Cocaine = Hardcore Global Capitalism

[Firky]

to be fair, before criticising Garf i'd re-read bits like this one..

Yeah I saw the irony in it - hence the reply to myself above

Having read that back and the words I used make me sound like a twat too

 

[Maggot]

I was thrown off the new labour election campaign bus - for snorting cocaine in the toilet.

Its not all bad. It propelled me into a career as a writer and a journo.

Will Self was found taking smack on the Tories campaign plane. He was already well known as a writer and journo before it happened.

 

[Pete the Greek]

isn't johann hari one of those wannabe tendy voice of yoof rent a hacks who spouts on about taking drugs and how he takes them and how cool they are - whilst slamming people for using petrol in cars and buying nestle?

Joke.

 

[free spirit]

Not sure i can really be arsed to get into this one again, but...

Cocaine is illegal, anyone caught smuggling serious quantities of it faces jail sentences similar to those for murder, therefore the risk to the importer is extremely high, therefore they need a high profit margin to justify taking that risk... not to mention the actual costs associate with arranging the illicit import without getting caught, bribing officials / tinned plums factory manager / drivers / boat captain etc.

There obviously is a decent profit margin to be made by the people at the top, and a lot of people in the chain all the way along the route need to make their cut, but how the fuck else do you expect a peasant coca farmer in columbia to get their product to market in the UK, US, Europe etc. + maintaining the military muscle to give even the US funded and equipped antidrugs military pause for thought.

And yeah I'd love to buy fairtrade coke on the relatively rare occasions I buy it, but while it remains illegal that ain't gonna happen now is it. I'd also like it if you could tell whether the coke came from FARC areas, or right wing militia areas, but that ain't gonna happen either.

btw it's the US funded antidrugs arseholes who've been cropspraying entire valleys areas with agent orange style defoliation chemicals, poinsoning the land and water courses in the process... which ain't that ethical either IMO

 

[Pete the Greek]

I see what you mean, but what compounds the point about exploitation of the Latin American poor peasant classes is the fact that once the Class A is bought and used by people in the west, the general net result is a massive boost is crime, depravation and the destruction of communities. The damage is vast, to everyone. Poor in the west, Poor in the "south".

Yes, you are right, the US is heartless in its treatment of other countries, particularly those in its "back yard" i.e. Latin American States. They are cunts for doing those things. The "war on drugs" is a farce and a sham.

But I fail to see what possibly ethical alternatives there can be, that will benefit the poor Latino bastards forced to harvest this stuff for peanuts.

I'm all in favour of decriminalising ALL drugs and putting them under government control - with the health authorities heading the whole thing up. I have no problem with individual choice. But with that comes a price - those farmers and peasants in Latin America would be robbed of any form of decent income whatsoever, as the whole market would be shaken down. Then what? Instead of the crooks and criminals being responsible for their plight, it would be the State of this country or whatever country decriminalised the stuff who would be held responsible.

Either way, the answer is not easy to find.

 

[JoePolitix]

My problem isn't with the act of consumption itself. I've got no problem with people wanting coffee or a bit of beak, the problem there is not the product being produced, but the capitalist mode of production. On the other hand, child pornography (for example), is in and of itself harmful, children will always have to be abused for it to exist and smack is by its very nature an anti-social thing, smackheads don't just harm themselves, but their whole community.

Of course child pornography is inherantly harmful but why stop there? What about products whos manufacturing is harmful to the environment, involves the abuse of women or is cruel to animals for example? What about clothes that use the fur of endangered species? Or products that have been made from materials, the extraction of which has led to people being forced off their land?

The targeting of such products and companies will in some circumstances surely be appropriate, particularly in response to solidarity calls from people effected?

 

[In Bloom]

Of course child pornography is inherantly harmful but why stop there? What about products whos manufacturing is harmful to the environment, involves the abuse of women or is cruel to animals for example? What about clothes that use the fur of endangered species? Or products that have been made from materials, the extraction of which has led to people being forced off their land?

Read it sometime, you'd love it

 

[Pete the Greek]

Read it sometime, you'd love it

yeah, it's great if you want to see how a theory could have applied to the massed ranks of Industrial workers in urban centres in Europe in the 19th century.

Fuck all relevance or meaning now though.

 

[JoePolitix]

Read it sometime, you'd love it

Yu evil nasty brute!

Why don’t you go and fetch your sidekick/underling/stooge/protégé/accomplice/henchmen/minion/lackey/subordinate/puppet/pawn/cat's paw/patsy Mk12 to help you out?

 

[In Bloom]

yeah, it's great if you want to see how a theory could have applied to the massed ranks of Industrial workers in urban centres in Europe in the 19th century.

Fuck all relevance or meaning now though.

As far as critiques of the commodity form go, it's a classic. Certainly should be required reading for self-proclaimed communists.

 

[In Bloom]

JP, I never even knew I had a sidekick.

Still, any excuse to wear tights...

 

[Crispy]

capital is not what it was. but marx is still a good read.

