Alvaro Vargas Llosa says yes:
In a country that has made admirable progress on other fronts, the drug
war is preventing the government from finishing off the narco-terrorist
organizations. Between 2002 and 2005, Uribe’s “democratic security”
policy successfully pushed those organizations, especially the Marxist
empire known as FARC, away from many cities. There was a one-third drop
in the number of murders and a two-thirds drop in the number of
terrorist attacks. The economy picked up handsomely. But then a
stalemate ensued in the campaign against the terrorists that cannot be
attributed only to the country’s jungles. The mafias that owe their
existence to the criminalization of cocaine continue to generate enough
funds to match every attempt by the government to beef up its military
capability.
Legalizing or decriminalizing cocaine would do much to improve America’s inner cities and it ought to be seriously considered, even if it means more doped-up middle-class white teenagers. But legalization — whether in Colombia or the United States — is not obviously the way out for Colombia.
The positive scenario is that legalization eliminates the profits from the drug trade and the Colombian nasties pack up shop and go away. In a legal market, Merck would outcompete the drug barons. Maybe they would grow more coffee.
I see two negative scenarios. First, cocaine production has been a boon to the Colombian economy. It is no accident that Colombia experienced no currency crisis, unlike most other Latin countries. (For contrast, here are some arguments that cocaine has hurt the Colombian economy; I don’t believe it.) The rural Colombian economy might well collapse, taking civil order with it.
Second, the Colombian civil war is 40 years old and it predates the importance of cocaine. Narco-traffickers set up processing labs in Colombia because the government did not control the country in the first place. Legalizing cocaine would devastate their incomes, and probably bring political assassinations and military conflicts into the capitol. It is not clear Colombia can handle it. Keep in mind these same groups once, when threatened with more extraditions, stormed the Supreme Court and almost got away with it. Cocaine profits, however evil they may be, give the guerrilla groups some stake in the status quo.
That said, cocaine legalization probably would have helped Colombia in the late 1970s, before the paramilitaries became so rich. That doesn’t mean the same idea will work today.
The bottom line: There is no simple way out of the Colombian mess. Slow evolution away from cocaine production, combined with increasing economic diversification, is probably the best hope. Chemical substitutes, such as Ecstasy, mean that the cocaine market
will slowly dry up anyway. This slower change, which can’t be pinned
on any government, is a better way out of the current mess than a
drastic and more sudden legalization. In the meantime, Uribe’s policy of getting tough has paid some dividends, and there is no reason to think these gains cannot be extended.
Addendum: Anne Applebaum argues for opium legalization in the context of Afghanistan. But note that opium production may account for as much as 2/3 of Afghani gdp. It is unclear that Afghanistan would keep these markets in a purely legal setting, so how would the country survive the shock to its real income? Or should we give them a monopoly and cartelize their industry to boost profits but limit consumption?
Wouldn’t Merck et al. out-compete the cartels by buying coca directly from the farmers or through legitimate wholesalers if cocaine were legalized in the US and Colombia? I.e., is there a better way to make cocaine besides growing coca in the mountains that Merk could use to make its legal product? And, isn’t the power of the paramilitaries that they are the only ones the coca farmers can sell to? If the produce were legal wouldn’t they continue to grow but instead sell to legal middlemen (perhaps protected by the government)?
It seems to me that legalization would eventually turn the paramilitaries into businessmen who would still make a ton of money but would have to compete in a somewhat open market. The government would still need to be involved as long as the paramilitaries were using force to control the growers and their customers, but in a non-black market setting, I’d think that there would be plenty of economic forces at work to eventually make the cost of weapons and violence unprofitable thereby driving those who survive arrest for their past “revolutionary” deeds/crimes onto the straight and narrow as legitimate businessmen.
Interesting argument for continuing the War On Drugs: foreign economies will collapse in the absence of a black market.
I think he meant Meth is a substitute for Coke. (Cue “Blue-Collar Tweekers” by Primus)
While E is an amphetamine, it’s effects (visual hallucinations, highly altered senses) are not fungible substitues for the effects cocaine.
As someone living and working here in Colombia in this field of narco issues (I work on the rural development and alternative development side of things)- and with an economics background, I am kicking myself for not having read your Colombia posts earlier when you were visiting.
Generally I agree with the post and the article, as well as some of the commentary but I would make a couple of points:
- Francisco Thoumi is a well known economist/political economist/researcher on this issues. One piece in particular I would take a look at is “THE COLOMBIAN COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE IN ILLEGAL DRUGS: THE ROLE OF POLICIES AND INSTITUTIONAL CHANGES.” The basic argument is that based on geography, history, weak state presence in rural areas and lack of social capital, Colombia has a competitive advantage in ilicit economies and their related activities
I found a link to it here in the Journal of Drug Issues (Winter 05):
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3733/is_200501/ai_n13602071/print
- Under legalization scenarios much of the environmental disaster of the drug industry would be alleviated. Sure there are some serious concerns about the coca spray program but it goes way beyond that. The chemical inputs (acids, kerosene and others) used to transform coca into cocaine are destroying watersheds in some of the most diverse and delicate econsystems throughout the Andes.
- Your comments on the negative side of legalization are worth more considerations. Take for example the point on economic impact – When you look around in Bogota there is a massive construction boom – not just housing, but malls, office buildings and so on. There seems to be a general concensus amoung many Colombians that much of this boom is fueled by drug money as real estate and construction as they easily facilitate laundering. I have seen quite a bit of research and analysis over the last couple of years that supports this and suggests the contribution to Colombia’s GDP and the impact of constant inflow of hard foreign currencyis significant. In fact just yesterday a stash of 54 million $US was found in Cali.
- The comment posted on the paramilitaries being the only option for coca farmers to sell to is wrong. All illegal groups – narcos, paras and FARC all participate actively in the all aspects of the drug trade. And the idea of turning them into businessmen – they already are.
- Finally I would add that from an economic point of view legalization might also be hard on the on the poor campesinos in that the coca/cocaine supply chain would likely become more industrialized that the bottom — with the profit margins that exist in the inducstry there is no way that large agribusiness companies wouldn’t become involved – in the same direction that US farm sector has gone – driving coca farm gate prices downward as the scale of prodction becomes greater and more efficient.
Thanks
I believe Anne Applebaum’s call for opium legalization in Afghanistan was made in part because there are existing legitimate uses for opium in making narcotic medicines. Thus, legalization would lead to less heroin as the opium crop is devoted to other uses. As far as I know, few such alternative, legitimate outlets exist for coca production, and those that do exist, such as making teas, don’t strike me as likely able to absorb large amounts of raw material.
the war in columbia isn’t about cocaine as your politicians would like you to believe. it is about oil. colombia is an oil rich nation just like venezuela is, but the damn FARC and AUC destroy the pipeline to stop the government from taking the $. they don’t sell cocaine to make money, they kidnap people to make their money. the fact that cocaine is grown under there watch is just a small insignificant fact and the reason the government sends over a billion dollars in military aid to colombia isn’t to stop the cocaine, it is to stop the auc/farc/paras from disrupting the oil supply. Get some facts before you publish a bullshit post like this. Typical stupid americans at work. your idea of cocaine decriminalization might be a good idea for america to stop wasting so much money, but I think decriminalizing marijuana might be a priority as far more law enforcement resources are used on that than on anything else.
I think Dave has spent one too many nights reading 9/11 conspiracy theories.
The post does nothing but pose a question and come down not particularly on either side of the debate on whether legalization of cocaine would help or hurt Columbia and whats its tertiary effects on the U.S would be.
As an aside, columbia isn’t even one of the world’s top 20 oil producing nations, with barely 20% of the production of Venezuela. Logic following, we should be sending 5 BN per year there to secure our oil interests, but somehow we don’t.
While E is an amphetamine, it’s effects (visual hallucinations, highly altered senses) are not fungible substitues for the effects cocaine.
E produces visual hallucionations and highly altered senses? You are confusing E with psychedelics (despite some sources including the former within the latter class). Pure MDMA leads to elevated mood, prononunced empathic affect and some tactile sensitivity. Street E often contains MDA(alone or in addition to MDMA), which happens to produce some visual distortions.
Someday they’ll make a drug with all the pleasures of the high, but no downside.
Keep dreaming (or stop reading HedWeb).
As far as I know, few such alternative, legitimate outlets exist for coca production, and those that do exist, such as making teas, don’t strike me as likely able to absorb large amounts of raw material.
Actually, they can soak up all the raw material. Cocaine, taken like caffeine (orally as diluted liquid) is no more troublesome. Unlike caffeine, it has supposedly a more smoother effect. Thanks to the War on Drugs, most people are not aware of the Global Cocaine Study undertaken in the early 90s by the WHO. That report concluded that coca chewing had positive effects and that most cocaine use in snorting form does not lead to significant harm. But the US did not like those conclusions and stopped the study from being formally published.
Already, in Peru & Bolivia, there are coca-based products available, including soft drinks à la 19th-century Coca Cola, with the cocaine content intact. Simply expand that potential worldwide (gradually).
“Legalizing or decriminalizing cocaine would do much to improve America’s inner cities and it ought to be seriously considered, even if it means more doped-up middle-class white teenagers.”
WTF?!
I suggest you educate yourself and maybe attend a few NA meetings before spouting BS. Legal cocaine means cheaper cocaine, either legally or through a dealer. Now look at the cross-section of the US that smokes. Do you have any clue which socio-economic groups have the highest rates of cigarette usage(and will be the first adopters of legal coke)? Hint: it’s not the middle-class you’ve decided to sacrifice to make your argument.
