From: ldasilva@engws9.ic.sunysb.edu (Luis Dasilva Ruiz)
Subject: Re: Colombia Newsbriefs 12/9 ed-lp
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:43:18 GMT


In article 11459 of soc.culture.latin-america, ez000281@hamlet.ucdavis.edu
writes:

> [...]
>important role to protect the rights of its citizens.   I believe that 
>government should REGULATE service industries (phone, electric...), 
>transportation (arilines), communications, and, of course, drugs.  The last 
>economic liberal in your sense of the term was Adam Smith.  Since then, the 
>state has been enlarging its role for the public good.  Of course, our state 

You have forgotten people like William Buckey, Jr and Milton Friedman.
They have proposed full legalization of the drug trade hoping to reduce
the profits involved in it. They are hardly communists or defenders of
Fidel Castro. Indeed, they are among the most famous economic liberals
in the US. Their reasoning is that by cutting down in profits, drug trade
would actually DOWNSCALE. Other people point out that by collecting taxes
on the dealers, resources for rehabilitation centers would be obtained.
Several european countries are looking at this alternative since they
have found that nothing else seems to work when it comes to combatting
drugs. Another line of reasoning that I have heard says that during the
alcohol prohibition of the 30's there was much more consumption of alcohol,
due to the fact that pushers were out on the streets, just the same way
drug pushers are out on the streets now.

During the San Antonio summit, Pres. Gaviria of Colombia submitted a
proposition to legalize drugs. Needless to say, Bush rejected it at
once. The fact of the matter is that the US public opinion is not yet
ready to take this route. This situation may change in the future if
the steps taken by Europe prove to be effective to reduce the rate
of addiction.

>[...]
>So, if the U.S. producess weapons en mass and begins selling them to Sendero 
>Luminoso as well as to the Peruvian military so that they can shoot it out as 
>they please you would find nothing wrong with this?  If poison is being 

Actually, the ones to blame in this case are the Senderistas. If the US
did not sell weapons to them, they would get their weapons somewhere else.
The same applies to drug consumption: As long as there is demand, there
will be plenty of people eager to satisfy it, specially when the profits
are so high. This will remain being the same no matter how many dealers
and producers are killed in the process. Actually, drug traffic is more
dangerous today than ever, and at the same time, there is more drug traffic
today than ever.

>international outlaw and had to be arrested.  Fortunately a Jury of U.S. 
>citizens agreed he was guilty and he will now serve the remainder of his life 
>in prison.  Perhaps you could pay him a visit at Marion since you simpathize so 
>much with drug producers.

Without taking any position in your discussion with Mr. Camacho with respect
to Manuel Noriega, let me remind you that personnal attacks on people who
disagree with you are not the american way, nor the democratic way for that
matter.

>Well fortunately I'm not an econmic liberal, so there is no need to pursue 
>this further and I can keep blasting away at the drug producers (and their 
>simpathizers, whithoug having you try to prove contracitions in my postions.

I think the goal of decent people is to reduce the alarming rates of drug
addiction. Economic Liberals are convinced that the laws that govern open
markets would bring drug trade down if it is legalized. We may or may not
agree with this, but I see no reason to label these people as drug-dealer-
simpathizers, and I see no use on blasting them. Being democratic implies
listening to all arguments, and presume decency unless there is evidence
to back the accusations up.

>Precisely that is why you have to erradicate the trade, so that mafias don't 
>run the country.  Or do you want Pablo Escobar as president of Colombia?  After 
>all, it would be so easier for us to delimit policy towards Colombian if he 

Unfortunately, I think the war on drugs is a lost war, even if Pablo Escobar
is killed. By the way, Mr. Escobar importance in the drug traffic is now
much smaller than before. The Cali cartel "caballeros", as they are called,
seem to be the ones on top of the wave now. But the important point is that
drug legalizing is just acknowledging that a modern state cannot win the
war on drugs, "giving up" if you will.

>Why not, after all, listening to Radio Havanna talk about drugs is the same as 
>reading Jose Camacho on the same topic.  Why is this so?  Pure coincidence?

I don't know what radio Havanna says about the drug trade, since I honestly
don't listen to it. But if you want to imply that every person that supports
legalization of drugs is somehow a Castro supporter or a communist, I refer
to my previous remarks about Mr. Buckley and Mr. Friedman.

>>But cigarrettes are legal. Perhaps because they are produced in the US?
>
>No, simply because they don't fry your brain in a coulpe of minutes, rather 
>simply kill you slowly.  Perhaps becuase you can be productive as a smoker of 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>tobacco but not as a smoker of crack.  Perhaps because you can pilot an 
>aircraft and smoke buy you can't sniff cocaine and do the same. Perhaps....
>BTW I'm all in favor of cigarrette taxes, regulations on publicity, and 
>cigarette prohibitions on young smokers.  After all, I don't want you to think 
>I'm and economic liberal.

Killing you slowly is in my mind as bad frying your brain in a couple of
minutes, as you say. In all fairness, I must point out that some people
have been able to control their drug habit and carry productive lives for
rather long periods of time, although I must agree with you in that a person
with a heavy crack addiction cannot perform high responsibility jobs.
Of course, the same applies to an alcoholic, and licquor trade is legal.
I also agree on regulations on publicity and taxes on cigarretes, licquor
and, if drugs are ever made legal, on drugs. By the way, I don't think
being an economic liberal is in contradiction with this thoughts, unless
you are a very radical one.

>Oh, so your in favor of the "distributors" of these substances, I thought you 
>had confessed that you had nothing to do with the buisiness with those who make 
>profits from the distribution, as the ELN in Colomiba, and head junkie Galan.

Again, personal attacks do not add anything to the discussion.

>Edelmiro

My main goal by making this post was to prove:

  1. Pro-legalization <> (not equal) communist
  2. Pro-legalization <> drug dealer, or associated with them

I hope I have achieved this. I am not personally commited to any
of the two positions (legalization vs. war on drugs), although I
do think that the war on drugs, on the terms it has been carried
out, has already been lost. In my opinion, the best thing the US
can do right now is to wait for a couple of years to see if  the
policies being put in place in Europe have the desired effect.

I'm sorry for making this post overtly long. I hope it contributed
to the discussion in a positive way.

Luis DaSilva