 

[yield]

Drugs in not counter culture shocker...next!

Quoted for truth.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Innit. The main reason why I don't buy coke.
(although if someone shoves a mirror under my nose - "oi, have a line of this" then I might succumb)

Applies to marijuana, too.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

actually, sweetie, i've engaged about it numerous times. But it gets a bit tired, especially when it's either Pete The Greek using it for some tiresome leftie bashing or you playing Hypocrite Hunt.

If someone other than you two fuckpuppets started a serious thread, I might even bother engaging about it again.

Lefties deserve a little bashing from time to time too, otherwise it isn't fair.

 

[yield]

Applies to marijuana, too.

Now I consider marijuane to be a different question, especially in British Columbia. The argument against organised crime is less considering the amount of homegrown, the permissive culture in Canada and the level of smuggling into the USA.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Now I consider marijuane to be a different question, especially in British Columbia. The argument against organised crime is less considering the amount of homegrown, the permissive culture in Canada and the level of smuggling into the USA.

It's not a different question. Most marijuana grown here is grown in hydroponic grow ops controlled by vietnamese gangs or the Hell's Angels. They routinely rip one another off and kill one another, with detrimental effect on innocent bystanders. It's a multibillion dollar per year international business.

 

[yield]

It's not a different question. Most marijuana grown here is grown in hydroponic grow ops controlled by vietnamese gangs or the Hell's Angels. They routinely rip one another off and kill one another, with detrimental effect on innocent bystanders. It's a multibillion dollar per year international business.

Got any evidence to back that up? I read an article that said 80:20, I'll see if I can find it.
If, yes if, you're right might be interesting to see if the demographics have changed with time.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Got any evidence to back that up? I read an article that said 80:20, I'll see if I can find it.
If, yes if, you're right might be interesting to see if the demographics have changed with time.

What, 80% homegrown? I don't think so.

I know people who smoke every day; they'd have to have a basement full of plants to supply themselves.

Marijuana is a part of life here, and the vast majority of people buy it.

 

[Jessiedog]

Innit. The main reason why I don't buy coke.
(although if someone shoves a mirror under my nose - "oi, have a line of this" then I might succumb)

Oly to discover, in short order, that it was Ket and not Coke.



Woof

 

[Crispy]

Ah well, at least K is produced by a well-regulated capitalist monster, as opposed to a criminal one

 

[likesfish]

sorry coke funds farc and right wing death squads
http://www.colombiasupport.net/199909/reuters0928.html
if you think thats acceptable have a line

 

[Firky]

Will Self was found taking smack on the Tories campaign plane. He was already well known as a writer and journo before it happened.

I thought that came after he was thrown off the bus? My bad!

 

[free spirit]

I see what you mean, but what compounds the point about exploitation of the Latin American poor peasant classes is the fact that once the Class A is bought and used by people in the west, the general net result is a massive boost is crime, depravation and the destruction of communities. The damage is vast, to everyone. Poor in the west, Poor in the "south".

Yes, you are right, the US is heartless in its treatment of other countries, particularly those in its "back yard" i.e. Latin American States. They are cunts for doing those things. The "war on drugs" is a farce and a sham.

But I fail to see what possibly ethical alternatives there can be, that will benefit the poor Latino bastards forced to harvest this stuff for peanuts.

I'm all in favour of decriminalising ALL drugs and putting them under government control - with the health authorities heading the whole thing up. I have no problem with individual choice. But with that comes a price - those farmers and peasants in Latin America would be robbed of any form of decent income whatsoever, as the whole market would be shaken down. Then what? Instead of the crooks and criminals being responsible for their plight, it would be the State of this country or whatever country decriminalised the stuff who would be held responsible.

Either way, the answer is not easy to find.

your logic doesn't appear to be that coherant to me.

If you decriminalise it / legalise it and make it legal to grow, export / import / sell coca / cocaine (possibly via licensed retailers coffee shop style / chemist or similar) then it would be perfectly possible for any coca growers collective to set up, group together and set up their own collectively owned cocaine factory and if they wanted even establish their own supply and distribution network supplying on a fairtrade basis to licensed retailers.

No need for the growers to be exploited in growing it, it'd just be another cash crop that could be as easily fairly traded as any other cash crop.

It's the illegality of coke and the harsh sentences attached to anything to do with the growing, transportation, distribution or supply of coke that makes fair / ethically traded coke an impossibility, not the nature of coke or the coca plant itself.

btw I'd also like to be able to drink coca leaf tea on occassion, as I think it might be a good alternative to strong coffee when I need to stay awake and functioning (these days coffee seems to make me dizzy and unable to concentrate, yet it's legal and coca leaves aren't).

 

[Jazzz]

This is nonsense. What does capitalism have to do with the cocaine market?

It's outlawed - i.e., there's no free market at all, this is not capitalism, more the action of a central command-and-control government.

When a communist government outlaws something, and a black market forms for it instead, is that capitalism?

