Bringing Coca to the YouTube Republican Presidential Debate
No issue has been more contentious between the Bolivia and U.S. over the past decade than the issue of coca. The coca leaf has been a part of Andean civilizations for millennia, from medicinal use to rituals. It is also, when altered through an elaborate chemical process, the raw ingredient to manufacture cocaine.
The U.S. “War on Coca’ in Bolivia has left a stark trail of human rights abuses – from violent forced eradication efforts to the jailings of thousands of innocent people, courtesy of special anti-drug police and prosecutors paid by the U.S. government. Yet illegal drug use in the U.S. continues with little change.
Today The Democracy Center is releasing its video submission on the coca issue to the You Tube Republican Presidential Debate. You can see it by clicking on the screen here, or via this link. We encourage readers to share the video with their friends, which you can do by clicking on the small envelope icon below.
To provide additional background information on the coca issue we have also just published a new Democracy Center brief on the topic, an expert from our forthcoming book, Dignity and Defiance, Stories from Bolivia’s Challenge to Globalization (University of California Press). The chapter excerpt was written by Coletta Youngers, a Senior Fellow at the Washington Office on Latin America, and a leading expert on the ‘U.S. War on Drugs.’ You can read that paper here.
The video was created by The Democracy Center staff in Bolivia and filmed and edited by our friends at the School for International Training, Ismael Saavedra, Michael Steiner and Talya Hernandez-Ritter.
posted by The Democracy Center at 1:59 PM
76 Comments:
Please!
Let's not be hypocrtics here. Chapare coca = cocaine. Absolutely no two ways about it. Chapare coca is NOT part of the Andean culture, Chapare coca cannot possibly be consumed in the traditional manner, and to in anyway imply that chapare cocaleros are somehow being true or preserving their country is nothing but a LIE.
May Jim and his friends next time they go to the US it would be good for them to get out of their comfortable yuppie/hippie bubble of gay SF and cross the Bay Area bridge and take stroll through Oakland (or Oaktown MTF!!).
What is more valuable? That a country will prostitute its "milenial culture" for the sake of a couple thousand drug dealers...or to have millions of, mostly black and latino, lives ruined due to cocaine?
Chapare coca IS cocaine, and cocaine is not as innocent as weed or doing X. Cocaine will ruin your life.
Finally...where the hell do people get the idea that pre-columbian cultures used coca daily?? please educate yourself!! Coca was sacred, so only certain people had access to it, and it was not used daily.
But may Evo and Jim need thousands of doped out indians to listen to their ideas. Or maybe that is why we have had 500yrs of bad rulers...we were so numb from coca tea that we didn't care, we didn't feel the pain nor did we grew tired of the same old shite...just like a miner going into the socavon...a little coca makes the whole Bolivia situation berable.
ugggggg...this whole Gringo paternalism makes me so sick
You people are as full of shit as a Christmas Turkey.
You are an embarassment to Bolivia AND the US.
The guy above is 100% correct!!!
I think that the "Drug War" (whether against cocaine, heroine, or any other drug) has only created misery, violence, and corruption.
It has been going on for more than 30 years with no end in sight; rather, it has created corrupt and violent narcostates such as Bolivia, Colombia , and Afghanistan; violent criminals ranging from Pablo Escobar and Evo Morales; and has thrown to jail thousands of nonviolent and relatively law abiding citizens.
Just legalize drugs, regulate them, tax them, anything but making them illegal! Then all the powerful and manipulative cartels, coca and opium unions, and terrorist organizations like the FARC will slowly disappear into oblivion.
Drugs aren't good, but the "Drug War" is infinitely worse.
I'm for legalizing Marihuana, but that's about it. You can manage this habit pretty well and while stoned, while slow, you are still in this world.Coke, X, Heroin, Crack, Acid, and those other drugs are a different story. Your self gets to be on another dimension.
Kind of like in the movie "Half Baked" nobody would ever suck d*ck in order to get some pot...but to get their hands on these other drugs, they would not only do that, but kill you as well. Addiction is really terrifying and sad. May be Evo and Jim should go visit a rehab center in middle america.
Now what is the "Drug War" and how much of the conflict would still be there despite the drugs? I don't know. In the FARC conflict, drugs play a role, albeit not a central one. Samething in Bolivia. The drug war is merely the sympton that we cannot create better conditions socially, economically, etc.
Certainly a small time pot dealer should not be jailed, but how about someone selling crack in a Bronx elemtary school?
I'm a liberal, and while in College I was all for legalizing it. However, the devil is in the details. Even in Amsterdam they have issues....and in Bolivia this could terrible. Just look at how badly Bolivians abuse alcohol and tabacco. We probably have that gene that makes us more susceptible...but a blanket legalization is bad.
Jim put something about Chavez - what people feel about that ugly face look alike indian - brother of El Evo.
P.S. the brazilian ars is the best
Anonymous 2:16 -
I've frequently asked myself that very same question - would Bolivia be different (perhaps very different) today, had coca not been so widely available?
The poorest of the poor can often be seen with their cheek swollen with the leaf, yet the rich tend to avoid it, seeing it as a disgusting vice of the lower classes. Is that just a coincidence?
From a La Razon interview with Felipe Caceres, "drug czar" for the current administration and former cocagrower.
LR: Vice-Minister, of the 3,200 hectares that come from the cato of coca and are permitted in the Chapare, what percentage do you think goes to the Sacaba market and how much has another destination?
FC: According to the reports, between 50-60% of he coca goes to the legal market. Unfortunately the rest..well narcotrafficking still absorbs the excess coca, the Government, and we must be honest and with much responsibility, we cannot deny the illegal business. We must adjust our policies of interdiction. For example, we must fulfill President Morales’ line of ‘zero cocaine’.
LR: So you are saying that part of the coca produced in the Tropics of Cochabamba goes toward narcotrafficking?
FC: We must say so, and we cannot cover the sun with a finger. We must be responsible as a State and reiterate, when there is still poverty, narcotrafficking will still prevail.
