1-3-06 What about Afghanistan?
You never know how long a link will remain active, but here's one anyway...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10663339/site/newsweek/from/RSS/
There are plenty more to find, however. That's just one in a long line of stories over the past few years that continues to miss the point in what has to be the least covered story in the so-called "Global War on Terror" (GWOT), ie- the back seat that the so-called "War on Drugs" has taken in Afghanistan.
During the period that the Taliban controlled Afghanistan, opium production dropped to a level that was so insignificant that you could say it was no longer a factor for consideration in world-wide illegal drug trade. Following the US liberation of Afghanistan, however, it quickly rose to levels that bring it back into the picture as the world's number one producer of opium.
What's wrong with this picture?
Well, it isn't so much the irony or even the idea that the change is a "two edged sword". The trouble with this picture was argued rationally and eruditely by William F. Buckley, Jr. a decade ago. He argued for the legalization of drugs.
The centerpiece for his argument was a statement he gave to the New York Bar Association in 1996, a transcript of which resides on the National Review website here...
http://www.nationalreview.com/12feb96/drug.html
There are many other places on the web where you can read Buckley's additional rhetoric on the subject, if you care to search for them.
Buckley's argument is certainly the most rationally focused viewpoint regarding the "War on Drugs" that can be found anywhere. Unfortunately, prejudicial preferences rule the continued application of double standards and unrealistic expectations that keep extant drug laws in force, and adding to them almost annually. It's an inconsistency that, for instance, brings Afghanistan back into the limelight of the illegal drug trade, but only after our government toppled the only governing influence in the history of the world to have actually made any significant impact in this so-called "War on Drugs".
I certainly don't want to draw the conclusion that a fanatic theocracy, however, is the way to go in the War on Drugs. Rather, I go along with Buckley's analysis of the economic detriment in keeping drugs illegal, and I also contend that the premises of the War on Drugs are completely irrational.
The raw materials for the three most prolific illegal drugs, coca leaves, poppies, and marijuana, are commodities. Like most other commodities, they have established markets. In a free market system, it's very unrealistic to expect that any agriculturally based commodity with an established market of any kind can in any way be "erased". It simply can't be done. What can be done is to pass laws that prohibit the trade, thereby making the commodities one hundred to one thousand times more valuable, due to the increased risk.
It's simple economics.
For instance, if we outlaw orange juice, the only real expectation any sane person can have is that the price of orange juice is going to go way up.
The irrationality of strengthening any of the prejudicial, morality based laws against drugs and marrying them to any effort in waging a "War on Drugs", results only in detrimental effects for the society at large. I can think of only two benefits of this situation. One would be for a repressive government, in that the drugs and the laws prohibiting them could be used to persecute certain classes within a population. The other would be the cash cow available for covert activity. This is, effectively, what's been happening for quite a long time.
So, what about Afghanistan? I mean, the story there is the revival of the free market system. We find that the free market system works quite well there. It's practically a model, a perfect example, of what the free market system is all about. But it's an embarrassment to the powers that be who, locked into the prejudicial morality fueling the War on Drugs, can only do whatever's necessary to completely ignore the absurdity of the whole thing.
As a tool for persecution and a cash cow for covert activity, we can hardly expect illegal drugs to be viewed rationally within our society for the actual problem that it is. Vested interests generate so much money with these commodities that they have amassed great power to corrupt, using that wealth. Any efforts to legalize and regulate trade in these commodities runs up against long established vested interests that would stand to lose billions.
In addition to those generating billions of dollars of illegal cash income, there are also those who legally profit from the situation now, but who would also lose out if drugs were legalized. How many employees of prisons would be put out of work if drugs were made legal and regulated? How many prisons would be closed completely? How many police forces across the country would have their personnel levels dropped by drastic numbers? How many home security businesses would find their level of business drop so radically that their continued viability would be in doubt? After all, more than half of all criminal activity in this country is drug-related.
It's not just the people directly involved with the growing, processing, transport, and/or distribution of illegal drugs that are making money, here. Millions of people's livelihoods depend entirely upon the continued illegality of these drugs. The vested interest in keeping drugs illegal is based in money flows that are vastly greater than any money flows resulting from a legal drug scenario.
In addition, so much propaganda has been generated regarding the "dangers" of drugs, the "immorality" of drugs, and so forth, that very large segments of the population have been, effectively, brainwashed into believing that there is no alternative to the problems that currently exist, never mind the possibility that their stance on the subject just may be one of the biggest roadblocks to resolving those problems.
Consequently, proposing to make drugs legal runs up squarely against the moral and ethical objections, unwittingly in league with those who profit. It is somewhat like proposing to legislate any other established and booming business out of existence.
