legal flow to cocaine, countries currently on the path (all of Central America, for example) will no longer be involved. This will cut enforcement costs and likely decrease availability just because there is little profit motive to, for example, ship cocaine to Nicaragua for consumption.
  4. Groups funded by illegal cocaine revenue will have to seek new funding sources or go away. (This was also true with the end of prohibition in the U.S.)
  5. The U.S. State Department asserts there is "likely" a link between drug smuggling and terrorism. True or not, legalization eliminates smuggling which could decrease terrorism.

    Will this happen? It seems extremely unlikely. If governments profit from the current system (both being able to justify the cost of the war on drugs which gets paid by increasing tax revenue and their direct profit from being involved, it would seem there is little incentive for governments to make a change. Further, their ability to divert attention from the realities of change by using their anti-drug money to paint the "everyone will become a drug addict" picture helps them get more people on the side of a continued war on drugs.

    This last point is very important. It seems that the majority of the people in the United States are in favor of less government involvement in personal lives. People seem to get brainwashed with the anti-drug message and decide government does need to "incarcerate these criminals". Well, if importation and sale is legal, regulated and taxed rather than a crime, those criminals go away. As for the consumer, the assertion that drug addicts will steal to pay for their drugs doesn't matter. Stealing is, in itself illegal and has a punishment system in place. Why would we need a second level of crime—a consumption crime— to address this?

    ‹ The Food Crisis and Corporate Profits Interesting court ruling... ›
( categories: )

Comment viewing options

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

This article is so

Submitted by gordman on 13 May, 2008 - 06:06.

This article is so interesting and relevant that I've already saved it into my browser. When it comes to drugs things get heathen up. Drugs have an extraordinary power over people, that's why drugs generate money and death... that's an ugly combination. Anyway, every nation should protect it's citizens against drugs, we don't have much influence in Bolivia or Peru but we do have the power to change something in our own country. My brother "serves" his time in drug rehab I've seen what drugs can do that's why I am thinking to volunteer to fight against them all.

hypocracy

Submitted by buddyruff89102 on 13 May, 2008 - 18:25.

People in the US really don't want anyone telling them what they can and cannot do. Then you look around and it seems the same people reserve the right to tell everyone else around them how to act. (Maybe the whole world is this way)

For examaple, Its okay if a doctor prescribes 20 meds for a patient and who cares if they are even compatable medicines or addicting the result is the patient feels horrible so he will come back to pay the doctor more. Does he investigate a possible addiction no he just writes you a new perscription . This thinking is okay but if you grow a plant in your garden or do a line you really should not be allowed to live in society with the rest of us.

I myself have been addicted to various drugs in my life and quit when I realised I had a problem. I have some friends who are on prescriptions and obviously showing signs of dependant behavior, miss one pill and three hours later needed to be admitted to the hospital because they have the shakes, feel light headed, and sweating, nausous, can't concentrate. After the whole night of examination nothing is found to be wrong go home and take your pills, Wait here's another drug try this one $500 and you're out the door.

I actually asked the doctor do you think its an addiction after the third time for this person. He told me just missing one dose will not cause these symptoms, I am sorry too a drug addict missing the first dose is the worst Jones in the world.

Why don't the doctors seem to know this? O ya he's not an addict he has a prescription.

After carefully allocatting my friends prescription drug and clearly demonstrating the cause and effect of missing one dose, he now knows he has a problem called dependancy and no longer spends $500 everytime he misses a pill. Something I learned from a psycologist years ago but the medical profession ignores at the expense and jeopardy of it patients.

Recently I was reading an article about transplant patients if the doctor could prove he smoked pot to relieve pain the person was disqualified from becoming a recipient but if he was prescribed a THC pill this was okay. Now this idea is spreading a bill being pushed up in capitol hill says if you have been getting high you should be disqualified from recieving medicare. Since pot is fat soluable you smoke a little you carry it for weeks, this does nothing to cut out the coke users or herion users. These actions sound civilized I guess. Wait till the insurance companies figure out they don't have to pay because your high on pot ( ops they aready know) it's okay if you just popped 4 valium thats a prescription drug.

