cannabisnews.com: About Cocaine and Bananas   





About Cocaine and Bananas   
Posted by FoM on September 09, 2001 at 18:21:29 PT
By  George F. Will
Source: Newsweek International
Asa Hutchinson cannot be accused of skating across the pond of life in search of easy jobs. While a congressman from Arkansas, he was a manager of the House impeachment case against a popular president from Arkansas. Now Hutchinson is head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, and when he leaves that position many people will say, “Well, that didn’t work.”  
  No matter what this wise and experienced man does—no matter how imaginative his mixture of measures to dampen demand for drugs and disrupt the supply of them—a decade from now there will be complaints that drug policy has not “worked” because the “war” on drugs has not been “won.” (The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 promised “a drug-free America by 1995.”) Then, as now, many will say that legalization would do less harm than current policies do.    We do need some new policies—but we also need a more sensible notion of what constitutes “working.” Here success comes only in shades of gray, but is not for that reason derisory.      The problem is an estimated $60 billion American market for commodities cheaply made from agricultural extracts (from poppies and coca leaves) or chemical compounds (Dutch chemists make much of the world’s supply of ecstasy; methamphetamines are cooked in simple labs, often in rural America). A kilo of opium that will become heroin earns a Pakistani grower $90; it retails on American streets at 40 percent purity for $290,000.    The number of source countries is not fixed; suppressing production in one (e.g., Bolivia) can displace production to, and destabilize, another (e.g., Colombia). Some source countries (Afghanistan, Iran) are hostile to the United States. Some governments of source countries (Thailand, Burma, Colombia) are too weak to suppress production even if they want to.    Interdiction sometimes seems like bailing an ocean with a thimble—no, a sieve. In May the capture off California’s coast of 13 metric tons of cocaine, the largest seizure ever, closely followed one of eight tons. The 21 tons could have supplied 21 million street sales. But there was no noticeable effect on the street price of the commodity. James Kitfield of National Journal reports that maritime seizures as a percentage of drugs in the supply pipeline are declining.    In 1997 about a million trucks and railroad cars entering the country from Mexico were searched. Drugs were found in six. A few hundred dealers handle most of the 500 tons of cocaine entering the country, but arrest all of them today, and tomorrow there will be a few hundred others.  Legalization of drugs would decrease the “transaction costs” of drug use—there would be lower prices, improved confidence in quality, easier access. This would increase the number of users, probably in the regressive pattern of tobacco use.      But legalizers who say, correctly, that the social costs of drugs are less than those of alcohol and tobacco must explain why we should treat other dangerous substances the way we treat alcohol and tobacco. Smoking is a “regressive” problem, increasingly concentrated down the social scale, among persons impervious to public-health information. Legalization of drugs would decrease the “transaction costs” of drug use—there would be lower prices, improved confidence in quality, easier access. This would increase the number of users, probably in the regressive pattern of tobacco use.    The Economist magazine, which favors legalization, notes that every country that can produce bananas does so, but not every country that could produce heroin or cocaine does. However, legalization, which would entail legitimation in the world’s biggest market, the United States, would surely increase the number of source countries.    Hutchinson speaks of the DEA as an enforcement agency “with a demand-reduction segment,” and of new options within “the confines of the criminalized-conduct approach” and “the incarceration model for users.” But he is not just being sensitive about the “discouragement” of his 9,000 employees when he insists that interdiction of supply and other enforcement measures are not futile. He says drug use surged between 1992 and 1997, after some interdiction assets were diverted to the Gulf War, and after President Clinton concentrated on the drug office in fulfilling his pledge to shrink the White House staff.      Hutchinson admires California’s “drug courts,” which administer heavily monitored treatment regimes, and he says: “Why did Robert Downey Jr. go to treatment? Because he was arrested.” And just as demand elicits supply, supply stimulates demand: “Access to drugs has something to do with a teenager making the decision” to use drugs. And drug use is like smoking: Almost no one starts after age 21. And the social cues communicated by law matter: Many people avoid drugs because they avoid lawbreaking. And Hutchinson asks: If child abuse is not declining, should we stop trying to prevent or prosecute it?    