I'm a NYC-based, Colombian entrepreneur. My step-brother died piloting a Black Hawk helicopter in Colombia that crashed while executing an anti-narcotics operation. The helicopter was "donated" by the US as part of "Plan Colombia" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Colombia ). Plan Colombia is a periodic subsidy sent by the US to Colombia to help with the war on drugs. The program is lobbied in part by Sikorsky and Monsanto. The subsidy includes some cash, but it also comes in the form of helicopters (built by Sikorsky), glyphosate (banned in the US but used in Colombia to destroy coca plantations), and weapons.
You can say that the "war on drugs" allowed my brother to realize his dream (flying a helicopter), but it also killed him.
I may be emotionally charged with the topic and may not exercise good reason about it, but I've seen enough to realize that the "war on drugs" is just a big mess that won't be won, no matter what.
You bring up an excellent point, which most people in the "developed" countries fail to realize: The human cost in the producing end of the chain. Yes, it's horrible to think of people getting addicted and all, but how about the violence generated by the underground production, distribution and commercialization of an outlaw product? Is it right to try to prevent a few people from addiction while submitting entire populations (millions of people) to the terror of cartels? (either fighting them or living under their rule)?
PS: I am Brazilian-American, so I have experienced both sides of the "war on drugs".
Edit: I realize my post is a little confusing, but just to make it more clear: My point is that the "war on drugs" causes more damage than drugs themselves.
Thank you for the correction! You are right. I was thinking about the act of "aerial-spraying of drug producing crops". For Wikipedia: "In many cases the spraying is carried out by American contractors, such as DynCorp, using planes and helicopters to spray Roundup on coca plantations. Aerial spraying has been repeatedly condemned by human rights and environmental activists because of its affect on human populations and local soil and water systems. In December 2000, Dutch journalist Marjon van Royen found that "because the chemical is sprayed in Colombia from planes on inhabited areas, there have been consistent health complaints [in humans]. Burning eyes, dizziness and respiratory problems being most frequently reported."
Yes it is a widely used herbicide.. let me tell you a little bit about Roundup(TM). It is a wide spectrum herbicide that inhibits synthesis of some essential aminoacids. Basically, it prevents plants from growing, any and all plants that synthesize aminoacids like phenilananine and tryptophan. It does not affect crops because they have been genetically engineered to withstand the effect of glyphosate. I'll leave whole GMO conversation for another day, but the fact that the EPA has not banned it does not make it safe.
I believe the use of glyphosate in the US must abide by very strict standards and regulations. I'm sure its forbidden to fly around town and spray it on anything you feel like it, much worse if there is livestock, potable water, or human populations close by.
This does not happen in the Colombia (Disclaimer, I, just like torrenegra, am a Colombian entrepreneur residing in NYC, currently Lead Engineer in an NYC startup, formerly a Pharmaceutical Chemist graduated from the National University of Colombia, I also did a Bachelor of Science in Biotechnology in Sydney, Australia). The irresponsibility surrounding the crop-dusting practices in Colombia is inimaginable. After almost 12 years of cropdusting, the overall coverage of crops has grown. But instead, human populations have been affected, and the real impact on the dusted areas has not been measured. Logically, I can't imagine how 10 years of constant poison bombing the same areas can't have negative effects.
From the american citizens perspective, huge amount of taxpayers money has been spent and the goals have not been met. If there had been a reduction in the production of cocaine, this would've certainly been reflected in the street prices, it is my understanding that this hasn't been the case. We can oversimplify the problem, with the following analogy:
If you caught your kid doing cocaine, what would be more effective?
- Go looking for his dealer and putting him in jail.
- Getting rid of all the dealers in his neighborhood and school
- Waiting for all the coca plants in the world to be erradicated
- Actually talk to your kid, show him the real effects the drug has on his body and mind. Taking him to places where he can see the real effect that drug addiction has in society and people.
There are obviously thousands of variables that affect each path, but from a market perspective, if the demand for certain product is high, someone will find a way to supply it. After the demise of the large Colombian cartels, Colombian drug dealers have stopped trying to control the whole supply chain, that is why now its the Mexican cartels are now in an inner battle to be able to control the best route into the US. There have been submarines, there's mules, airdrops, fast boats, and a thousand different ways of to try to get cocaine into the US.
The big question here is, how do we reduce the demand for drugs?
Richard Branson's point is certainly interesting, and Portugal's attempt has been the only one I've seen to successfully reduce the demand for drugs.
Drug use is a personal decision, just like alcohol consumption and smoking are. Legal does not mean right, or ok. Tobacco industries are horrible monsters, and the problem of alcoholism is not brand new. It's a matter of education, of parents taking the time to explain to their children why anything in excess is harmful, even sugar. How narcotics are dangerously addictive, just like nicotine, and any wrong choice may take them down a path that will punch them in the face down the road.
While I agree that social action is the best course, I disagree with one premise: that drug users don't know the consequences. They quite often do, they decide they'll take the risk for a variety of reasons, including plain-old self destruction, boredom, depression and others. Each of those has to be tackled in a different way — no silver bullets here.
I'm a NYC-based, Colombian entrepreneur. My step-brother died piloting a Black Hawk helicopter in Colombia that crashed while executing an anti-narcotics operation. The helicopter was "donated" by the US as part of "Plan Colombia" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Colombia ). Plan Colombia is a periodic subsidy sent by the US to Colombia to help with the war on drugs. The program is lobbied in part by Sikorsky and Monsanto. The subsidy includes some cash, but it also comes in the form of helicopters (built by Sikorsky), glyphosate (banned in the US but used in Colombia to destroy coca plantations), and weapons.
You can say that the "war on drugs" allowed my brother to realize his dream (flying a helicopter), but it also killed him.
I may be emotionally charged with the topic and may not exercise good reason about it, but I've seen enough to realize that the "war on drugs" is just a big mess that won't be won, no matter what.