On Mon, April 20, 1998 at 17:36:33 (EDT) Bad Shot Diva (boddhisatva) writes:
>..
> With a guaranteed market, coca production would go up *initially*,
>no question about it, but htere are several things to consider. First,
>coca production is geographically delimited by law already and the plant
>itself has a limited range it can grow in, so while produciton would
>certainly expand, it can't expand that much. ...
Without further information, this is a non-sequitur. Just about
everything on the planet has a limited growing range. The question
is, what percentage of that range will forever be unavailable for
increased growth.
> .... Second, this would be part
>of an anti-drug policy. It's only the initial carrot in a carrot and
>stick strategy. ...
I think a much better carrot would be to return the land to the people
from whom it was stolen in the first place, and help to rebuild a
domestic market based on foodstuff production, not an artificial
market for cocoa which might in fact expand greatly. We don't want to
"bring people down from the mountains", we want to return to them what
is theirs, and if they then want to come down, fine... Besides,
injecting a ton of cash into a society can be tremendously
destabilizing and ultimately destructive.
> Demand is always going to be there and cocaine is always going to
>be addictive. That's irreducible....
Unsupported conclusion. Demand *of some degree* will always be there,
true, but that does not mean it is irreducible. The same can be said
of cigarettes. Massachusetts has had a relatively cheap and very
effective anti-smoking campaign with very positive results.
Anyway, it is not the "logic" of the approach that matters. It is the
politics. What makes you think anybody with any influence on policy
is in any way interested in reducing the supply of drugs here, or the
misery caused to the countries who grow it?
Were that true, we would have made this a health problem here long
ago.
Bill