(For instance, we all pay extra for "long distance" telephone calls. This regulated system of fees for the additional service was established way back when human operators had to do the job of manually patching these calls through. The phone companies had to pay these people, and this is why it cost them more money to provide the service. This is no longer the case, however. The service is, essentially, provided by the phone companies without the original added expense. The infrastructure for automatically routing long distance calls was bought and paid for a long ago. So, the extra money we pay is for... well, it's for nothing! Those fees we pay are ALL GRAVY. But to propose that the regulatory laws be changed to reflect that reality would run up against the cash cow that it is, and the money power that can effectively lobby against such a proposal.)
In my view, a rational society would be trading futures on the commodities market for opium, coca, and marijuana. The government would be regulating the processing, transport, and sale of the raw materials and the processed derivative products. Anyone wishing to use any of these products would have to be registered as a user, and that information would be in the public domain. If you applied for a job, that information could be legal grounds for not being hired if the company chose. It could also possibly be grounds for denying other privileges such as acquiring various licenses, depending on usage levels. In other words, it wouldn't be regulated as frivolously as alcohol.
Under a system like that, I'd feel a whole lot safer. Instead of the junkies breaking into my house to steal things, fence them, and buy overpriced illegal heroin, I could, for instance, make my decision about who's going to install the new siding on my house based on whether the guy is a registered drug user, and buys a lot of heroin... or not.
The only argument I've ever heard against legalizing drugs is that more people would use drugs, and that this could hardly be viewed as a benefit to society. Well, I'm certainly not of the opinion that drug usage should ever be viewed as anything less than a personal vice. And the argument is a valid one, more people would find it easier to try drugs. But the basis for any arguments that more people trying drugs will lead to a drug epidemic is demonstrably lacking.
What I AM saying is that drug usage is currently a means of turning otherwise innocuous people into criminals. I'm saying that keeping drugs and drug usage illegal is costing us far more money and causing vastly more human misery than legalizing them ever would.
I'm also saying that the least covered story in the GWOT is the story of Afghanistan's stunningly fast economic recovery, and its exemplary demonstration of the whole idea behind this so-called "free market system". It's the least covered story because it's the most embarrassing of them all. It's the most embarrassing because it reveals the hypocrisy and irrationality and absurdity of the "War on Drugs", but only if you really take an honest, rational, and unbiased look at it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10663339/site/newsweek/from/RSS/
There are plenty more to find, however. That's just one in a long line of stories over the past few years that continues to miss the point in what has to be the least covered story in the so-called "Global War on Terror" (GWOT), ie- the back seat that the so-called "War on Drugs" has taken in Afghanistan.
During the period that the Taliban controlled Afghanistan, opium production dropped to a level that was so insignificant that you could say it was no longer a factor for consideration in world-wide illegal drug trade. Following the US liberation of Afghanistan, however, it quickly rose to levels that bring it back into the picture as the world's number one producer of opium.
What's wrong with this picture?
Well, it isn't so much the irony or even the idea that the change is a "two edged sword". The trouble with this picture was argued rationally and eruditely by William F. Buckley, Jr. a decade ago. He argued for the legalization of drugs.
The centerpiece for his argument was a statement he gave to the New York Bar Association in 1996, a transcript of which resides on the National Review website here...
http://www.nationalreview.com/12feb96/drug.html
There are many other places on the web where you can read Buckley's additional rhetoric on the subject, if you care to search for them.
Buckley's argument is certainly the most rationally focused viewpoint regarding the "War on Drugs" that can be found anywhere. Unfortunately, prejudicial preferences rule the continued application of double standards and unrealistic expectations that keep extant drug laws in force, and adding to them almost annually. It's an inconsistency that, for instance, brings Afghanistan back into the limelight of the illegal drug trade, but only after our government toppled the only governing influence in the history of the world to have actually made any significant impact in this so-called "War on Drugs".
I certainly don't want to draw the conclusion that a fanatic theocracy, however, is the way to go in the War on Drugs. Rather, I go along with Buckley's analysis of the economic detriment in keeping drugs illegal, and I also contend that the premises of the War on Drugs are completely irrational.
The raw materials for the three most prolific illegal drugs, coca leaves, poppies, and marijuana, are commodities. Like most other commodities, they have established markets. In a free market system, it's very unrealistic to expect that any agriculturally based commodity with an established market of any kind can in any way be "erased". It simply can't be done. What can be done is to pass laws that prohibit the trade, thereby making the commodities one hundred to one thousand times more valuable, due to the increased risk.
It's simple economics.
For instance, if we outlaw orange juice, the only real expectation any sane person can have is that the price of orange juice is going to go way up.