*****
I wonder what those Bolivians that do consider and treat the coca leaf as a sacred part of their cultural identity feel about those Bolivians that sell coca to narcotraffickers to make cocaine and causes the destruction of hundreds of thousands of lives. Evo talks about a "culture of life," undoubtedly these transactions are capitalism at its worst. Let's admit things for what they are, and let's hear from those that do revere the coca leaf criticize those that use the coca leaf for everything but traditional rituals and daily use.
Look, let's not satanize nor deify the coca leaf. Nothing nutritionally extraordinary about it and it stays horrible if you chew it. That being said, it sure has helped me with the sorojche or stomach ache.
Although I consider myself a conservative in many issues, I'm a complete libertarian regarding the drug war.
There are many ways to interpret alternatives to the drug war, but what is undeniable is that it created violent criminals and demagogues all around the world due to narcotrafficking obscene profits caused by its illegality, incarcerated millions of relatively harmless individuals.
Cocaine and heroine, albeit in more mild forms, was consumed as far back as the 19th century. Not much social problems with that back then. But because the drug war caused these drugs to be illegal and profits skyrocketed, entrepreneurial narco producers invented much more potent and lethal drugs such as crack and meth.
Once again, tax it and regulate it akin to alcohol. Keep the hard core violent consumers in prison. Free and treat the non violent addict ones. Profits for narcotraffickers will plummet, and violence and corruption will decrease.
The benefits far, far outweigh the risks. Milton Friedman advocated similar positions decades ago, and it sounds very sensible.
What's most fascinating, is that coca was used for ritualistic purposes prior to the arrival of the Spanish. So coca was, indeed, venerated. Here I mean, of course, the "white" coca (coca blanca, which grows in Yungas), not the "black" coca (coca negra, which grows in Chapare and is not useful for "traditional" uses). Here's what's fascinating: The widespread use of coca today is a product of Spanish colonialism. The Spaniards found that coca leaves dulled hunger & pain, and therefore made revolts less likely by their conscripted "Indian" miners and peasants. In many ways, the widespread use of coca in Bolivia today is a product of something like the British "Opium War" (in which Britain forced opium into widespread practice in China).
Bottom line: let's neither deify nor satanize coca. It's a plant. Like any other. It has good uses and bad uses. It's not "sacred" and it's not "poison." And let's also look with brutal honesty at the ecological disaster that Chapare coca has become (deforestation, soil erosion, etc). The drug was is bad. Few disagree w/ that. But that doesn't make its opposite "good" either.
Miguel is right, the leaf should not be damned or praised.
What I find hypocritical is the attitude of many Evo-defenders who simply chose to ignore the facts that previous posts pointed out.
Chapare coca is - and has been - almost exclusively targeted for cocaine production. Back in the early 1980's Chapare was controlled by "La Corporacion" - Bolivia's narcos. When large numbers of unemployed miners arrived to grow coca there, it was because of the money made selling to the narcos. The narcos saw the unionization and political organization of the growers very favorably - it protected their interests as well. In effect for a while, Chapare became one big lawless area, under control of dealers and then suppliers of raw materials, where the military and police did not go in.
US drug policy is bad/misguided, and that a heavy hand and insensitivity to conditions in Bolivia are wrong. Hardly excuses or much less justifies growing coca to make cocaine, and the thuggishness of those who defend that production. Prohibition was wrong, but so were the actions of Al Capone and his gangsters.
"Prohibition was wrong, but so were the actions of Al Capone and his gangsters."
I don't quite understand your rationale here. Why do you think Prohibition was wrong yet the "drug war" is right?
By the way, Al Capone didn't create Prohibition, Prohibition created Al Capone. You're attacking the effect, not the cause of the problem.
The Pablo Escobars and Evo Morales or the world are not the cause of the "drug war," they are it's effects.
I don't blame the cocalero who plants coca, even though he knows it goes to cocaine. With profits so high in such a poor and corrupt country, why shouldn't he?
This "drug war" has been going on since the Nixon Administration. Hello! What has it achieved? Besides some small battles won in the short term, it has caused drug profits to skyrocket, causing violence, misery, and corruption throughout the world.
Once again, tax and regulate drugs as with alcohol, jail the violent hard core addicts, free and treat the nonviolent ones. Narco profits and violence will drop and corrupt narco states and their patrons will become irrelevant.
Drugs are not good, but the "drug war" is infinitely worse.
Anon 11:40,
I think you are being naive and are oversimplying things. Legalizing drugs is not a panacea and it creates its own problems. Look at prescription drugs or DUI deaths. Letting the market and the invisible hand might do away with narco profits, but the costs of the externalities produced could be "infinitely" much worse.
I'm with you on pot. Its a much manageable drug than alcohol, no addictive issues, and people are still within their senses. Other drugs however are a different matter. Even in Amsterdam, not all drugs are legal, they are not widely available, and they are also thinking about making them illegal because of all the issues it creates.
Now you can't forget the local context. Bolivians have a HUGE problem with alcohol. If you been to carnival or anyother event, even a roadblock, there is alcohol involved. However, not only do they drink it, but they completely abuse it. I used to be in a frat in college and did some heavy partying, but never like they do in Bolivia. It actually turned me off drinking.
So you legalize cocaine...what will you do when tens of thousand El Alto kids start doing crack? How about the campesinos? they can't compete with coca, so we will become a one crop nation. What is to say that instead of finding peace and love, legalizing won't make Bolivia like LA or the Bronx were in the 80s?
Finally, this makes me think of a scene from the Godfather. Don Vito had it right...it is easier to turn a blind eye to things like prostitution or gambling, but drugs, they kill a man's soul.
Once again, attacking the cause is the issue here.
Anon 12:03, of course I'm oversimplying things ... this is a blog! But I don't consider myself naive. I recently read a facinating book titled "Undoing Drugs: the Constitutional Alternative," which, among other things, explains how drug use evolved throughout the decades and how the "drug war" created much more lethal and addictive drugs. Undo the illegality, undo the lethality. Furthermore, how could the "externalities" you refer to be worse than what's happened these past 3 decades throughout the world? Again, 3 decades!
