THE WAR ON DRUGS
Polarization exists everywhere. The basic nature of our existence deals with polarization of particles, Electron-Proton, Matter-Anti Matter, and Communism-Capitalism! Polarization in a non-scientific context would mean a difference of ideas in a population of group. The extreme views of communism and capitalism is an example. As the proverb goes – “One man's meat is another man's poison.” But what about drugs like cocaine and heroin? I am sure no one in the world can argue that Cocaine is good. Cocaine is addictive, destroys lives, and is simply poisoned. Cocaine being made illegal is justified.
In my recent Latin American Studies Class, I learnt that the president of Bolivia is campaigning against roll-back on a ban of coca leaf production. I was initially shocked to see a head of state promoting such a product. Reading on I realized that coca is not equal to cocaine and the major economies of Andes region are dependent on coca leaves production. Coca has been a staple crop and a part of daily life of The Andean region for more than 2000 years compared to cocaine which has only been around for less than 200 years. It also has a social importance and used in religious practices for thousands of years. Moreover, growth of other crops is not suited for this region. Rather than banning coca production, say coca supporters, a solution is developing legitimate uses for coca.
Here we come across polarization of thoughts once again. On one hand, The United States is spending billions of dollars every year for coca leaf eradication, and in South America- There are vast campaigns to legalize it.
This paradox of coca plant as a good and evil has social, political, economic and geographical aspects to it; which makes me want to learn more, who is correct? Is the ban on coca leaves justified? I am not questioning whether cocaine should exists in society, but is the ban on coca leaf serving an answer or does it just increase the economic hardships of already poor countries.
I turn to three scholarly journals which serve as secondary sources for my research on this topic.
The first secondary source talks about the drug enforcement in Latin America and the American war on drugs, while the second source is related to what the war on drugs means for the common people of the Andean region and how it negatively affects them. The third source is a scientific journal that discusses legitimate traditional and illegal uses of the coca plant.
The first secondary source an article appearing in the journal NACLA Report on the Americas; titled - "The only war we've got": drug enforcement in Latin America, by Coletta Youngers. I would like to quote the first line on the article to explain the complexity of the situation. Youngers starts with saying “To date, U.S. taxpayers have provided nearly $290 billion for the war on drugs, yet cocaine and heroin are more readily available, and at cheaper prices, than ever before.” Yes, even I was shocked at the figure of $290 million. In my opinion, instead of going to war on the Coca producing countries, if this money was spent on economic development of those countries, there would be less incentives for them to rely on coca as a crop.
There are many reasons the author states for this – First and foremost, coca required for the cocaine production is very small and just about 14% of worlds total coca production can satisfy U.S. Cocaine demands. Analysis has shown that just 20 square miles of coca crop is required to produce enough cocaine for the United States market. Also eradication policy has no effect on the farmers – they have no other options. In Colombia, aerial spraying has been tried to curb coca production but - As bluntly stated by the local Bishop, Belarmino Correa, "The people fear that if they stop growing coca, they will die of hunger." For those whose crops have been affected by eradication policies in Colombia they have two alternatives - to go deeper into the jungle to grow more coca or to join the ranks insurgency groups such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). Youngers compares coca production to a balloon. This balloon theory is simple enough: squeezing it in one area merely causes it to flourish somewhere else.
I my opinion, economic development of Coca producing countries is the first step to eradication of cocaine, rather than going to war on drugs. As cocaine produces will find a way to get drugs always.
The author explains the profit paradox on the war on drugs: The war on drugs focuses on cutting the coca production from the supply side, .i.e. South America. But majority of cocaine sale money goes to the traffickers and not the growers. Former Rand economist Peter Reuter calculates that doubling the cocaine export price would raise the street price by no more than 5% - hardly enough to have an impact on cocaine use. Therefore concentrating on cutting the supply is just an easy means of acting tough on drugs.
This seems obvious, even a person like me who has little knowledge of economics understands that, I believe that more of the spending on cocaine eradication should be on the demand side, rather than just going to war with the plantation societies.
The author cites surveys that show increasing trends in drug use act as a motive for the opposing parties to critcise the government of US. During Clinton’s administration, Republicans pointed to the lack of presidential leadership as the key factor explaining the drug-use survey results. Thus making them spend more on the war on drugs to “show” their efforts on paper. Increased military spending in Latin America attributed to war on drugs doesn’t necessarily stop drugs. In the authors words “ In the name of the drug war, a coherent human rights policy is thus disappearing from the Administration's approach to Latin America.”
I agree to this belief and the author’s stance on the US governments policies. I further add - Is going to war any better that cocaine use?
The second source, focusing primary on the drug wars in Bolivia also appears in the journal NACLA Report on the Americas is titled - THE PRICE OF SUCCESS: Bolivia's War against Drugs and the Poor, by Ben Kohl and Linda farthing.
This source points out that the war on drugs by USA described by the first source has been most successful in Bolivia, with the destruction of three fourths of its crop. Also leaving the economy devastated, thus making the economy of Bolivia dependant on US. This source points out that $500 million is the annual loss to Bolivian economy due to coca eradication, this is intriguing as compared to the $290 Billion spent on eradication programs and war on drugs.
The peak of coca production was 1970’s, the author says “For every acre eradicated under voluntary programs that offered some limited financial incentives, another acre was planted.” This is in accordance with the balloon theory of Youngers.
The US administration is pleased with the results of war of drugs in Bolivia - "Bolivia has done in the past two to three years what no other country has done in the drug war in Latin America," said Manuel Rocha, U.S. Ambassador to Bolivia since July 2000. "In Latin America, this is the success story." But this success comes at a cost of the level actors in the economic pyramid – the workers. Imagine a country whose economy single most important crop is reduced to one fourth of its growth.
In the early 1990s, alternative agricultural development projects encouraged farmers to shift to other crops, such as pineapples, pepper or turmeric. Yet there was no market for these crops, more than 35,000 families are displaced by eradication programs according to this source.
The authors quote - "Cocaine is not a Bolivian problem," says grower Adrian Martina. "I've never even seen it. Cocaine is an American problem. Our problem here comes from those who treat us like criminals because we grow coca, which we have done for thousands of years."
The authors say that the indigenous people are angry at the US for labeling this crop as a poison, whereas it has been around for more than two thousand years. They also describe how the coca leaf is socially important in religious practices, traditional use such as dulling hunger and fatigue, aiding digestion and providing minerals. Andean people have chewed coca and sipped its tea for thousands of years. There are also medicinal uses. These and other traditional uses are confirmed by the next secondary source which is a scientific journal article. Coca is celebrated and has references in ancient Andean poetry, which came in much before cocaine:
This source also talks about how peasants earn just 1.5 % of the sale of coca, justifying the profit theory of the first source. Also meeting the balloon theory of the first source – this source talks about the fact that if Colombian eradication policies were to be effective- cultivation would again increase in Bolivia.
The authors include lines from "Legend of Coca," an oral Andean poem, that show how much coca is revered in the local community.
"Guard its leaves with love. And when you feel pain in your heart, hunger in your flesh and darkness in your mind, lift it to your mouth. You will find love for your pain, nourishment for your body and light for your mind."
For majority of the workers, coca has been a livelihood, a means to fend off starvation caused by economic collapse.
In my Latin American Studies class, I learnt about how Evo Morales, himself a farmer was the head of coca growers union and led resistance to eradication programs. He is now fighting to increase the cap on legal coca production and new developing products which include coca.
My Third Secondary source shows the importance and uses of coca. The article is titled “"Cocaine and the coca plant: traditional and illegal uses." And is by Douglas H. Boucher. It presents illegal uses and traditional – legal uses. How it reduces hunger pangs and keeps one active for hours. Much like modern day coffee drinkers use it to keep active – only coca has been around since 1500 B.C.
Coca teas has been popular since ages, and modern day cola also has coca extract.
Illegal uses of course are known to all; cocaine is a very harmful drug and can potentially cause death. It is also one of the most addictive common drugs, next to heroin
Even this source talks about the balloon theory and failure of eradication policy. “In Bolivia, when 2500 hectares were eliminated by a major government effort in 1988, another 6800 hectares of new production began.
This source does however conclude that the evils of cocaine far outweigh the goods of coca leaf. Coca is no longer used just by peasants and cocaine industry is thriving. I agree to that, but banning coca production has no effect on cocaine production and the market. There must be other means to stop this trafficking – like perhaps greater punishments, and social awareness among teens.
It has a long history of traditional and medicinal uses, but the duality of use makes coca a complicated matter, can coca exist without cocaine? I believe not, but certainly going to war and forced eradication is not helping. In my the US should promote other crops and economic development rather than going to war. This research makes me conclude that the ban on coca leaf production is not justified.
Source Citation
Youngers, Coletta. "'The only war we've got': drug enforcement in Latin America." NACLA Report on the Americas 31.2 (1997): 13+. Academic OneFile. Web. 5 Nov. 2010
KOHL, BEN, and LINDA FARTHING. "THE PRICE OF SUCCESS: Bolivia's War against Drugs and the Poor." NACLA Report on the Americas 35.1 (2001): 35. Academic OneFile. Web. 5 Nov. 2010.
Boucher, Douglas H. "Cocaine and the coca plant: traditional and illegal uses." BioScience 41.2 (1991): 72+. Academic OneFile.