The irrationality of strengthening any of the prejudicial, morality based laws against drugs and marrying them to any effort in waging a "War on Drugs", results only in detrimental effects for the society at large. I can think of only two benefits of this situation. One would be for a repressive government, in that the drugs and the laws prohibiting them could be used to persecute certain classes within a population. The other would be the cash cow available for covert activity. This is, effectively, what's been happening for quite a long time.
So, what about Afghanistan? I mean, the story there is the revival of the free market system. We find that the free market system works quite well there. It's practically a model, a perfect example, of what the free market system is all about. But it's an embarrassment to the powers that be who, locked into the prejudicial morality fueling the War on Drugs, can only do whatever's necessary to completely ignore the absurdity of the whole thing.
As a tool for persecution and a cash cow for covert activity, we can hardly expect illegal drugs to be viewed rationally within our society for the actual problem that it is. Vested interests generate so much money with these commodities that they have amassed great power to corrupt, using that wealth. Any efforts to legalize and regulate trade in these commodities runs up against long established vested interests that would stand to lose billions.
In addition to those generating billions of dollars of illegal cash income, there are also those who legally profit from the situation now, but who would also lose out if drugs were legalized. How many employees of prisons would be put out of work if drugs were made legal and regulated? How many prisons would be closed completely? How many police forces across the country would have their personnel levels dropped by drastic numbers? How many home security businesses would find their level of business drop so radically that their continued viability would be in doubt? After all, more than half of all criminal activity in this country is drug-related.
It's not just the people directly involved with the growing, processing, transport, and/or distribution of illegal drugs that are making money, here. Millions of people's livelihoods depend entirely upon the continued illegality of these drugs. The vested interest in keeping drugs illegal is based in money flows that are vastly greater than any money flows resulting from a legal drug scenario.
In addition, so much propaganda has been generated regarding the "dangers" of drugs, the "immorality" of drugs, and so forth, that very large segments of the population have been, effectively, brainwashed into believing that there is no alternative to the problems that currently exist, never mind the possibility that their stance on the subject just may be one of the biggest roadblocks to resolving those problems.
Consequently, proposing to make drugs legal runs up squarely against the moral and ethical objections, unwittingly in league with those who profit. It is somewhat like proposing to legislate any other established and booming business out of existence.
(For instance, we all pay extra for "long distance" telephone calls. This regulated system of fees for the additional service was established way back when human operators had to do the job of manually patching these calls through. The phone companies had to pay these people, and this is why it cost them more money to provide the service. This is no longer the case, however. The service is, essentially, provided by the phone companies without the original added expense. The infrastructure for automatically routing long distance calls was bought and paid for a long ago. So, the extra money we pay is for... well, it's for nothing! Those fees we pay are ALL GRAVY. But to propose that the regulatory laws be changed to reflect that reality would run up against the cash cow that it is, and the money power that can effectively lobby against such a proposal.)
In my view, a rational society would be trading futures on the commodities market for opium, coca, and marijuana. The government would be regulating the processing, transport, and sale of the raw materials and the processed derivative products. Anyone wishing to use any of these products would have to be registered as a user, and that information would be in the public domain. If you applied for a job, that information could be legal grounds for not being hired if the company chose. It could also possibly be grounds for denying other privileges such as acquiring various licenses, depending on usage levels. In other words, it wouldn't be regulated as frivolously as alcohol.
Under a system like that, I'd feel a whole lot safer. Instead of the junkies breaking into my house to steal things, fence them, and buy overpriced illegal heroin, I could, for instance, make my decision about who's going to install the new siding on my house based on whether the guy is a registered drug user, and buys a lot of heroin... or not.
The only argument I've ever heard against legalizing drugs is that more people would use drugs, and that this could hardly be viewed as a benefit to society. Well, I'm certainly not of the opinion that drug usage should ever be viewed as anything less than a personal vice. And the argument is a valid one, more people would find it easier to try drugs. But the basis for any arguments that more people trying drugs will lead to a drug epidemic is demonstrably lacking.
What I AM saying is that drug usage is currently a means of turning otherwise innocuous people into criminals. I'm saying that keeping drugs and drug usage illegal is costing us far more money and causing vastly more human misery than legalizing them ever would.
I'm also saying that the least covered story in the GWOT is the story of Afghanistan's stunningly fast economic recovery, and its exemplary demonstration of the whole idea behind this so-called "free market system". It's the least covered story because it's the most embarrassing of them all. It's the most embarrassing because it reveals the hypocrisy and irrationality and absurdity of the "War on Drugs", but only if you really take an honest, rational, and unbiased look at it.
posted by Jeff Barnard at 2:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home