Now, of course simply allowing the free market to work won't solve the problem, especially in a country like Bolivia. But that doesn't take away the fact that the narco profits and hence violence and corruption will decrease dramatically.
Education and family participation is essential. As I mentioned before, jail the hard core violent addicts, free and treat the rest.
Cigarettes are considered to be the most addictive psychoactive substances. Alcohol is way up there, too. Could you imagine the unholy mess the world would be involved in if these were made illegal, too?
Instead of going "cold turkey" be regulating the drug trade, maybe small steps such as legalizing pot can made. It might be a small step that could lead to another and another. But the mentality and strategy of the "drug war's" policymakers and backers is ineffective and dangerous.
By the way, didn't Don Vito oppose getting into the drug business? He understood that its obscene profits would only cause bloody problems between the "families." How right he was.
Jim, you should not dedicate your efforts to the Republican Party. During the Clinton years drug enforcement operations reached a violent pinnacle in the mid-1990s. For more information on the infamous "Plan Dignidad" of Generalismo Banzer see the following documentary excerpt:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Pg-PL61q_4g
Even if you are in favor of the failed logic of the War on Drugs its violent methods, against the poorest, most obvious, and vulnerable participants in the drug trade are deplorable.
There is a hypocracy in funding anti-coca farmer warfare, yet one of the most profitable participants in the drug trade has been the CIA. Anyone remember Iran Contra?
What is produced in Afganistan? Who is in charge there? Excuses, excuses, double standards, scapegoats, and BS to justify anything.
If Bolivia has had bad rules, it is because of the coca leaves, it is because of the spanish blind ambition for quick riches in the Americas.
Is really coca leaves to be blamed?
Even though I'm against the "drug war," I disagree with the posts of the 2 previous Anons before me. His disagreement with the "drug war" gives him an excuse to generalize and attack the United States as a whole.
By no means I denigrate the United States' overwhelming positive influence around the world and by no means I minimize the culpability of the drug producing countries. I don't romanticize the poor peasants planting coca, yet I don't blame them, either.
There's plenty of blame to spread around, and this "drug war" is an utter failing policy.
Let's also not lose sight of historical accuracy. The "drug war" (which is badly devised) did not create the coca problem in Bolivia. The "coca boom" began in the 1970s. While the US put pressure on Bolivia (and other countries), no real efforts were made to erradicate cocaine-related coca production in the Chapare until after Paz Estenssoro came to power in 1985.
Also, let's not forget that US policy is not to "eliminate" coca. This misunderstanding (actually, a boldface lie) has become increasingly popular. The US has been instead trying to reduce cocaine-related coca production. Now, the US had done so with very badly misguided policies.
But let's not romanticize the cocaleros or their goals. Coca has not "traditionally" been grown in the Chapare. It's a recent crop introduced in the 1970s. The vast coca fields cultivated today barely extend a few decades, not several centuries.
Miguel, sorry but I don’t accept a blanket dismissal that the drug war is badly devised without some reasonable discussion. The article by Coletta Youngers that Jim posted does not meet the standard.
I read through the article three times. I was amazed at the breadth of Ms. Youngers’ unsupported allegations. She quickly makes accusations of coca eradication being characterized by human rights violations, a pattern of killings, mistreatments, etc., yet does not support the statements with verifiable references. As a matter of fact, it wasn’t until the third page that she finally cited her first reference: she referenced herself in a previous article. All told, Ms. Youngers had sixteen footnoted references, some citing more than one person or organization. Of these various references, a single reference was made to a Department of State Strategy report, a single reference to an independent newspaper (El Diario), and one to Mr. Theo Roncken with whom I’m not familiar. Other than that, there were no less than 4 self-citations. 5 times she cited an individual she had collaborated with (Kathy Ledebur), six references to her organization (Washington Office on Latin America – WOLA) and 5 references to the Andean Information Network (AIN) [For those unfamiliar – strongly left-leaning organizations]. In short, the article provided virtually no opposition or independent support of its assertions. Not a single reference to a Department of Justice memo, DEA note, a leaked Department of State policy letter, no presidential correspondence from Goni or Banzer… nothing. On the surface, a poorly researched piece.
Now, this isn’t to say that none of what Ms. Youngers says is completely without merit; just that it’s poorly presented. For example, speaking against the “draconian”* (she seems to like that word) Law to Regulate Coca and Controlled Substances, she states that U.S. lawyers reportedly drafted it. Reportedly? Um, I guess that’s better than “You’ll never guess what Marsha told me!” Had she taken the time, she might have referenced the National Law Center for Inter-American Free Trade (www.natlaw.com/pubs/spbocs1.htm) which state that “Ley 1008, was written with the assistance of the U.S. Agency for International Development”. And yet, providing assistance, and actually drafting the law are quite different.
Alright sorry for drifting from where the thread was going. I’ll see if I can get to a more detailed review of the article and perhaps a defense of the "Drug War" later. Got other stuff to do right now.
* Interesting side note. “Draconian” - The term comes from the name of an Athenian tyrant lawmaker, Drakon. Apparently Drakon was considered a tyrant because he applied the law not just to the commoners, but to the aristocracy as well, previously thought to be above the law. Will we one day decry “Evonian” laws?
Hello all:
I see many people that come to this blog are very interested in Bolivia and Bolivian politics. I believe Jim does a good job in fomenting debate, I do however also believe he can be a little one-sided, as many here have pointed out before. In spite of this, his blog provides a great space to debate and discuss current bolivia issues. I highly recommend that you all visit the following Bolivian website to get a different point of view of what is going on in Bolivia. It is a Bolivian website, run by Bolivians which i think could, together with this website, provide you with contrasting viewpoints so that you can all make up your mind. The website is:
www.boliviaendemocracia.org
So it is a consent; the US internal policies to imprison drug users so they are not considered mere ¨victims¨ must change to reduce the demand and we Bolivians should eradicate al the coca plantations in El Chapare to reduce the offer of the product, it sounds like a win – win situation to me.
Is it going to happen? Not with the current Bolivian administration and not with any administration in the US in the near future. Have it this clear whoever, the cocaine problem is a much bigger problem for the US than for Bolivians. As some blogers explained before me, most of the violence and anarchy in El Chapare and the rest of Bolivia ended up in the early nineties, when the drug lords in the country decided to keep a low level under the protection of the coca grower federations and Evo Morales. The risk under the current Bolivian administration to have the gold chained narcos with guns showing themselves openly in our cities like it happened in the 80ths is very small.
If any American with the power to do something about the drug problem in the US is reading this blog, I will recommend to prepare future policies for the post Evo era in Bolivia. Some useful pointer could be:
1. Make cocaine use a criminal act in the US, especially id breaking the law under the influence. A Good chance that the cocaine consumers will shift to other non penalized drug.
2. Open the business opportunities, alternative crop money, for non Cocalero Bolivians; do what MAS has done in Yapacani, San Julian, Carapari and Villa Primero de Mayo, take your own colons to your adversary’s territory. According to Machiavelli, it works better that station your troops.
3. Buy, even if expensive, all alternative crops, in a way that it will be more lucrative for Chapare farmers to grow bananas that coca. Sell another couple of F-16 to Chile and use that money, it will be enough.
I will give you guys other pointers when the time comes up, in them mean time, remember, coca is not cocaine, is not sacred and is not used only by the poor people in Bolivia, is used by almost everybody. As a matter of fact, most of the hydrocarbon industry workers in the lowlands, from the roustabout to the engineer that makes 5K a month, chew it.
BL,
1) Use of cocaine is already illegal and this is not keeping people from using it.
2) Evo and the cocaleros have made it clear that anyone who tries to plant anything but cocaine in the chapare is a persona non grata. They have burned their plantations, tortured them, and have blockade the roads during harvest season.
3) Asking people to do this, is asking people to act irrationally.
A petroleum engineer makes only $5K a month??? Man, I know people that get paid $20,000 a month to work on a rig. I can't imagine why would someone would be willing to deal with being in Bolivia for such low wage.
I’m probably going to skip all around on this one… it’s by far one of the most complex, multi-faceted issues in Bolivia today. First, for those in favor of legalizing cocaine in the US, a couple of interesting numbers:
According to an ONDCP fact sheet for 2003 the number of cocaine users was 1.7 million, or 0.7% of the population (@ 250 million although census data indicates the number may have been closer to 290 million). It would be criminally insane to legalize a substance like cocaine to placate a fraction of a percent of the population. The list of long term effects found on the DEA website make this abundantly clear.
That said, I'd be dishonest to assert that all had been done well in fighting this particular drug battle. A 2003 Inspector General audit of the DEA indicated poor management of Demand Reduction funding and certainly there have been other instances of mismanagement, but I reject that it is a systemic problem.
The US, Europe, Brazil, and now Bolivia too have a drug abuse problem. The 2007 UN World Drug Report shows a significant rise in marijuana and cocaine use in Bolivia. It is a much more complex issue than folks are giving it credit for and naïve to think that the battle should consist of only one or two elements. Eradication is part of a multi-prong effort. Back in September of last year I put it this way: “You combat the drug use problem on multiple fronts: through youth education, by reducing demand, providing voluntary rehabilitation for users, by arresting users and placing them in compulsory rehab, by arresting dealers and placing them in jail, by aggressively prosecuting drug-related crime, by preventing drugs crossing the border through uncompromising border surveillance, by providing incentives for other countries to eliminate production, (and by providing disincentives for those that don’t), by controlling, reducing, or eliminating precursor chemicals and key ingredients, by providing alternative sources of income to those involved in the drug trade, etc.”. I hold to that.
As far as incentives and alternative sources of income, alternative development deserves the support of the Morales’ government. Agricultural development, both large and small scale deserve his support. Opening roads to move Bolivian products internally and externally should be a priority. I don’t see the support. It wasn’t there when Morales was incessantly blockading commerce about the country and it certainly isn’t there now with his prohibition of the export of staple goods. [“…prohíbe la exportación de harina, trigo, arroz, carne de res y dispone el registro obligatorio para la exportación de tomate, papa, azúcar y aceite en el Ministerio de Producción y Microempresa”]
Wonderful debate, hope Quintana doesn't get you out of the country!. I just want to ad another feature over this complex issue:
Local neo colonialism. Yes, highlanders took over the low lands of Chapare as colonos, they were the new "coquistadores" seeking the white gold. The coca growing in Chapare has damaged the rain forests and no one local asks the cocaleros to stop, of course not Evo.
“Súbito pássaro
dentro dos muros
caído,
pálido barco
na onda serena
chegado.
Noite sem braços!
Cálido sangue
corrido.
E imensamente
o navegante
mudado.
Seus olhos densos
apenas sabem
ter sido.
Seu lábio leva
um outro nome
mandado.
Súbito pássaro
por altas nuvens
bebido.
Pálido barco
nas flores quietas
quebrado.
Nunca jamais
e para sempre
perdido
o eco do corpo
no próprio vento
pregado.”
(Cecília Meireles)
Abraços...
www.nogueirajr.blogspot.com
Ano 1:49 PM, it is obvious you know very little of this problem in the US and Bolivia. Just to improve your knowledge I will inform you that even if cocaine is illegal in the US, if you commit a crime under its influence you are going to be treated as the poor victim, and most likely will end up in some sort of drug abuse treatment institution instead of jail. Try to commit the same type of crime under the influence of alcohol, and you are busted and going to jail.