As more becomes known about the biological mechanisms of addiction, neuroscience may contribute pharmacologies that block addicts’ cravings. But even if there is such a thing as a genetic vulnerability to addiction, it is irrelevant until someone chooses to use drugs. So although drug use does produce cellular changes in the brain, beware of the modern proclivity for medicalizing moral failings. The notion that addiction is a “disease” suggests, falsely, that it is a constantly controlling condition. People can choose to recoil from the consequences of self-destructive choices.      Legalizers who say the 13 years of alcohol Prohibition “didn’t work” must concede that consumption declined up to 50 percent and did not reach pre-Prohibition per capita levels until the 1970s. The number of heroin addicts has plateaued at 900,000, and the number of chronic cocaine users (3.3 million) is below the 1988 peak (3.8 million). And legalizers should ponder this warning from UCLA’s Mark Kleiman: “Imagine Philip Morris and the Miller brewery with marijuana to play with.”    Actually, the legalizers’ logic would not restrict merchandisers to marijuana. So any assessment of whether the current cocktail of drug policies is “working” should start from this axiom: Things can always be made worse.  Note: We need more sensible standards for deciding if drug policies are, or are not, ‘working.’ Source: Newsweek InternationalAuthor: George F. WillPublished: September 17, 2001Copyright: 2001 Newsweek, Inc.Contact: Editors newsweek.comWebsite: http://www.newsweek.com/Related Articles from The Economist UK:History Has a Habit of Repeating Itselfhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10423.shtmlHow Governments Try and Fail To Stem Drugshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10422.shtmlThe Case For Legalisation Time for Puff of Sanityhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10421.shtml Cannabis News Articles - Asa Hutchinsonhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/DEA.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #20 posted by dddd on September 10, 2001 at 14:29:51 PT
Poisoned
..yea,,,George aint that bad,,he has hisgood points,,,,,,,I bet he's never tried weed...,..A little known fact about George,,is that hisfather was a Quaker,,who also spawned Georgesillegitate stepbrother....Georges half brother wenton and became famous....You've heard of Alfred E Newman havnt you?dddd 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by Poisoned1515Days on September 10, 2001 at 14:13:21 PT
R:I guess I understand a fondness for George Will?
Hi dddd,  I have to agree. Although youare right about that baseball thing too.I think thats when he needs to fill spacehe has been contractually obligated to filland the profundities elude him. Being a columnist has got to be tough. It must bereally hard to come up with something thatat least approaches compelling on a regular basis.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by dddd on September 10, 2001 at 14:00:24 PT
I guess I understand a fondness for George Will?
...he is,,always very well groomed....he does have a certain dry eloquence in his writings,,,,,he has this wonderful sort of Proustian,,Robespier manner.....I'll betchya all his socksare folded perfectly,,,and I would imagine he's very punctual.......dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by Poisomed1515Days on September 10, 2001 at 13:55:54 PT
The only misconception
Mr. Will seems to indicate thatif drugs are legal they will bemarketed by profit seeking companies.Not necessarily so.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by Poisoned1515Days on September 10, 2001 at 13:50:06 PT
GEORGE WILL IS COOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mr. Will explicitly stated that weneed new drug policies. He pointed out the futility of attempting tointerdict drugs. He pointed out theharm reducers arguments as well asthe Economist's stance. His onlycaveats were Prohibition may have reducedalcohol use ( not sure thats true )and the fact that we could screw thingsup even worse. ( How true !)  I can't argue with that. It sounds like a fairly balanced column. And GeorgeWill is a GREAT writer. Good Stuff.Its not like he said lets lock up MOREpeople. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by Kevin Hebert on September 10, 2001 at 13:20:11 PT:
My response to Newsweek