Its time people wake up and realise we are all being played by the governments of the world. This drug war is just another way of removing your civil liberties and by they way too everyone else it looks like its all your fault. QUICKLY NOW LOCK HIM UP SIEZE HIS HOUSE AND USE THE TELEVISION TO CONVINCE EVERYONE HE REALLY IS A BAD PERSON AND JUSTICE MUST BE DONE!!!

I wish people would learn to question their own thinking.

Most of the damage from Drugs is caused by the laws outlawing it, its not the user. Take away the profit from the supply chain and watch this problem disappear and then lets use the money for a valid cause, we already pay for the rehab thats not new.

I completly agree legalise drugs and put it to rest.

How patriotic is it if we allow ourselvs to lose this war how could we ever look in the mirror and call ourself a good American. Lock him up, shoot him, etc.. etc...

Take a real hard look at rehab patients how much of their problems are due to the actual drug compared to the laws involved in using that drug and then social stigma's associated with becoming an addict. If everyone you know is constantly reminding you how stupid you are, it becomes very difficult to look in the mirror, its just so much easier to get a fix, at least for a little while I'll feel fine.

Legalis it, legal is it, but then what about all those jail cells, those prison guards poor souls need a paycheck for hevenssake it'll ruin the whole economy.

Its all in the thinking, its very hard to admit "we where wrong" even harder to admit "you where wrong" Try admitting "I am an addict because I listened to my doctor".. No you are a criminal because you grew it, you dried it, and in the privacy of your own home you smoked it, off to jail with ya bye bye....

the trouble is..

Submitted by Doug on 13 May, 2008 - 09:07.

-when governments declare war on some drugs and they aren't the dangerous ones.

But the facts still stand Tylenol kills more people than heroin,

I have been prescribed legal drugs twice that were later removed from sale (in the US anyway) after they started killing people. There was an anti-fungle drug listing death as a possible side effect.

I am sorry to hear of your brothers situation. I have seen more than a few people basically loose everything they worked their lives for by choosing to piss it all away on cocaine and now methamphetamine. The health problem from the later seem particularly nasty.

My own life was twisted around when I finally wised up and quit enabling my ex's alcoholism...talk about a soul destroyer. If you were to review court records most violent crime and domestic violence at the very least have alcohol as a factor if not the main cause

Nothing scares my more than a drunk behind the wheel of a car, and yet there are bar's everywhere, with great big parking lots and "happy hour" signs out, and the government just smiles and gives out minor slaps on the wrist, 4 years for vehicular manslaughter in Washington, because they make money taxing it .

I don't have any idea what your brothers substance of choice was I do wish him the best at his endeavor. But the rehab industry as a whole is fairly bad at 'curing' people, we spent about $90,000 sending the ex through 4 times (3 different programs), as ordered by the courts, nice racket.

As far as I know she still drinks, not to mention the prescription drugs she had access to at her work.

I found the last line of your post interesting; "that's why I am thinking to volunteer to fight against them all", since Richard Nixon declared a "war on drugs" in 1979 , Nothing has Changed-- except the price has gone up and a boat load of money is spent, possibly 3/4 of the folks in prison are there for drugs and the CIA is flying in more as I write this...this very minute US troops are watching the largest opium crop ever go to market in Afghanistan.... well good luck in your efforts. As for your brother, I would suggest you investigate a vine from South America called Ayahuasca, it does seem to have some promise in the treatment of addictive prone people.

Doug

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate

In the US, way back when...

Submitted by Doug on 7 March, 2008 - 22:38.

you could go to the pharmacy and buy, cocaine, tinctures of cannabis and opium, heroin made by Bayer, nobody had a problem. The users may have been 'hooked' but the supply was available, cheap and nobody bothered them. No problems.

Then they (yup, it's Them again) decided that they could use drug laws to control certain segments of society, and besides, all of the lurid exaggerated yellow journalism sold a lot of newspapers. Laws were created. The legal supply ended, trouble began.

And now people still parrot the "crazed dope fiend " stereotypes, that Harry Anslinger and Randolph Hearst dreamed up. Filling our prisons with people who's only crime was getting high.

And at what cost. A whole shit load of people are locked up,

you all feel safer now ?

-Doug

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate

Cocaine that stays in South America

Submitted by mjt on 4 March, 2008 - 21:47.