Alternative crop, and the US money going to it, went almost exclusively to cocalero growers, so they will shift crops; they just took the money and moved their coca plantations from the main road to inside the jungle. If you move non cocalero colons to the area and you pay them even if their plantations are burned or their harvest is wasted because of the blockages, you will have a chance to compensate the cocalero power in that region. Isn’t going to be from one day to other, but if the mazist could do it in San Julian, I don’t see why the US cannot help Bolivian democracy fighters do it in El Chapare.
Lastly, any salary over $1K in Bolivia puts you in the top middle class, with $5K you are very rich, with $10K you are the filthy rich owner of some fascist NGO´s; $20K is for the mazist zealots receiving Hugo’s petrodollars and probably some top ranked managers of international corporations. I know many foreign that will resist leaving Bolivia if they make from $3 to $5K or more; you must understand that the Evo era is just a treatable cancer in the most beautiful country of the world, and people knows it.
Norman said, "According to an ONDCP fact sheet for 2003 the number of cocaine users was 1.7 million, or 0.7% of the population (@ 250 million although census data indicates the number may have been closer to 290 million). It would be criminally insane to legalize a substance like cocaine to placate a fraction of a percent of the population. The list of long term effects found on the DEA website make this abundantly clear."
Since I am in favor of some form of legalization of illegal drugs, your post only includes cocaine. For me, the "drug war" includes other drugs such as heroine, opium, meth, and many other kinds of drugs around the world, which are many more than the figure you posted from the DEA.
Again, this "drug war" doesn't take into account the exponential increase in corruption, death, violence, environmental degradation, and loss of civil liberties around the world.
Remove the insane profits from this activity, and all the death and destruction will reduce dramatically. It's that simple.
Really.
Well anon, you're right, my post was limited to only cocaine as it's the drug of primary concern with US – Bolivian relations. There are a lot more aspects to the issue though. There is the force involved in law enforcement. There is the aspect of crime; drug addicts stealing to pay for their habit, drug induced crime (crimes committed while under the influence) and of course the cartel-type crime. There are health care issues, addiction, overdose, rehabilitation, etc.
Okay then, so let's look at some form of legalization. You say that legalization will eliminate a majority the death and destruction. Is that your opinion, common sense, or do you have some data to support the claim? You are concerned about eliminating the insane profits, i.e. the monetary motive behind black market / cartel-type operations, as well as the associated violence. Are you then talking about legalizing all drugs; marijuana, cocaine (to include crack cocaine), heroin, PCP, meth, LSD, opium, etc.? Should drugs be legalized for everyone? Military? Police? Truck drivers? Pilots? Children? Remember, if the answer is no to any of these questions, then there is still a nitch for black market operations. You haven't solved the problem; you've just shifted it and added more addicts on top of that.
What if the US legalizes marijuana, cocaine, and heroin, but Canada and Mexico don't? Wouldn't we then see further border issues as addicts move to where the drug is legal? What if someone does commit a crime while high? Is he really at fault? Shouldn't that be an admissible defense; insanity or something?
Who pays for medical expenses involved in treating the addicts? We're not talking about tobacco and alcohol here, both of which are already major health problems. We're talking about highly addictive, mind-altering substances, often with serious adverse health effects. Their detrimental effects on the mind and the body can last long after the high fades. Remember, most of these were legal at some point. Their negative effects on society, their addictive nature, the serious risk of overdose, the irresponsible distribution by drug companies of the time, all of these and more necessitated their control. In the beginning of the twentieth century when opium was legal in China, they had 90 million addicts!! It took China 50 years to get a handle on the situation.
You're right, there is a lot more to it. I still hold that legalization would lead to increased addiction which would lead to increased crime, increased health issues, and a significant burden on society.
Norman, I'm obviously no policymaker, but I think common sense dictates that when a policy (i.e. "drug war") has been implemented for more than 3 decades and has created far more problems than solutions, that policy should be scrapped.
When I refer to some form of legalization of drugs, I speak for ALL drugs, anywhere. Now, just as alcohol or cigarettes are (supposedly) not available for people under 21 (or 18 in other countries), I don't advocate having drugs available for children or having them sold side by side with Snicker bars or cotton candy. It can be taxed and regulated akin to alcohol. You mention that this still creates a black market. Well, sure, as there is still a black market for alcohol and cigarretes, but nowhere causing the level of corruption or violence during Prohibition.
This is only a small part of the puzzle, of course. Education and family involvement in this issue is extremely important, too.
Speaking of Prohibition, after it was repealed the major source of cash of the mafiosos was gone and with that, their ability to influence and corrupt city officials. They then turned to the next major illegal source of income: drugs.
Before the "war on drugs," there were far less choices for drugs and they were far less potent than the choices there are now. But since illegality meant satisfying customers with a quick strong fix, entrepreneurial "unlicensed pharmacists" (drug dealers), it created this monster we have now.
Again, the insane drug profits have made a comparatively small business with mild risks over a century ago to a multi-billion global violent operation. You worry about costs of treating addicts. How much is the DEA's budget? How much does it cost to incarcerate the (hundreds?) of thousands of nonviolent drug casual users? How much are the unseen costs: environmental damage, worldwide corruption, loss of civil liberties, animosity towards the US, the creation of the Evo Morales of the world, etc.? There are so many negatives with this "drug war" that I could go on and on. I'm sure making this issue a health issue instead of a law enforcement issue is a far better solution.
Finally, you believe that legalization would lead to increased addiction, which would lead to increased crime, increased health issues, and a significant burden on society. As you asked me, is that your opinion or do you have facts that can back it up?
This debate is so far from over.
Thanks for the response. Actually, I thoroughly enjoy debate like this, particularly when we can express ourselves respectfully. I’ll admit that my initial arguments start from in what my opinion must be obvious; 1) that making drugs legal will lower their cost and make them more available, 2) that making them more available and cheaper will lead to increased usage. 3) that due to the highly addictive nature of most of these drugs, increased casual usage will lead to increased rates of addiction. 4) that because of the mind-altering nature of these drugs and the psychological and physiological dependencies, increased rates of addiction will lead to increased crime. So let’s look at the evidence then.
