NationStates Jolt Archive

I just read a book about cocaine, describing among other things the huge amounts of money being spent on eradicating the supply.

I can't help but wonder;

A....if that money was being spent on diminishing the demand instead, might that not be more effective?

B...is it true that more health problems are caused by tobacco or alcohol, than cocaine? If so, why does the war on drugs not reach to those?

C...If Prohibition was such a mistake, how is the illegality of cocaine any different?

B...is it true that more health problems are caused by tobacco or alcohol, than cocaine? If so, why does the war on drugs reach to those?


If it is, I suspect it's more to do with the higher prevalance of tobacco and alcohol than the nature of the substances. And no government would take those two away because they're far too lucrative

A. Depends on the manner in which you try to remove the demand.

B. I think the social effects of the drug are more extreme than alcohol and tabacco. That's why they're illegal.

C. I don't know. Most aws don't stop people doing anything. They only punish them after the fact.

B...is it true that more health problems are caused by tobacco or alcohol, than cocaine? If so, why does the war on drugs not reach to those?
More people are killed by guns than nuclear weapons, but the isn't a Gun Non-Proliferation Treaty. Leaving the similie behind, the argument is that cocaine does relatively little demage precisely because its use is restricted by virtue of being illegal.

More people are killed by guns than nuclear weapons, but the isn't a Gun Non-Proliferation Treaty. Leaving the similie behind, the argument is that cocaine does relatively little demage precisely because its use is restricted by virtue of being illegal.
Based on SAMHSA's 2002 and 2003 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, more than 5.9 million Americans aged 12 or older (2.5%) used cocaine in the past year. (http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k5/cocaine/cocaine.cfm)

Restricted or not, we are talking about tons here. Shiploads.

Why was Prohibition cancelled?

Why was Prohibition cancelled?
People wanted alcohol, to make their dull lives more bearable.

People wanted alcohol, to make their dull lives more bearable.

The same goes for cocaine. Allegedly, it is fun.

The same goes for cocaine. Allegedly, it is fun.
I'm not sure that's a majority view though. On the other hand, people calling for a return to prohibition of alcohol are certainly a minority.

The same goes for cocaine. Allegedly, it is fun.
Yep. It's lots of fun. I used to use and sell the stuff. It's also dangerous. I've had friends hospitalized with overdoses, one of my friend's sister is a serious crackhead. She's HIV+, skinny as a post, and looks about 40 years older than she actually is.

Having said all that, I still think it should be legal in order to regulate the purity and provide the drug to those who want it without making them resort to dangerous drug deals. It should, of course, be regulated and taxed, and the money generated should be used to create effective drug treatment options in order to minimize the harm.

Based on SAMHSA's 2002 and 2003 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, more than 5.9 million Americans aged 12 or older (2.5%) used cocaine in the past year. (http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k5/cocaine/cocaine.cfm)

Restricted or not, we are talking about tons here. Shiploads.

Why was Prohibition cancelled?

Apparently, they are using enough cocaine in the London area alone to detect it in the river. It is excreted through urine, and makes its way through the sewage treatment system to show up in the water.

I'm not sure you can reduce the demand, unless you want to confine large numbers of people.

......
I'm not sure you can reduce the demand, unless you want to confine large numbers of people.
I am not sure either. There are already large numbers confined, circa 500.000 in the US.

I was thinking along the line (:) )of education, propaganda, etc.

I am not sure either. There are already large numbers confined, circa 500.000 in the US.

I was thinking along the line (:) )of education, propaganda, etc.
Education and propaganda seems to work. Look at the decrease in cigarette use throughout the first world. That wasn't done through prohibition.

Education and propaganda seems to work. Look at the decrease in cigarette use throughout the first world. That wasn't done through prohibition.
But there as as many campaigns against alcohol as against cigarettes and alcohol use has increased.

B...is it true that more health problems are caused by tobacco or alcohol, than cocaine? If so, why does the war on drugs not reach to those?
There is no cocaine lobby.

More people are killed by guns than nuclear weapons, but the isn't a Gun Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Unless you are caught flogging them to the middle east. There isnt a treaty but people complain

Our government didnt do that...honest :P

Personally I think that the "war on drugs" should

A) be a higher priority than the "war on terror", because you cant smuggle an explosive waiscoat into a nation in a condom shoved up your backside.

B) More vigourous. With the death penalty for the smuggling of class A drugs, and also for selling them oin large quantities. And producing them.

C) More firepower used against boats full of the stuff.

Also, Clear And Present Danger - style LGB strikes on the factories producing it.

Give the governments of countries where lots of the raw material is grown cash incentives to flamethrower fields where the crop is grown.

Unless they are being grown for legal purposes obviously.

Give the governments of countries where lots of the raw material is grown cash incentives to flamethrower fields where the crop is grown.


That would take a lot of cash.

That would take a lot of cash.

Yes, but would also reduce the amount of cash spent on trying to sort out the problem by the time that it gets imported.

"In Bolivia a program to pay $2,000 for each hectare of coca that farmers voluntarily uproot has turned into an egregious U.S. foreign aid fiasco. From 1987 to 1994 approximately 25,232 hectares of coca were voluntarily torn out and $49.7 million paid to farmers. Yet U.S. aid officials in La Paz estimate that during the same period 37,380 hectares of new coca were planted, a net gain of more than 12,000 hectares and a net loss for the program.

Andean countries seem more anxious to contain pernicious manifestations of the cocaine trade, such as narco-terrorist violence and high-level corruption, than to attack the trafficking infrastructure. The aim may be to capture the economic benefit of a lucrative industry while minimizing its negative sociopolitical effects. If so, this is a dangerous and self-defeating strategy.

The drug plight of the Andean countries is not solely of their making. Unless the United States and other industrialized countries curb their voracious appetite for cocaine, little progress is likely in curbing production and export of Andean cocaine."

clickety (http://www.cosmos-club.org/journals/1996/lee.html)

Having said all that, I still think it should be legal in order to regulate the purity and provide the drug to those who want it without making them resort to dangerous drug deals. It should, of course, be regulated and taxed, and the money generated should be used to create effective drug treatment options in order to minimize the harm.

I actually agree with this. A lot of the problems with illicit drug use come from that fact that is illegal and is the domain solely of the black market. There's a lot of shady stuff going on there. People are going to use drugs whether or not they're illegal, so a responsible government should realise that and take steps to make it as a safe as possible for all concerned, and make a bit of money off it for themselves, while they're at it.

*hump....*








...backs of the world, unite!

A....if that money was being spent on diminishing the demand instead, might that not be more effective?

I certainly think so. Not that I have I grand plan on how to curb demand (except via education, prevention, propaganda, etc., as has been mentioned above). But there are few things as infuriating as how the US has been waging that War on Drugs without even looking at the demand at home that actually causes all that shit.

As long as the demand exists, there's no point in tying economic policy towards South American countries to their compliance with drug eradication plans. Like, I'm all for cracking down hard on the big time trafficking cartells, but in the end it always comes back to the small-time poor indigenous farmer whose fields get burned.
If he's lucky, he'll get into one of those grand-sounding but underfunded crop-substitute programs and be told to plant pineapples and avocados for which there is no market, so he'll end up being forced to plant coca again just so his family won't starve.

And people e.g. in Bolivia have been chewing coca leaves for hundreds of years, just like people elsewhere are chewing betel nuts or tobacco, and now they're being told they can't grow coca any more in their own freaking country just because the US government thinks that's the panacea for their drug woes? Gah.