Smoking is estimated to cost $100 billion / year in health and work-related issues. I wonder what the human cost would be if we followed your idiotic advice and legalized coke.
Let’s summarize some of what you might (or might not) get for a few hours of euphoria:
potential long-term addiction,
hyperactivity,
restlessness,
increased blood pressure,
increased heart rate,
feelings of discomfort,
depression
twitching,
paranoia,
impotence,
hallucinations,
paranoid delusions,
tachycardia,
feelings of depression,
long term damage of dopamine neurons.
fatigue,
unpleasant dreams,
insomnia,
hypersomnia,
psychomotor retardation
lifetime risk of heart attack that is seven times that of non-users.
During the hour after cocaine is used, heart attack risk rises 24-fold
Chronic usage effects include chest pain, lung trauma, shortness of breath, sore throat, hoarse voice, dyspnea, and an aching, flu-like syndrome. It can also cause a wide array of kidney diseases and renal failure.
There have been published studies[citation needed] reporting that cocaine causes changes in the frontal lobe of the brain.
[from wiki]
Keep pumping out that fine analysis, grasshopper. I think you’ve got a winner here.
I would say that the cocaine business actually has hurt Colombia too, and so has the drug war itself. So I’m completely in favor of legalization. Colombia has always had a certain amount of violence and unrest, but it sure didn’t skyrocket like it did in the 80′s and 90′s until the cartels and drug warriors showed up. And that increased drug-related violence has led to huge losses in terms of loss investment opportunities, economic distortion and simple human pain that wouldn’t otherwise have happened on nearly that scale.
That doesn’t mean that the cocaine trade doesn’t also benefit Colombia in several ways, but even at its most, it’s estimated to be amount to no more than 3-4% of GDP, currently.
To pretend that the entire economy would go down the drain through legalization is a bit naive. What’s more, I don’t think that legalization would lead to more violence. The drug lords, at least some of them, would be able to legalize their enterprises and establish their monopoly over it more openly, for one thing. They would be able to openly do what they do in relatively clandestine operations right now. That wouldn’t necessarily be the “cure” to all of Colombia’s problems, not by any means, but I don’t see the nightmarish scenario that this post seems to be hinting at.
Will legalizing cocaine help Columbia?
The legalization of cocaine in Columbia is a bad idea, because it will not only effect Columbia’s economy but it will effect the U.S. economy also. Though columbian druglords aquire enough revenue to build their own paramilitary forces, they still need the cash flow from the U.S. drugtrade to give them the funds to keep all of their assets stable. Ex: paramilitary, guns and ammo,food and shelter,clothing, and paying workers to process their product. Legalizing cocaine in Columbia will cause druglords to lose their workers because of the low wages they will be getting paid because the value of cocaine has diminished. With cocaine being so cheap it will either flood U.S. streets become obsolite which will cut prices and inspire a new breed of functional drug users, along with making abusers worse. Hence U.S. oconomic decline worldwide.
I think this would be very helpful to Colombia’s economy if it’s done in the right way. There must be a licensing system. To keep out the old drug lords they should inspect anyone who wants to start a business and if they ever participated in the illegal drug trade and spent money on violence or assassinations then they’re not only out but thrown in prison. This would discourage drug lords from even trying to get licensed. Instead many would go into hiding.
With cocaine under the control of legal, licensed companies the right and left-wing militants will lose a major source of their funding causing the conflict to die down.
Although I agree if we, the United States doesn’t legalize it crime related to the cocaine trade would skyrocket. Drug use itself would not increase but people looking for a stimulant high would be more likely to choose cocaine because its supply would increase greatly. But if we legalize it, tax it, and regulate it we’ll also be taking it out of the hands of violent thugs and into the hands of peaceful businesses. Miller and Budweiser don’t have street fights. I don’t think there will be that many more users if it’s legalized. Even though marijuana is just as illegal there many more marijuana users because people have common sense and know that cocaine is way more harmful than marijuana.
Those who do abuse it and die. Well, that’s natural selection. Smart people shouldn’t have to pay for stupid people’s decisions by having to pay money to stop stupid people from being stupid, and by enduring an increase in violent crime.
这家翻译公å¸|f深圳翻译good深圳翻译公å¸|优秀åŒå£°ä¼ 译
acer ferrari 3200 battery
Cocaine detox program is effective program for drug and cocaine addicted people. cocaine detox programs is providing best treatment and services to their patients. If you want to more information about this cocaine detox program you can visit this web site.
http://www.edrugrehabs.com/SubstanceAbuse/Cocaine-Addiction-Treatments/Rehabs/index.html
Comments on this entry are closed.