1) That legalization would lead to a drop in prices is a key argument in favor of legalization. (Take the illegality away and prices will drop so much that the drug lords will have to look for another job). If legalization does not reduce prices, then the "unlicensed pharmacy" continues unchanged and the whole exercise is pointless. Ref:www.narcodex.ca/Wiki/Legalization_of_Drugs claim #24 where Amsterdam saw a 75% drop in price as a result of legalization.
2) That increased availability and lower prices will lead to increased usage. Market response - For most commodities, a drop in price results in a proportionate increase in demand; e.g. the K-Mart blue light special (see Price Elasticity of Demand). The converse does not hold for addictive substances however. According to an article by Robert Charles* titled New Economic Thinking on Addiction and Legalization “As the consumer migrates from treating the addictive substance (for example, cocaine or alcohol) as a ‘luxury’ to treating that same substance as a ‘necessity,’ substantial research indicates that the Price Elasticity of Demand (PED) for the drug shrinks – that is, the degree to which use is affected by price falls.” That is to say that while a decrease in price of the now-legal drug would likely lead to increase in demand, once hooked, an increase in price would not decrease demand to the same degree.
* [Mr. Charles graduated magna cum laude from Dartmouth College with a Bachelor of Arts in government. He also holds a Master of Arts in politics, philosophy and economics from Oxford University (P. P. E., 1984) and a law degree from Columbia University School of Law (J. D., 1987).]
3) That casual use very often leads to addiction: Writing for the New England Journal of Medicine in Sep 1994, Dr. Herbert D. Kleber, (Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse with Columbia University) noted that: Most people are poor judges of their own susceptibility to addiction. In 30 years of treating thousands of heroin and cocaine addicts, I have met few who anticipated addiction when they started using drugs. Most believed initially that they would have the willpower to use drugs casually. (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/330/5/361) Do you know anyone hooked on cigarettes that didn’t think they could handle it at first?
4) That increased addiction will lead to increased crime. The Department of Justice maintains data on drug related crime. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/duc.htm In a 2004 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities, 32% of State prisoners and 26% of Federal prisoners said they had committed their current offense while under the influence of drugs. 17% of State prisoners and 18% of Federal inmates said they committed their current offense to obtain money for drugs. Among Federal prisoners, drug offenders (32%) and violent offenders (24%) were the most likely to report drug use at the time of their crimes.
Let’s look at this one another way. Individuals have a hierarchy of needs. In the 1940’s Abraham Maslow detailed a list of needs that is still used in psychology and instruction today. People will work to satisfy their basic biological and physical needs first (food, water, air, shelter), then needs for safety, belonging, self-esteem, and self actualization. It’s a priority list. Physiological drug addiction adds another basic biological need right at the foundation of the hierarchical pyramid. Compound this additional need with impaired decision making ability, that is drug induced removal of inhibitions, and the data above makes perfect sense. The addict will act to fill this additional need.
Summary then: Legalization -> price drop -> demand increase -> addiction increase -> drug-related crime increase.
Now, did you have some references for me to cross-check your claims?
I agree, this is a good, respectful debate. Your answers are well organized and you present your sources. It seems that your major reason for not legalizing drugs is because it will lead to more use which will lead to more crime, increasing the burden on society.
Again, I have to disagree there. The US has millions of recreational drug consumers, and the vast majority are productive members of society. Drug consumption doesn't necessarily mean people will commit crime.
Alcohol was an "illegal drug" once, and it was such a disastrous experiment that it was made legal again and regulated. The price of alcohol dropped. Did alcohol consumption overall increase in the medium or the long run? Have alcohol-related (let's remove drunk driving) crimes increased since Prohibition? With your logic of legalization of illegal drugs=increased crime, alcohol related crimes should have skyrocketed since then. I don't think I've ever read about rampant crime due to alcoholism.
Now, are "illegal drugs" harmful? Of course they are, and of course you are worried with its effects to society. However, you again miss my main point. Illegal drugs created their obscene profits, which created corruption, erosion of liberty, and more potent and lethal drugs, wrapped around a never ending cycle of violence. More than 30 years of "drug war." For what?
As one of the 20th century's most influential economists, Milton Friedman wrote to then drug czar Bill Bennett almost 20 years ago. It might as well have been written to you:
"You are not mistaken in believing that drugs are a scourge that is devastating our society. You are not mistaken in believing that drugs are tearing asunder our social fabric, ruining the lives of many young people, and imposing heavy costs on some of the most disadvantaged among us. You are not mistaken in believing that the majority of the public share your concerns. In short, you are not mistaken in the end you seek to achieve.
Your mistake is failing to recognize that the very measures you favor are a major source of the evils you deplore. Of course the problem is demand, but it is not only demand, it is demand that must operate through repressed and illegal channels. IIlegality creates obscene profits that finance the murderous tactics of the drug lords; illegality leads to the corruption of law enforcement officials; illegality monopolizes the efforts of honest law forces so that they are starved for resources to fight the simpler crimes of robbery, theft and assault."
More of that letter at http://www.fff.org/freedom/0490e.asp
Actually, it's not my major reason for objecting... just a very good one. I was providing a response to your last question in the previous post. You're correct in that drug consumption doesn't necessarily mean that an individual will commit crime, but increased mind altering substance consumption does mean that drug-related crime will increase. “The US has millions of recreational drug consumers, and the vast majority are productive members of society.” Do you have some data to back that up?
“The price of alcohol dropped. Did alcohol consumption overall increase in the medium or the long run?” Absolutely.
-Encarta: “ Statistics show that Prohibition reduced the annual per capita consumption from 9.8 liters (2.6 gallons) of absolute alcohol during the period before state laws were effective (1906-1910) to 3.7 liters (0.97 gallons) after Prohibition (1934). Moreover, no striking statistical evidence of a crime wave during the 1920s exists, although the crime rate did rise.” … “ The annual per capita consumption of absolute alcohol in the country rose after the repeal from 4.5 liters (1.2 gallons) in 1935 to 10.2 liters (2.7 gallons) in 1975, but most states still retain restrictions on the sale and consumption of alcohol. ”
“Have alcohol-related (let's remove drunk driving) crimes increased since Prohibition?” Unequivocally.