Dear Editor:George Will's "About Cocaine and Bananas" misses the point of legalizing drugs.Every day, more Americans are coming to realize that the only way to get a handle on the problems drugs can cause is to regulate them as we do tobacco and alcohol. Otherwise, we ensure that the drug trade is controlled by a criminal black market. Alcohol and tobacco are, from a health standpoint, much more dangerous than currently illegal drugs such as marijuana. It is a fallacy to pretend that our drug laws are about protecting public health. If they were, wewould not make the two most dangerous drugs legal.The use of interdiction, incarceration, and other enforcement tactics to regulate drug use has clearly failed. We need to accept this and begin tobuild a regulatory framework within which responsible adults may purchase drugs for private recreational use in their own homes.            Sincerely,            Kevin M. Hebert 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by schmeff on September 10, 2001 at 09:45:10 PT
Child abuse/drug abuse
Actually, I think this is an interesting combination of metaphors. Mr. Hutchinson should ask himself these questions:Can child abuse be eliminated by eliminating children? I this a common-sense approach?Can spousal abuse be eliminated by banning marriage? Is the cure worse than the disease?Can drug abuse be eliminated by eliminating drugs? Can everything that can be defined as a drug be eliminated?Answers below.......NO 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by Sudaca on September 10, 2001 at 09:33:40 PT
a response to part of this
"But legalizers who say, correctly, that the social costs of drugs are less than those of alcohol and tobacco must explain why we should treat other dangerous substances the way we treat alcohol and tobacco. Smoking is a “regressive” problem, increasingly concentrated down the social scale, among persons impervious to public-health information. Legalization of drugs would decrease the “transaction costs” of drug use—there would be lower prices, improved confidence in quality, easier access. This would increase the number of users, probably in the regressive pattern of tobacco use"Ok, lets address this; first there's no parallel between the "glamour" of tobacco in this current society (during most of the 20th Century) and heroin or crack. Arguably of all drugs only cannabis is probably interesting to non users on an image only basis.There's more , easier to access, and better information about intoxicants and their consequences than there was ever about tobacco. There's people willing to educate youngsters on safe use regardless of economic class. Third, illegal drugs are readily available right now. Any increase of use would probably just be in appearance; for you don't know I smoke pot right now cause I ain't telling you and you don't know how much is sold cause most of it is not intercepted. Any "increase of use" will probably just be an eye opening in terms of current use.Finally , the point isn't as you may think mr. will to stop people from smoking pot; it is to stop the harm , the violence both on the contraband and enforcement side that is destroying this society , the corruption , the breach of trust between people and their government, between nations, that this "moralistic" social experiment has caused. Kidz (those of you in your teens who are reading this on the sly) you can be a pothead and be succesful in life. You can enjoy a doobie and be smart, have a family , hold a job. You don't have to be marginal to enjoy the great joy of ganja, the image is BS.Beware politicans who make "morals" their flag.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by dddd on September 10, 2001 at 08:46:47 PT
I use George Will...
...when I want to get annoyed....I admit,,he really makesme wanna barf....I usually watch Sam and Cokie on Sundaymornings,,and I kinda have this sick hobby of seeing just howsickening George Will is...he always has this pompous demeanor,,.he always tows the radical conservative republican line..I can usually predict what his opinion will be.He's quite consistant..and I really wanna blow groceries when he starts talking aboutbaseball....I'm pretty sure that if I was a bully,and George Willwas in my 6th grade class,,,I'd pick on the arrogant,prissy wimp!dddd.....the friendly,yet bitter old Hippie
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by J.R. Bob Dobbs on September 10, 2001 at 08:01:56 PT
We can win - we are winning
>>a decade from now there will be complaints that drug policy has not “worked” because the “war” on drugs has not been “won.”  Let's hope the anti-drug-war movement will have "won" by that time. I think our side has a clearly definable - and much easier to achieve - goal than the drug warriors do.>>Legalization of drugs would decrease the “transaction costs” of drug use—there would be lower prices, improved confidence in quality, easier access.  Lower prices? Maybe at the pre-tax level, but we're so used to paying $30 a quarter-ounce or more, that once the price drops to pennies per ounce, the government would be more than happy to step in and tax it back up near the level it was under prohibition, and we'd be happy to pay it. "Improved confidence in quality" is a good thing - not knowing heroin's purity can easily kill you if you unsuspectingly get something too pure. Look at Lenny Bruce. And easier access? Ask anybody under 21 what intoxicants are easier to access, and you won't hear anything about alcohol... Legalization would entail regulation, and we'd finally be able to force people who sell these substances to ASK for ID!>>Actually, the legalizers’ logic would not restrict merchandisers to marijuana. So any assessment of whether the current cocktail of drug policies is “working” should start from this axiom: Things can always be made worse.  And with the current leadership, they invariably are.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by kaptinemo on September 10, 2001 at 07:19:51 PT:
A pundit's Achille's Heel
I must first say I never cared too much for Mr. Will's commentaries; it is painfully obvious he knows which side of the corporate bread his butter is on, and he can always be counted upon to slavishly toe the (Republican) party line. But out of a sense of fairness, I read his works, anyway.So I have no regrets for what I am about to do. (Plugging turkey knife into wall socket and flipping switch. Hummmmmmmmm! RRRRRRRRRRR!)First off, Mr. Will neatly sidesteps the fact that it was his good buddy, Republican Newt Gingrich, who made the promise of a "Drug-Free America by 1995!" Like so many other things the Reptiles of the 104th Congress did, the outcome was anything but triumphant. In fact, it was the actions of Newt and his buddies which laid the foundation for the murder of the Bowers's over the Amazon with their support. Amazing how silent he is on this, no?Secondly, he also (not so neatly, this time) sidesteps another interesting fact: the majority of arrests for drugs in this country involve cannabis. Why, you ask? Simply because cannabis is bulky, it has an obvious smell which is intensified with use, and is therefore hard to conceal. But of all the illicit drugs, cannabis has the least socially destructive cache. If anything, any increas in use as he bemoans might actually help the reduce the sad and destructive influence that alcohol presently enjoys upon society, namely murder, violence, spousal abuse, child abuse, etc. (When was the last time you heard, "Gee, Yer Honor, it was the demon weed! I got stoned and beat my wife!"?)With this latest bit of dreck, Mr. Will shows how wedded he is to a sinking ship; he knows it's going down, but just can't bring himself to admit what he hints at knowing. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by SirReal on September 10, 2001 at 05:50:00 PT
George Will
George Will wears a bow tie...never believe a man who wears a bow tie.....way way way WAY outta touch!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by freedom fighter on September 10, 2001 at 00:25:36 PT
I do'nt give a rat ass if
"Many people avoid drugs because they avoid lawbreaking. And Hutchinson asks: If child abuse is not declining, should we stop trying to prevent or prosecute it?"I really do'nt give a rat ass ifIf you took rat posion or ate ten raw potatoes or whatever as long you do not step on my toes! It is all about victims?Child abuse equal victims?? yeah sure! Eat or ingest just about anything you want as long you do not step my toes just fine with me. And who is the victim??Do you know why? BECAUSE YOU ARE A FREE MAN/WOMAN TO DO SO!To prevent or prosecute cause far more damage than EDUCATION! TO PREVENT OR PROSECUTE CAUSE FAR MORE VICTIMS THAN CHILD ABUSES! I once met a man who had 13 DUIs before the state finally send him to a prison for measly 5 years. There simply no comparsion between a pothead and a drunk or a child abuser.Mr. Hutchinson needs to understand that by his statement he have caused more CHILD ABUSES IN THIS COUNTRY! Imagine a drunken human because of his idea of treatment cause damage to just one child. He really do not know what he is saying!Remember something Folks!, this Hutchinson promised to chase every medicial cannabis users in this country using the federal laws! In my book, he is a marked man. I will testify in court of Heaven. I only hope Satan will reserve a special place for him. Bastard! How dare he would compare a pothead to a child abuser?ff
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by dddd on September 09, 2001 at 23:01:03 PT
propaganda
...for those who are interested,,here is an extensive,and superb example...ddddhttp://www.ftc.gov/bc/compguide/index.htm
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by rabblerouser on September 09, 2001 at 22:38:41 PT
success
The only way the failure or success of the current policies can be measured is to try legalization. It might succeed and that would scare the bejesus out of people who would only hope for failure. I never argue with success.The modern day prohibitionist apparently never argues with failure."Why have success, when all we want is failure?"Failure has a huge price tag. One we can't afford to lose with success!"War is good business, and business is good!"