Polarization exists everywhere. The basic nature of our existence deals with polarization of particles, Electron-Proton, Matter-Anti Matter, and Communism-Capitalism! Polarization in a non-scientific context would mean a difference of ideas in a population of group. The extreme views of communism and capitalism is an example. As the proverb goes – “One man's meat is another man's poison.” But what about drugs like cocaine and heroin? I am sure no one in the world can argue that Cocaine is good. Cocaine is addictive, destroys lives, and is simply poisoned. Cocaine being made illegal is justified.
In my recent Latin American Studies Class, I learnt that the president of Bolivia is campaigning against roll-back on a ban of coca leaf production. I was initially shocked to see a head of state promoting such a product. Reading on I realized that coca is not equal to cocaine and the major economies of Andes region are dependent on coca leaves production. Coca has been a staple crop and a part of daily life of The Andean region for more than 2000 years compared to cocaine which has only been around for less than 200 years. It also has a social importance and used in religious practices for thousands of years. Moreover, growth of other crops is not suited for this region. Rather than banning coca production, say coca supporters, a solution is developing legitimate uses for coca.
Here we come across polarization of thoughts once again. On one hand, The United States is spending billions of dollars every year for coca leaf eradication, and in South America- There are vast campaigns to legalize it.
This paradox of coca plant as a good and evil has social, political, economic and geographical aspects to it; which makes me want to learn more, who is correct? Is the ban on coca leaves justified? I am not questioning whether cocaine should exists in society, but is the ban on coca leaf serving an answer or does it just increase the economic hardships of already poor countries.
I turn to three scholarly journals which serve as secondary sources for my research on this topic.
The first secondary source talks about the drug enforcement in Latin America and the American war on drugs, while the second source is related to what the war on drugs means for the common people of the Andean region and how it negatively affects them. The third source is a scientific journal that discusses legitimate traditional and illegal uses of the coca plant.
The first secondary source an article appearing in the journal NACLA Report on the Americas; titled - "The only war we've got": drug enforcement in Latin America, by Coletta Youngers. I would like to quote the first line on the article to explain the complexity of the situation. Youngers starts with saying “To date, U.S. taxpayers have provided nearly $290 billion for the war on drugs, yet cocaine and heroin are more readily available, and at cheaper prices, than ever before.” Yes, even I was shocked at the figure of $290 million. In my opinion, instead of going to war on the Coca producing countries, if this money was spent on economic development of those countries, there would be less incentives for them to rely on coca as a crop.
There are many reasons the author states for this – First and foremost, coca required for the cocaine production is very small and just about 14% of worlds total coca production can satisfy U.S. Cocaine demands. Analysis has shown that just 20 square miles of coca crop is required to produce enough cocaine for the United States market. Also eradication policy has no effect on the farmers – they have no other options. In Colombia, aerial spraying has been tried to curb coca production but - As bluntly stated by the local Bishop, Belarmino Correa, "The people fear that if they stop growing coca, they will die of hunger." For those whose crops have been affected by eradication policies in Colombia they have two alternatives - to go deeper into the jungle to grow more coca or to join the ranks insurgency groups such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). Youngers compares coca production to a balloon. This balloon theory is simple enough: squeezing it in one area merely causes it to flourish somewhere else.
I my opinion, economic development of Coca producing countries is the first step to eradication of cocaine, rather than going to war on drugs. As cocaine produces will find a way to get drugs always.
The author explains the profit paradox on the war on drugs: The war on drugs focuses on cutting the coca production from the supply side, .i.e. South America. But majority of cocaine sale money goes to the traffickers and not the growers. Former Rand economist Peter Reuter calculates that doubling the cocaine export price would raise the street price by no more than 5% - hardly enough to have an impact on cocaine use. Therefore concentrating on cutting the supply is just an easy means of acting tough on drugs.
This seems obvious, even a person like me who has little knowledge of economics understands that, I believe that more of the spending on cocaine eradication should be on the demand side, rather than just going to war with the plantation societies.
The author cites surveys that show increasing trends in drug use act as a motive for the opposing parties to critcise the government of US. During Clinton’s administration, Republicans pointed to the lack of presidential leadership as the key factor explaining the drug-use survey results. Thus making them spend more on the war on drugs to “show” their efforts on paper. Increased military spending in Latin America attributed to war on drugs doesn’t necessarily stop drugs. In the authors words “ In the name of the drug war, a coherent human rights policy is thus disappearing from the Administration's approach to Latin America.”
I agree to this belief and the author’s stance on the US governments policies. I further add - Is going to war any better that cocaine use?
The second source, focusing primary on the drug wars in Bolivia also appears in the journal NACLA Report on the Americas is titled - THE PRICE OF SUCCESS: Bolivia's War against Drugs and the Poor, by Ben Kohl and Linda farthing.