-Ref #1 “The correlation between alcohol and crime is frightening. Over four million alcohol related arrests are made each year, that is one third of all arrests in the United States of America. Alcohol is a key factor in sixty-eight percent of manslaughters, fifty-four percent of attempted murders, fifty percent of cases involving sexual assaults, and forty-eight percent of robberies. The cost of this crime is estimated at $61.8 million annually. “
-Ref #2 – cites “…disorderly conduct, made up of serious incidents such as fights, aggravated batteries and assaults…”
-Ref #3 – “ In 2004, alcohol-related crimes at USU constituted 60 percent of all crime”
-Ref #4 Percent of violent incidents where offender 'under the influence' of alcohol Domestic-44%, Acquaintance-36%, Stranger-53%, Mugging-17%, All violence-40%
And let’s not remove drunk driving; “ Alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes kill someone every 31 minutes and nonfatally injure someone every two minutes.” Now keep in mind that alcohol is no where near as addictive as cocaine, heroin, THC, opium, etc.
to borrow a quote from my grandfather. "If we want to stop the production of cocaine here in Bolivia or elsewhere all we need to do is Block the nose of the Americans".
Americans want to stop Coca being grown in Bolivia? We want the US to stop making weapons.
Weapons and cocaine are first cousins, if you stop making weapons we will stop making cocaine.
Julio, linking those two together is very much apples to bananas. Besides, the US is not your major problem. "According to a Brazil gun referendum analysis, “Brazil holds the dubious distinction of being the world leader in the number of deaths caused by firearms.” It continues to state that “according to a study based on data from the state of Rio de Janeiro between 1950 and 2003, 80% of seized illegal arms were pistols and revolvers, the vast majority produced by Brazilian gunmakers (Taurus and Rossi).4 It is precisely this sort of gun – Brazilian-made, small caliber handguns, 'supplied' to the illegal market after legal sales – that is used in most homicides in Brazil.*" (I noticed from your profile that you call Brasil home as well.)
As far as your grandfather’s quote, he’s partly right which is why I strongly emphasize measures at home as well to curtail demand for the product. If you think the US (and Brasil) should stop manufacturing weapons, let me know where the anti-US-weapons blog is and we can go there. But don’t try to convince me that that is the reason you keep producing cocaine.
Why the resistance? Bolivia appears to be on the road to becoming, once again, a narco-state. From everything I can see coca production is up. Cocaine production, not surprisingly, is up as well. Cocaine is a nasty, bad thing. Am I missing something?
* Back up data can be found here.
---
Anon, I read Mr. Friedman’s letter. No doubt as a Nobel laureate for Economics, he is a card-carrying smart guy and I’d be foolish to discount his opinion on matters of economics, but he appears to be speaking out of his field here. He repeatedly refers to “decriminalization” when he clearly means “legalization” (I noted that you obviously are aware of the difference.) He makes a number of strong claims (e.g. “Had drugs been decriminalized 17 years ago, ‘crack’ would never have been invented… and there would today be far fewer addicts.”), but provides no data to back it up. Don’t take my word for it without support, but don't take his word for it either. Do the research. Try medical research sites, try the Department of Justice sites – these are the experts. If you want a better chance at someone supporting your view, try the universities – traditionally left leaning, but an economics expert speaking on drug policy is just another opinion.
I missed this... Brazil is the #2 foreign handgun supplier to the US!
Norman, yep, I actually own a Taurus .357 Magnum, its a great pistol.
As for the drug arguments, here is a good article from Bolivian Sociologist and Economist Roberto Laserna, who looks at the pitfalls of all the approaches.
The cocaine problem, is pretty involved and messy. The truth of the matter is that the enormous demand from the US, fueled the supply from South America. Though the destination of paste and cocaine from Bolivia seems to have changed to Brazil and Europe. Why? Possibly because of "shoot down" orders on flying paste to Colombia, late 90's erradication, controls of precursors. There is also the increased popularity of powder cocaine in Europe and Brazil, and I would suggest a suplanting of cocaine by meth in the US.
But, whether this market was created by bad policy by not attacking the demand side in the US, is hardly an excuse for the craziness that went on in Bolivia.
During Banzer's regime, the Bolivian diplomat caught with a "suitcase" became a cliche. Then the country became a "narco-state", with Garcia Mesa. Klaus Barbie's personal army running wild around Santa Cruz. Mr "Sosa" from Scarface being inspired by "Mr Suarez" from Bolivia. But even when that regime fortunately collapsed, the entire trade permeated the country. The building boom in Santa Cruz did not stop with the national economic collapse, it was built by dope money. Every single political party received coke money for their campaigns. Dealers ran around with impunity, the army and anti-narcotics forces were bought off. There has been a real threat of a "Colombianization" of the situation for the past two decades.
runescape money runescape gold runescape money runescape gold wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft Power Leveling Warcraft PowerLeveling buy runescape gold buy runescape money runescape items runescape gold runescape money runescape accounts runescape gp dofus kamas buy dofus kamas Guild Wars Gold buy Guild Wars Gold runescape accounts buy runescape accounts runescape lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro goldrunescape money runescape power leveling runescape money runescape gold dofus kamas cheap runescape money cheap runescape gold Hellgate Palladium Hellgate London Palladium Hellgate money Tabula Rasa gold tabula rasa money Tabula Rasa Credit
Tabula Rasa Credits Hellgate gold Hellgate London gold lotro gold buy lotro gold
Just in case anyone is still looking at this dead horse, please see The President's National Drug Control Strategy Budget 2006 - 2008. It demonstrates where priorities are. In a $12.9 billion counter drug effort, only 8.5% is going to international efforts. More than 3 times that, or about 30% of the total budget, goes to demand reduction and treatment efforts. 1/2 of one percent goes to the Bureau of Prisons.
