The war on drugs
I skimmed an article about Afghanistan - apparently producer of 92% of the world's opium trade, a difficult "war on drugs" of a different sort as the old Taliban political faction funds their continued guerilla war using drug money.
I don't have a secure opinion about the "war on drugs". I accept that criminalizing "consumption" of illegal drugs is overall counter-productive. I accept overall anything that is "valued" by enough people can't be banned, and that blackmarkets lead to more problems than the banning attempts to solve. Generalizations are never secure, always exceptions.
On the side of growers, whether opium, coca, hemp, or whatever plant, I can't easily take the enforcement side of simply destroying crops - not to say I'm against destroying crops, just that I acknowledge there's issues - specifically assuming growers tend to be poor farmers who are just trying to grow something they can sell for a profit - and perhaps in a world where legal crops are underpriced by subsidies that make small scale producers unable to earn enough to make a living. In other words, enforcement alone is insufficient, if it fails to pay attention to poverty that encourages the drug crops. Ideally at minimum, it is an education issue - if farmers knew that their crops made drug traffickers rich, while causing suffering for those who abuse the drugs, that might influence their choice to grow it.
I do wonder what effect "peak oil" will have on the world drug trade. Overall, I expect "high-value, low-weight" products like drugs will ALWAYS be traded under long distances, whether industrial scale production or family farmers.
And stepping off the deep end for a minute, my "inner liberterian" wonders whether controlling drugs can ever ultimately be justified. It's tricky still for me. I want to "protect" people from drugs, but education is the first defense. AND I want to protect people from "bad drugs" - blackmarket drugs have no quality assurance, and could be ANYTHING - so regulated drugs at least can be what they say they are. AND lastly I recognize that many drugs, like marajuana have gotten more and more potent through artificial selection, so "first time" users now are in more danger than those 40 years ago.
And still I'm wary. Like legal drugs - alcohol and tobacco, they are regulated to protect children while adults are free to abuse them as they like, at least in private. Some would justify the same ought to be true for marajuana at least, and I admit given I was king, I'd probably relent in that case - not worth the fight to me.
Some would argue cocaine as well ought to be legalized, and obviously there was a time it was legal and used in products, like the original Coke soda. Some would argue Heroin also ought to be legal. I don't have the medical knowledge to judge any of it, or the inclination to experiment myself. I suppose for me I'd be more likely to TRY if a drug was regulated, but I'm mostly a chicken, and no representative.
It is curious to imagine how the prices of drugs would change if regulated. At least they could be taxes if legalized. Intiutively I'd imagine prices would go down, which seems bad since it'd encourage more consumption.
Drugs like Meth, apparently used by Japanese pilots during WWII, I start getting more and more scared, but I don't know how to draw a line. I'd DRAW a line here - a drug that destroys a person's health is BAD BAD BAD, even if it can be used to improve their "productivity", but the same could be said about Cocaine. Perhaps some would even say about caffeine?
Well, whatever else I don't know, I'd have to say it is SENSELESS to not regulate illegal drugs. I mean keep as much as possible in the light of day. Even criminalizing the selling of drugs is problematic - makes economic activity between consenting adults illegal. (I know there's always exceptions where the greater danger to society exceeds individual freedom.)
Overall I know the whole issue of "regulation" is sometimes offensive, always better to try to use education to minimize harm than police everything which ultimately always fails at some level.
I was thinking of "peak oil" in the sense of "industrialized production" in the present can usually "underprice" smaller efforts, so for the moment, I'd imagine drugs would be cheaper if made legal, even if taxed significantly. Hard to believe consumption wouldn't go up, but perhaps lower prices mean less incentive for production - who knows? Maybe economists?!
I don't have a secure opinion about the "war on drugs". I accept that criminalizing "consumption" of illegal drugs is overall counter-productive. I accept overall anything that is "valued" by enough people can't be banned, and that blackmarkets lead to more problems than the banning attempts to solve. Generalizations are never secure, always exceptions.
On the side of growers, whether opium, coca, hemp, or whatever plant, I can't easily take the enforcement side of simply destroying crops - not to say I'm against destroying crops, just that I acknowledge there's issues - specifically assuming growers tend to be poor farmers who are just trying to grow something they can sell for a profit - and perhaps in a world where legal crops are underpriced by subsidies that make small scale producers unable to earn enough to make a living. In other words, enforcement alone is insufficient, if it fails to pay attention to poverty that encourages the drug crops. Ideally at minimum, it is an education issue - if farmers knew that their crops made drug traffickers rich, while causing suffering for those who abuse the drugs, that might influence their choice to grow it.
I do wonder what effect "peak oil" will have on the world drug trade. Overall, I expect "high-value, low-weight" products like drugs will ALWAYS be traded under long distances, whether industrial scale production or family farmers.
And stepping off the deep end for a minute, my "inner liberterian" wonders whether controlling drugs can ever ultimately be justified. It's tricky still for me. I want to "protect" people from drugs, but education is the first defense. AND I want to protect people from "bad drugs" - blackmarket drugs have no quality assurance, and could be ANYTHING - so regulated drugs at least can be what they say they are. AND lastly I recognize that many drugs, like marajuana have gotten more and more potent through artificial selection, so "first time" users now are in more danger than those 40 years ago.
And still I'm wary. Like legal drugs - alcohol and tobacco, they are regulated to protect children while adults are free to abuse them as they like, at least in private. Some would justify the same ought to be true for marajuana at least, and I admit given I was king, I'd probably relent in that case - not worth the fight to me.
Some would argue cocaine as well ought to be legalized, and obviously there was a time it was legal and used in products, like the original Coke soda. Some would argue Heroin also ought to be legal. I don't have the medical knowledge to judge any of it, or the inclination to experiment myself. I suppose for me I'd be more likely to TRY if a drug was regulated, but I'm mostly a chicken, and no representative.
It is curious to imagine how the prices of drugs would change if regulated. At least they could be taxes if legalized. Intiutively I'd imagine prices would go down, which seems bad since it'd encourage more consumption.
Drugs like Meth, apparently used by Japanese pilots during WWII, I start getting more and more scared, but I don't know how to draw a line. I'd DRAW a line here - a drug that destroys a person's health is BAD BAD BAD, even if it can be used to improve their "productivity", but the same could be said about Cocaine. Perhaps some would even say about caffeine?
Well, whatever else I don't know, I'd have to say it is SENSELESS to not regulate illegal drugs. I mean keep as much as possible in the light of day. Even criminalizing the selling of drugs is problematic - makes economic activity between consenting adults illegal. (I know there's always exceptions where the greater danger to society exceeds individual freedom.)
Overall I know the whole issue of "regulation" is sometimes offensive, always better to try to use education to minimize harm than police everything which ultimately always fails at some level.
I was thinking of "peak oil" in the sense of "industrialized production" in the present can usually "underprice" smaller efforts, so for the moment, I'd imagine drugs would be cheaper if made legal, even if taxed significantly. Hard to believe consumption wouldn't go up, but perhaps lower prices mean less incentive for production - who knows? Maybe economists?!
posted by Ares Olympus at 3:19 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home