This source points out that the war on drugs by USA described by the first source has been most successful in Bolivia, with the destruction of three fourths of its crop. Also leaving the economy devastated, thus making the economy of Bolivia dependant on US. This source points out that $500 million is the annual loss to Bolivian economy due to coca eradication, this is intriguing as compared to the $290 Billion spent on eradication programs and war on drugs.
The peak of coca production was 1970’s, the author says “For every acre eradicated under voluntary programs that offered some limited financial incentives, another acre was planted.” This is in accordance with the balloon theory of Youngers.
The US administration is pleased with the results of war of drugs in Bolivia - "Bolivia has done in the past two to three years what no other country has done in the drug war in Latin America," said Manuel Rocha, U.S. Ambassador to Bolivia since July 2000. "In Latin America, this is the success story." But this success comes at a cost of the level actors in the economic pyramid – the workers. Imagine a country whose economy single most important crop is reduced to one fourth of its growth.
In the early 1990s, alternative agricultural development projects encouraged farmers to shift to other crops, such as pineapples, pepper or turmeric. Yet there was no market for these crops, more than 35,000 families are displaced by eradication programs according to this source.
The authors quote - "Cocaine is not a Bolivian problem," says grower Adrian Martina. "I've never even seen it. Cocaine is an American problem. Our problem here comes from those who treat us like criminals because we grow coca, which we have done for thousands of years."
The authors say that the indigenous people are angry at the US for labeling this crop as a poison, whereas it has been around for more than two thousand years. They also describe how the coca leaf is socially important in religious practices, traditional use such as dulling hunger and fatigue, aiding digestion and providing minerals. Andean people have chewed coca and sipped its tea for thousands of years. There are also medicinal uses. These and other traditional uses are confirmed by the next secondary source which is a scientific journal article. Coca is celebrated and has references in ancient Andean poetry, which came in much before cocaine:
This source also talks about how peasants earn just 1.5 % of the sale of coca, justifying the profit theory of the first source. Also meeting the balloon theory of the first source – this source talks about the fact that if Colombian eradication policies were to be effective- cultivation would again increase in Bolivia.
The authors include lines from "Legend of Coca," an oral Andean poem, that show how much coca is revered in the local community.
"Guard its leaves with love. And when you feel pain in your heart, hunger in your flesh and darkness in your mind, lift it to your mouth. You will find love for your pain, nourishment for your body and light for your mind."
For majority of the workers, coca has been a livelihood, a means to fend off starvation caused by economic collapse.
In my Latin American Studies class, I learnt about how Evo Morales, himself a farmer was the head of coca growers union and led resistance to eradication programs. He is now fighting to increase the cap on legal coca production and new developing products which include coca.
My Third Secondary source shows the importance and uses of coca. The article is titled “"Cocaine and the coca plant: traditional and illegal uses." And is by Douglas H. Boucher. It presents illegal uses and traditional – legal uses. How it reduces hunger pangs and keeps one active for hours. Much like modern day coffee drinkers use it to keep active – only coca has been around since 1500 B.C.
Coca teas has been popular since ages, and modern day cola also has coca extract.
Illegal uses of course are known to all; cocaine is a very harmful drug and can potentially cause death. It is also one of the most addictive common drugs, next to heroin
Even this source talks about the balloon theory and failure of eradication policy. “In Bolivia, when 2500 hectares were eliminated by a major government effort in 1988, another 6800 hectares of new production began.
This source does however conclude that the evils of cocaine far outweigh the goods of coca leaf. Coca is no longer used just by peasants and cocaine industry is thriving. I agree to that, but banning coca production has no effect on cocaine production and the market. There must be other means to stop this trafficking – like perhaps greater punishments, and social awareness among teens.
It has a long history of traditional and medicinal uses, but the duality of use makes coca a complicated matter, can coca exist without cocaine? I believe not, but certainly going to war and forced eradication is not helping. In my the US should promote other crops and economic development rather than going to war. This research makes me conclude that the ban on coca leaf production is not justified.
Source Citation
Youngers, Coletta. "'The only war we've got': drug enforcement in Latin America." NACLA Report on the Americas 31.2 (1997): 13+. Academic OneFile. Web. 5 Nov. 2010
KOHL, BEN, and LINDA FARTHING. "THE PRICE OF SUCCESS: Bolivia's War against Drugs and the Poor." NACLA Report on the Americas 35.1 (2001): 35. Academic OneFile. Web. 5 Nov. 2010.
Boucher, Douglas H. "Cocaine and the coca plant: traditional and illegal uses." BioScience 41.2 (1991): 72+. Academic OneFile.
No comments:
Post a Comment