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow gold
wow items
feelingame.com
wow tips
Most Valuable WOW Power Leveling Service
wow power leveling faq
cheap wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow power lvl
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
World of Warcraft Gold
World of Warcraft Gold
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
power leveling
power leveling
power leveling
power leveling
rolex replica
rolex
replica rolex
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
power leveling
power leveling
power leveling
power leveling
中高年 転職
アルバイト 求人情報
ブライダル
転職
競馬
FX
ダイエット
お見合い
競馬 予想
新築マンション
新築マンション
コンタクトレンズ
合宿免許
人材派遣
東京都 墓地
派遣会社
人材派遣
パチンコ 攻略
おなら
货架
翻译公司
翻译公司
机票
性病
性病
尖锐湿疣
尖锐湿疣
蜗轮减速机
减速机
齿轮减速机
丝杆升降机
租房
租房
北京租房
北京租房
搬家公司
北京搬家
北京搬家公司
上海机票
上海机票
上海打折机票
上海打折机票
上海特价机票
上海特价机票
搬家公司
搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
窃听器
窃听器
手机窃听器
手机窃听器
代孕
试管婴儿
捐卵
代孕
试管婴儿
试管婴儿
捐卵
捐卵
代孕
试管婴儿
Allow me to offer my heartiest wishes.
Don‘t waste your time on a man/woman, who isn‘t willing to waste their time on you. bjseek Bjxlzx
北京心理咨询专业从事数据恢复领域的产品开发与技术服务
自主研发RAID数据恢复
服务器数据恢复分析程序
为您提供心理咨询
心理辅导与心理治疗等服务
帮助您走出困惑和危机
享有心身健康的高品质生活。
通常说的加密狗的破解大致可以分为三种方法，
一种是通过硬件克隆或者复制
一种是通过SoftICE等Debug工具调试跟踪解密
一种是通过编写拦截程序修改软件
和加密锁之间的通讯。
来提供高、中、低压锅炉无缝管、
合金无缝管
无缝钢管
钢管
化肥专用钢管
，流体无缝管、结构无缝管、石油裂化无缝钢管、
地质钢管、液压支柱钢管等论文发表资讯刊物信息，协助客户制定论文发表方案.
Hi Best wishes。bjseek by数据恢复
loves xicao xicao lovesby bjseek数据恢复
娱乐博客
娱乐博客相册
google排名google排名
google排名台州网络公司台州网站建设
google左侧排名
google左侧排名
google排名
lotro gold
lord of the rings gold
lord of the rings online gold
lotro gold
lord of the rings gold
lord of the rings online gold
Warhammer gold
Warhammer online gold
Warhammer money
War gold
War money
Tabula Rasa Credit
lotro gold
lord of the rings gold
lord of the rings online gold
lord of the rings online gold
lord of the rings gold
Tabula Rasa Credit
World of Warcraft gold
PotBS Doubloon
Pirates of the Burning Sea Doubloon
PotBS Gold
Pirates of the Burning Sea Gold
lotro gold
lord of the rings gold
lord of the rings online gold
Tabula Rasa Credit
Warhammer gold
Warhammer online gold
PotBS Doubloon
PotBS gold
Age of Conan gold
Age of Conan gold
Pirates of the Burning Sea gold
Pirates of the Burning Sea Doubloon
http://www.blogtext.org/lotr/
http://users.newblog.com/lotrogold/
http://thespoke.net/blogs/lotrogold/default.aspx
http://www.blurty.com/users/lotrogold/
http://lotrogold.tabulas.com/
http://lotrogold.supersized.org/
http://lotrogold.sosblog.com/
http://familylobby.com/lotrogold/journals.asp
http://lotr88.mindsay.com/
http://lotrogold.gb-blog.com/
http://lotro_gold.outblogger.com/
http://lotrogold.easyfreeblog.com/
http://spaces.hoolulu.com/lotrogold/
http://lotrogold.ezyblog.org/
http://lotrogold.insanejournal.com/
http://lotrogold.bloghost.in/
http://sourdough.net.au/lotrogold/
http://speedyblogger.com/lotrogold/
http://www.blogmyway.org/?w=loro88
http://blog.hk-finance.com/lotrogold/
我们是专业的翻译公司
在深圳翻译公司中领先
深圳翻译公司提供
英语翻译
日语翻译
法语翻译
德语翻译
俄语翻译
藏语翻译
韩语翻译
泰语翻译
越南语翻译
维族语翻译
瑞典语翻译
印尼语翻译
阿拉伯语翻译
马来西亚语翻译
菲律宾语翻译
意大利语翻译
希腊语翻译
柬埔寨翻译
土耳其语语翻译
西班牙语翻译
葡萄牙语翻译
能源翻译
乌克兰翻译
地质翻译
合同翻译
法律翻译
机械翻译
标书翻译
医学翻译
外贸翻译
食品翻译
保险翻译
化工翻译
农业翻译
汽车翻译
通信翻译
建筑翻译
物流翻译
工程翻译
广州翻译公司
深圳翻译
深圳翻译公司
英语翻译
日语翻译
法语翻译
德语翻译
俄语翻译
藏语翻译
韩语翻译
泰语翻译
越南语翻译
印度语翻译
瑞典语翻译
印尼语翻译
阿拉伯语翻译
马来西亚语翻译
菲律宾语翻译
意大利语翻译
爱尔兰语翻译
柬埔寨翻译
土耳其语语翻译
西班牙语翻译
葡萄牙语翻译
外语翻译
小语种翻译
广州深圳同声传译|
证件翻译
合同翻译
法律翻译
机械翻译
标书翻译
医学翻译
外贸翻译
食品翻译
技术翻译
化工翻译
农业翻译
汽车翻译
通信翻译
英译汉，汉译英
汉译日，日译汉
金融翻译
新疆租车
珠海翻译公司|
佛山翻译公司|
惠州翻译公司
汕头翻译公司