Maybe there's an argument that cocaine consumption is unethical, but I don't possibly see how it can blame capitalism, sorry.

 

[free spirit]

Meanwhile let's hear from the "poor Latino bastards forced to harvest this stuff for peanuts" who just elected a coca farmer as president in Bolivia.

He (Morales) is a son of Indians of the Altoplano, who, like so many others, took over a small parcel of land in Chapare in the 1980s and went into the coca business.

With the imposition of the US-funded Plan Dignity - the sometimes violent campaign to eradicate cocaine production - Morales emerged at the head of the cocaleros and is unembarrassed by his advocacy of the coca industry. In an interview last year he laid out where it fits into his vision for Bolivia.

'There is a unanimous defence of coca because the coca leaf is becoming the banner for national unity, a symbol of national unity in defence of our dignity. Since coca is a victim of the United States, as coca growers we are also victims of the United States, but then we rise up to question these policies to eradicate coca.

'Now is the moment to see the defence of coca as the defence of all natural resources, just like hydrocarbon, oil, gas; and this consciousness is growing. That is why it is an issue of national unity.'

Morales has expanded his power base from the poverty-striken pueblos, once enriched by coca but unable to find new markets for the bananas, manioc root and other crops the government said they should grow, to the small businessmen who swelled the anti-Lozado protests.

While the US embassy in La Paz atempts to link him to a coup attempt against Lozado, the popularity of Morales is more a result of US policy than his charisma.

Plan Dignity - launched in 1998 - was a huge success, destroying at one stage more than 80 per cent of coca production, but it failed to produce new sources of income for coca farmers, and the brutal, military nature with which it was carried out fuelled resentment.

The most hated unit - the Expeditionary Task Force of 1,500 former Bolivian soldiers - is paid, fed, clothed and trained by the US embassy. The farmers call them 'America's mercenaries' and accuse them of shootings and beatings.

(soure)

Sounds to me like the farmers were actually making a decent living growing coca quite happily until the US stuck it's nose in, destroyed most of the crops and persuaded (by force) coca growers to change to growing other crops that don't make a high enough price to give them a living wage.

so an entire country votes in a coca grower as president who supports the right of the people to grow coca, is against the war on drugs etc. with his main support base being the coca growers themselves... yet you somehow claim that us buying coke is unethical because 'the poor latino bastards are forced to harvest it for peanuts'.

I take it you have a source to back up your claim? as from where I'm standing it looks like the poor latino bastards are actually wanting to be allowed to grow coca as it's the cash crop that earns them the most money, and they are being forced to stop growing it and to grow banana's and other such crops for peanuts instead by US funded mercenaries.

I don't think your arguement stands up

 

[Jessiedog]

your logic doesn't appear to be that coherant to me.

If you decriminalise it / legalise it and make it legal to grow, export / import / sell coca / cocaine (possibly via licensed retailers coffee shop style / chemist or similar) then it would be perfectly possible for any coca growers collective to set up, group together and set up their own collectively owned cocaine factory and if they wanted even establish their own supply and distribution network supplying on a fairtrade basis to licensed retailers.

No need for the growers to be exploited in growing it, it'd just be another cash crop that could be as easily fairly traded as any other cash crop.

It's the illegality of coke and the harsh sentences attached to anything to do with the growing, transportation, distribution or supply of coke that makes fair / ethically traded coke an impossibility, not the nature of coke or the coca plant itself.

btw I'd also like to be able to drink coca leaf tea on occassion, as I think it might be a good alternative to strong coffee when I need to stay awake and functioning (these days coffee seems to make me dizzy and unable to concentrate, yet it's legal and coca leaves aren't).

Word, free spirit.



Woof

 

[Jessiedog]

Meanwhile let's hear from the "poor Latino bastards forced to harvest this stuff for peanuts" who just elected a coca farmer as president in Bolivia.
(soure)

Sounds to me like the farmers were actually making a decent living growing coca quite happily until the US stuck it's nose in, destroyed most of the crops and persuaded (by force) coca growers to change to growing other crops that don't make a high enough price to give them a living wage.

so an entire country votes in a coca grower as president who supports the right of the people to grow coca, is against the war on drugs etc. with his main support base being the coca growers themselves... yet you somehow claim that us buying coke is unethical because 'the poor latino bastards are forced to harvest it for peanuts'.

I take it you have a source to back up your claim? as from where I'm standing it looks like the poor latino bastards are actually wanting to be allowed to grow coca as it's the cash crop that earns them the most money, and they are being forced to stop growing it and to grow banana's and other such crops for peanuts instead by US funded mercenaries.

I don't think your arguement stands up

Word!



Woof

 

[Blagsta]

smackheads don't just harm themselves, but their whole community.

All smackheads? Or just some? Is the harm a product of prohibition? Or something deeper?

 

[Blagsta]

yeah, it's great if you want to see how a theory could have applied to the massed ranks of Industrial workers in urban centres in Europe in the 19th century.

Fuck all relevance or meaning now though.

Why does it not have any relevance?