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Buddha on September 09, 2001 at 22:05:07 PT
::eyes roll::
Figures can lie, and liars can figure.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by dddd on September 09, 2001 at 22:00:21 PT
Shaker
nope Robbie...I didnt feel it....the epicenter was about 80 miles ofsolid urban sprawl away from my abode...........and I hate to say it again...,because it is an inexplicable,,HooDoo vibration feeling,,,,perhaps rubbish,,,but I think there's gonna be a biggiedown here soon,,,,4d
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by bruce42 on September 09, 2001 at 21:33:38 PT
what a load
another all too common arguement from pro drug war propaganda- success is measured by # of users. Sure, I will concede that the number of people drinking alcohol probably declined slightly during prohibition, but at what cost? murders, organized crime, etc... And as for the big tobacco and alcohol companies? Fine by me. Let them play with MJ. Personally, I don't trust them and would grow my own or buy from a local grower. I think most of us here would agree with that. "...beware of the modern proclivity for medicalizing moral failings"moral failings? mine haven't failed. what I choose to do with my body is my decision and i will do so according to my own set of private morals. as soon as people try to force their morals on me, I tend to be a little irritated. what you wanna do with your head is fine, but leave my head to me. public morals should not involve the private life. as long as i'm hurting no one but myself, why should you care?gawd I need a smoke.from dictionary.com:mor·al (môrl, mr-)adj. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty. n. The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event. A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim. morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Robbie on September 09, 2001 at 21:00:49 PT
Strange?
And shakin' I'll bet. Did you feel that one 4d?
Los Angeles quake map
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by dddd on September 09, 2001 at 20:23:37 PT
preconcieved myths..strange Sunday nite ramblin's
...One of the main overall problems in most all the articles and discussionsconcerning "drugs",,is the strange absence of defining the term.....Mostall talk of "drugs",is precluded by the impied assumption,that "drugs",areall substances that have been deemed,"illegal drugs"........This may seemlike an obvious,or simplistic observation,but I think it's significance is notvery well realized,or appreciated.....When a discussion begins,or an articleis written,,and a term like "drugs" is used in explaining,and justifying thesoapbox mandates of the government,,,,,,,it does this subliminal assumptionthing,and makes false confirmation of the assumed,supposed "facts",that have no definition.....it's subliminal propaganda at its best,,and in most cases,the term,"drugs",with its assumed preconcieved meaning(s),,has the,perhapsunintentional effect of reinforcing the nebulous,and undefined false concept....in other words,,If I ask the question; "Drugs,,,good or bad?" ,,,,,,most people wont even question what "drugs"I'm talking about,,instead,,people will automaticly skip the details of whatI mean by "drugs",,and they will assume the discussion is about "illegal drugs",,after all,,"legal drugs",,are not""Drugs",,,legal drugs are only used forlegitimate good,and healing of sickness and relieving pain,,but "Drugs",or ,Illegal Drugs,have been villified into one,all-encompassing generic term......Marijuana,,whether medical,or personal carries the dark besmirchment ofbeing a "Drug"...This ploy of skipping the details has worked quite well forthe drugpigs,,and thousands of other regimes,dictatorships,and cults,,thatstumble across this basic propaganda technique....(Observer is quite hep tothis in past posts)...........This paragraph is what started my exceedingly verbose blab about the use of the term;"drug(s)"......"Hutchinson admires California’s “drug courts,” which administer heavily monitored treatment regimes, and he says: “Why did Robert Downey Jr. go to treatment? Because he was arrested.” And just as demand elicits supply, supply stimulates demand: “Access to drugs has something to do with a teenager making the decision” to use drugs. And drug use is like smoking: Almost no one starts after age 21. And the social cues communicated by law matter: Many people avoid drugs because they avoid lawbreaking. And Hutchinson asks: If child abuse is not declining, should we stop trying to prevent or prosecute it?"Cheers.....................dd.............dd
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment