[Nettime-bold] Re: Drug policy

["Ivo Skoric" <ivo@reporters.net>]

If you are going to run for Senate, remind me to give you my vote. 
Are you related by any chance to former senator D'Amato, anyway?

Legalizing drugs, while from my perspective a no-brainer, won't 
really happen because the 'moral majority' needs about another 50 
years to understand that perspective.

I don't think the US will bomb poppy fields in Afghanistan - 
precisely because that might help Taliban achieve higher price for 
their already stockpiled heroin.

Rather, they might present themselves as one of the buyers of 
heroin. Let's see - if US government buy heroin from Taliban using 
marked money, than:
1) they are in control of heroin supply; they can destroy what they 
have bought, driving price up, without any benefit to Taliban, while 
reducing availability in the end market.
2) they can trace the whereabouts of money - Taliban would try to 
buy ammunition, for example - so, the US government would know 
which arms trader sold them the ammo, or whatever else.

On the other hand - Taliban may burn poppy fields themselves to 
artificially raise the price of heroin now when they are in need of 
cash. And they can acuse the US of doing so to solidify their 
domestic support. 

ivo

Date sent:      	Thu, 4 Oct 2001 12:33:56 -0500
Send reply to:  	International Justice Watch Discussion List
             	<JUSTWATCH-L@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU>
From:           	"D'Amato Anthony" <a-damato@NORTHWESTERN.EDU>
Subject:        	Drug policy
To:             	JUSTWATCH-L@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU

Intelligence sources that I've read seem to agree on two
conclusions:

1)  The US will bomb the Afghan poppy fields (one
source called this an "unprecedented opportunity" for
our war on drugs); and

2)  The taliban is preparing its stockpile of heroin for
dumping into the open market, in order to raise cash.


Since the demand for heroin is relatively steady (like,
for example, the demand for diamonds), dumping will
immediately depress prices.  An aggravating factor for
heroin is that the wholesale buyers from the taliban
are mainly in the business of quickly turning over
inventory by supplying retailers; they are not
accustomed to inventorying much of the stuff.
Moreover, inventorying drugs is very dangerous;
one police raid and you lose it all to the police
(who then inventory it and retail it anyway)  But
police aren't going to buy the stuff in the first
instance.  Thus, the wholesalers will have to
buy and distribute quickly, which means they
can't afford to pay more than pennies on the
dollar for the product.

These factors indicate that, absent external
intervention, the taliban will receive only pennies
on the dollar for their entire enormous heroin
stockpile.  But they have no choice.

Except for external intervention. If the US comes
to the rescue of the heroin market by firebombing
the poppy fields, the heroin market will adjust by
moving prices dramatically upward.  The result
is that the taliban could receive 30 to 40 times as
much for its stockpile than it would receive if the
poppy fields were left alone, thus providing huge
additional funds for buying military equipment.

The rational thing to do would be to take either
of these two steps:

a)  Don't bomb the poppy fields, or

b)  Legalize drugs.


The latter could be a decisive blow in the war
against terrorism, and can be accomplished, in
President Bush's words, by the stroke of a pen.

But since when did rationality guide our foreign
policy?


==  Tony D'Amato


_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold