Drugs and Money Part One

The U.S. war on drugs, a very ambiguous title at that, is something that is sold to the American public as a necessary tool in safeguarding American interests. The idea of the "war" was to both put a stop to the influx of harmful substances into the United States from the outside, as well as to curb the growing desire for these substances on the inside. What has happened is that the war has cost the United States dearly in terms of sheer capital lost as well as the loss of credibility within regions where drugs have been imported. What the United States needs to do is to re-think its policy on drug regulation, should the emphasis be placed on restriction or should it be placed on regulation? What has been proven up until this point is that the war on drugs is a failed one, and the powers in government refuse to recognize this fact and still persist in their misguided notion that the war is a good thing.

However, the war against illegal addictive substances is anything but new for this country. The Alcohol prohibition of the 1920's should be a good example for the government to follow in terms of how effective the government was able to curb consumption. Prohibition failed, pure and simple, while it did decrease alcoholic consumption in the United States at first, by the end it was back up to its pre-prohibition levels. And remember, there is little right that the government has on banning substance, they had to amend the Constitution to be able to legally prevent the sale of alcohol, and then had to amend the Constitution again to get it repealed. This is not an entirely cut and dry issue, there are innumerable facets that make it at best a very muddy one.

This war that we are fighting is a drain on all of us, estimates as of 2005 put the yearly cost of the war on drugs at 45.5 billion dollars all told. This war is a drain on everyone, especially considering very little gain has been made in curbing any sort of trade or consumption. People still want to get high, I don't think I'm at all qualified to explain why, but for many people there still is that habitual need to obtain these substances. The following graph I pulled off of Wikipedia shows that even though there has been concerted effort to eradicate cocaine production, it really hasn't changed the price at all. Many feel that the best way to curb consumption may be to steadily increase the price to make it harder to obtain.


This graph is showing the price of cocaine over the years, and how, even after all the major attempts to limit, eliminate, and restrict drugs, the prices still continue to fall. Again, the main target for a lot of these programs is to try and drive up the price to prevent consumption through extreme pricing. The major problem with this sort of policy is that it just will continue to exacerbate the situation for a lot of people. People will turn to drugs because there is no way out of the poverty, and hence will drive themselves deeper into poverty, increasing their need for drugs. By increasing pricing, we raise the burden on people who really cannot afford to take this hit in the first place.

Also, another key point to bring up with any argument about drug enforcement is that by making them so verboten you encourage danger. During the Prohibition many bootleggers brewed their own contraband liquor, called moonshine, but in truth because of the unregulated standards by which it was brewed it was much lower in quality and safety. Bootleggers didn't have to follow quality control procedures or anything of that sort because what they were brewing was illegal, so safety was sacrificed for getting the product to the black market. The same thing happens in the current drug climate, just look at the rise of crystal meth over the last couple years. Without regulation of any kind the homemade drug industry has taken some very dark forays into dangerous substances, and it will continues, as long as there are customers still looking for a high.

The current government policies, though admirably, have seemingly failed. They can show very little real gains in both stopping the growth and distribution of drugs, as well as stopping the appetite for them. What is needed is a heavier emphasis on regulation rather than restriction, to help control the dangerous elements that this epidemic has incurred. These substances are dangerous, there is no doubt about it, and by no means am I advocating for everyone to obtain them willy nilly, there needs to be a lot of thought put into what is acceptable and what is not. The important thing to consider is that restriction has not worked, and we need to start rethinking our priorities otherwise we will be stuck in this pit for decades to come. I don't know if any of us can just sit down and solve it, but we need to recognize when things have failed and when it is time to adapt. This is an incredibly complex and volatile issue, so please, don't take it lightly.


To be continued....

Help

Just want to point out that Ms. H. has been introduced to the blog to help me with my writing and presentation, but hopefully we can persuade her to contribute some.