Consumer Nations: An ever growing amount of cocaine is staying in South America, with Brazil and Argentina being surprisingly large consumer nations, at least compared to where they were a decade ago (this is true even if one disputes the "why", the alleged cause-and-effect debate on Bolivian increases due to Morales). It is too risky to bother exporting low grade product, and so it is often sold off cheap - even cheap enough for poor Latin Americans to afford:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/world/americas/23argentina.html

I agree

Submitted by buddyruff89102 on 7 March, 2008 - 18:54.

I agree with the total hypothis fyl. I believe people who use will use weather its legal or not. People who will not use will not use just because its legal, the rest are experimenters legality isn't really an issue for them. Risk taker may use just because it is illegal and they feel they are getting away with something. Legalize it all be a free society let the people choose.

You are forgetting one major

Submitted by Leon on 7 March, 2008 - 20:44.

You are forgetting one major point, whether it is 10 cents or 100 dollars they will kill to get that money. It is a highly additive drug that changes people personality while using it. If you want to live that way more power to you.

I would never want to live in a country where drugs like this are legal. Pot is different not just because it is 100% natural but people who some pot are not running in the street in a hiper rage stealing and killing for the next fix. If it is legal more addicts more problems that simple, maybe if you had a big mansion and a whole army and police force to guard you it would be ice to make the money from this but what of the rest of us?

Don't forget

Submitted by buddyruff89102 on 9 March, 2008 - 13:24.

Years ago coke was cut and manufactured with a lot safer chemicals that did not cause the jekle and hide syndrome we see now. In the 70-80 these safer saner chemicals where outlawed and regulated to prevent them from being used for the illegal drug trade, the cooks then began using much more toxic and less sane compounds to manufacture coke. If the laws changed coke would be safer however still addicting is true. The structure of laws surrounding illegal drugs is causing more harm than the drugs ever caused. Also don't forget congress accepted the argument that marijuana has no medicinal value even though there a more than 50 differnt medicines made from this natural plant you can grow in your back yard. Keeping drugs illegal is great for law enforcement lawyers and judges who one day may run for office and be elected to represent whos interests? Change the laws end the insanity then help the addicted the monetary burden of these laws alone is worth restructuring and focusing more on the human side of the equation. Besides remove the big money and watch the interest die.

Say what?

Submitted by fyl on 7 March, 2008 - 21:32.

People can kill by using alcohol. People kill themselves using tobacco. They are dangerous but legal. Yes, cocaine is addictive but less addictive than tobacco.

Now, theft and murder are illegal. If people aren't killing to get cigarette money I don't think that will be the case with cocaine either.

If you in any way believe in personal responsibility, this decision should be up to the user. Like any other drug, cocaine doesn't have to be as you describe.

As an example, I had a friend who used cocaine. He, and a friend had birthdays around the same time. To celebrate, the two of them would buy a gram of cocaine and snort it. It was the only time my friend ever used cocaine. He chose to do it and didn't abuse it. That occasional use decision wasn't based on price--it was just being responsible.

Much like the "just say no" approach to the issue of premarital sex, saying no to anything doesn't work. People need to understand the issues and then make their own decisions.

Cocaine & crack

Submitted by mjt on 7 March, 2008 - 22:17.

What you say is all true for recreational cocaine users, but is not at all comparable to users of crack and other coke-based off-shoots. To misquote countless studies: crack did in 2 years what slavery, oppression, racism, and discrimination could not do in 200 years - namely is destroyed every black family it touched. The key thing is that the common notion of responsibility assumes a series of informed, if not reflective, decisions. But, after you use crack (in many cases, just once or twice), you no longer make the same decisions, or weigh matters in the same way, and therein lies the problem. The common-sense use of language does not capture reality regarding certain drugs. The idea that stopping using crack is like not drinking malt liquor (tobacco, sex, pick any so-called ill) does not map to reality. Getting addicted to caffeine and getting addicted to heroin are not 100% the same just because both are "addictions". Focusing on the status and not the need (and mind vs. moral altering effect of that need) ignores most of the truly important issues, and it is hard to see that good public policy can be based on claims that ignore the truly important issues.