The United States and Foreign Policy Today

Well, for my first real blog post I want to start by delving into something that has started to bother me more and more as time goes on. U.S. Foreign Policy is too idealistic and dangerous in its current form that we need to have a change immediately. The ideals of the New American Century group have gotten us into a quagmire in which there is no easy escape. No matter if you are Republican or Democrat, we have to admit that America's dominance is coming to an end, and if it isn't than we are charging headlong off that cliff soon enough. We need a more pragmatic approach to help further our interests abroad, if even that at all is important anymore. The current primary races between the political parties in our nation have underlined a key fact, the economic crises weighs heaviest on the voters minds, not an idealistic crusade to further our economic interests.

When you look at the ideology of the Project for the New American Century, what many consider the foundation of modern neo-conservative thinking, the idea that shines through is that the authors had no sort of inclusive world view in mind. In fact, one of the prime tenants of their philosophy is the idea that acting unilaterally is acceptable, especially if it gets the job done. When the Bush Administration finalized their plans for the war with Iraq, remembering of course that both Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld signed off on the PNAC, this doctrine of pure brashness showed us the folly of our new foreign policy.

What the Iraq War has taught us, or should have taught us, is that we cannot even begin to think that we can extend ourselves across the globe. We all know the war was a massive mistake, the Bush administration had no right whatsoever to invade Iraq. The occupation has proved equally fruitless, with estimates of the war reaching to 3 trillion dollars at the extreme end, this war has proved a massive shock to the American system. We can no longer see ourselves as the cavalier gun-totting cowboy, not if we want to maintain any semblance of respect from the international community. Whatever pre-conceptions we may or may not have about the superiority of American values needs to be thrown out the window immediately.

We kid ourselves into thinking that what we are doing for the rest of the world is doing them a service, in fact, in many cases it can be seen as a gross disservice. While the IMF and the World Bank push free market economy on the developing world (as a way of paying back the massive debt they've saddled these countries with no less) even though, the United States and the rest of the Western Powers do not practice anything close to a free market system. Developing nations need to be able to decide their own fate, without interference from the outside. As bystanders to their cultures, we have no right to claim that a system we don't even use is going to magically fix their economy. Much grittier work needs to be done from the bottom up if anything is going to be salvaged in these countries.

The argument against this, however, is what is to stop the countries being dominated by small groups of people, or on the flip side, they descend into violence. Well, that is what has happened when we have implemented these IMF and World Bank policies. Look at nations like Kenya today, where the idea of free elections has turned into a farce, with the free market being dominated by the ethnic group in power. The seething resentment of the other ethnic groups was bound to boil over at some point, indeed the New York Times reported that the marauding death squads in Kenya were beginning to be organized even before the election results were released. The multitude of ethnic conflict that exists in the world precludes being able to claim that the free market method is in fact the best method.

What is important to note in all of this is that the idealism has been hijacked by ambitious people looking for ways to make a quick buck. These ideas of free markets are only in place to make to make exploitation easier. The IMF certainly doesn't provide developing nations an easy way to escape the debt they are saddled with, because otherwise the IMF would run out of money, pure and simple. The idea that we can push our own ideals on the world is going to be ruinous if it is allowed to continue, our credibility in the world is at an all time low and if we keep pushing this system we will only make it worse. As a nation we need to make sure that the government knows that we won't tolerate this sort of war-mongering any longer, especially now that problems within our own country need to be addressed....

Welcome

Welcome all,

This is my new blog, its a much more refined piece of work than my livejournal, which I consider the notepad for my thoughts. This is more about my ideas about the world, things I have a problem with, things I want to change, etc. I'm not going to claim to be an expert on anything, in fact I would consider myself pretty mediocre at a lot of things. I'm a History major with a minor in International Studies at the University of Washington and that is my background for how I view the world. I would most readily describe my politics as moderately conservative, but I find merit in almost every political view. My biggest problems stem from the sale of ideas to the American public as well as their eventual implementation. There needs to be a certain amount of transparency about which government goes about their business, instead of some guise of misguided ideology. So please, anything I write on here is subject to your criticism and views, I want you to challenge me, tell me I'm wrong. At the end of the day I hope you enjoy what it is I have to say, or at the very least, have challenged you to view the world a little more critically.

Mr. P.