Besides, today, hemp (human use + industrial) is the #1 cash crop in the world. And right here in India, our farmers are committing suicide out of economic plight. Giving them a profitable crop is surely the most straight forward way of bailing them out of their plight.

And besides, Indians have used hemp (both for consumption + industrial use) since the days of Mohinjidaro & Harappa. It was legal till 1989, when UN pressure forced us to sign that dreaded criminilisation bill.

And besides having a drug war completely wrecks backpacking tourism- which is a potential income generator into the rural parts of the country. At a time when the rural portion of the country is reeling, it’s imperative the government helps them out, not destroys whatever little possibilities of development there are.

I suppose nobody “up there” wants to realise that substituting hemp with tomatoes just isin’t goning to cut it for the farmers. Especially if one is priced at 2 Rs/ kg and another @ 900 Rs / kg.

Even in harder drugs, imprisoning heroin users- for example- would encourage them to go more underground. This would mean, needle exchange progs by NGOs or philanthropists and especially the govt. won’t be effective. Used syringes is the #1 culprit to AIDS.

But alas, our shotcallers are more content with satisfying the UN dikats than about caring for the welfare of our society. The raids on raves in Pune sends chills up my spine. While the police was busy dancing for 15 minutes and arresting ravers, somewhere in an alley in Mumbai, a girl was getting raped- or a boy was getting bound to slave labour.

I pray that sanity returns to India soon. I’d never thought I’d say this , but I actually am starting to long for India of the 70s.

We have “modernised” our corporate economics, true enough. But other other aspects of our society have actually gone towards barbarianism…

Though I am a liberal at heart, find a small logical flaw in the Legalize Drugs hypothesis.

Agreed that “the legality of something does not imply that it is harmless” and vice-versa. However, using this argument to pin-down the penalization of drugs is inappropriate on two counts. 1. Drugs ARE harmful. (The liquor example does not hold true here, as liquor consumed in moderate quantities may not be harmful. So, lets say, we are just talking about drugs proven to be harmful – even when consumed moderately and occasionally.) 2. Legalizing known anti-agents of the society can lead to a false precedent in other counts. For instance, legalizing nicotine today, has lead to the strengthening of the argument of legalizing drugs, and on a similar count, legalizing drugs tomorrow could lead to the demand of legalizing other acts of ill-effects to the society. Of course, the minor assumptions here are: 1. we are against the verb and not the noun, the act and not just the product. So, extending the same, can fairly say that the hypothesis is that the ‘act of consuming drugs’ be legalized. According to Pranay, whose post supports your argument: “with greater freedom, populations are known to become more responsible”. So, from the above statement and point 2, the deduction could follow, that freedom and responsibility are directly proportional to each other, and inversely proportional to criminal behavior and anti-social acts. Thus, from the above, one could deduce that to eradicate crime in the society, one needs to scrap all laws (as laws bind and are thus against the basic tenant of freedom) – and thus ‘legalize’ all crimes! Don’t know how prudent would that be? And if that is not appropriate, then our hypothesis falls flat. Hence the case against the suggested argument.

(Though, if one neglects practicality, and limits oneself to the ideal state, then perhaps the hypothesis can be justified.)

Any answers?

I do not oppose the death penalty in murder cases where there is not the slightest doubt regarding the murderer. If a person knowingly kills another, that person forfeits his right to live.

I disagree.
A person knowingly kills another, but no other person or body, regardless of their political or judicial rights, has a right to take away his right to live from him.

He may be imprisoned for life, but taking away something that is his supreme property and characteristic, merely shows that the judicial authority does not respect life in the first place (so how can they decide cases where it has been taken?!), thus its hypocrisy.

Capital punsihment is tribal, inhuman and insane.

I’m an atheist, well, rather, I’m someone who believes there is no God, so this is something I have noticed time and again. On the other hand, most religious people tell me, that faith and logic can never predetermine each other.

Another one, which I thought you might make a mention of in a post on Amitabh, is that I particularly, am aghast, that one person’s intestines make national news on all national dailies and television channels. Please, I do not wish to relegate a national icon to obscurity, rather, there are more important things happening that are getting clouded.

Even the coverage on Amitabh though, is abysmal. There are few detailed reports on TV, only repeated live interviews with journos embedded at the hosiptal shouting out the recent updates (which count to nought) amidst the chaos that surrounds them. I laugh when I see such clips.

Atanu is absolutely right. Criminalization of addictions only leads to greater desperation on the part of the addicted and those who supply their addictions get more profit out of delivering the same.

Consider this, an unorthodox way of analyzing why the South American drug cartels are so rich, is that because the USA bans drugs like cocaine, the price of the drug is extremely high (and therefore not plainly market justified) – the illegality of its sale/supply, contributes an external factor that jacks up its price.

As a result, it becomes profitable for cartels to run huge risks to ship the drug to the US. And as they make huge profits out of it, it makes them richer and with more means to deliver even more drugs.

Now consider, if cocaine wasn’t illegal in the US, the risks involved in its shipment to the US would be negligible, therefore market externalities would not come into play in its price, as a result it would be much cheaper.

There is the argument that cheaper prices would imply a greater market, but in the case of drugs, how much bigger could the market become? Would you as a non-coke user, suddenly go to a store and buy it?

It is unlikely, as with greater freedom, populations are known to become more responsible.

The best example of this in the world is Holland. With legalized drug use and prostitution, it is the tourist center for people interested in experiencing these freedoms. However, talk to Dutch guys and you will realize, an extremely small insignificant percentage of them does drugs – the rest don’t care and have never tried.

I would say, the same solution will work anywhere in the world, provided the population is educated and made aware of all risks as they become known. The US, being quite conservative, does not fall in this bracket yet, but as long as drug cartels are rich, the smaller countries in South America are unlikely to see consistent and stable democracy.

Previous post: « Drugs, and deaths, and bad servers

03. Dec ‘05 4 [...]

Atanu’s reponse: The primary problem with criminalizing drugs is that it is a blunt instrument. Using a blunt instrument is like using a hammer where a needle is more appropriate: it hurts more than it heals. People who have spent a lifetime dealing with the drug problem have unequivocally reached that conclusion. In my followup post, I will write more about it.

An perfect example of what you call allowing market forces in such a situation would be the forced sale of opium by the east India company to China.

Atanu’s response: Well, I disagree. To which substances are you yourself addicted? What if heroin were freely available at a store? Will you go and get yourself some so that you can get addicted?

Prohibition was meant to cure the alcohol habit. Did it? No. Did it fuel criminal behaviour? Yes. Does everyone drink now that there is no prohibition in the US? No. Is anyone who drinks an alcoholic? No. Will there be alcoholics if there was NO alcohol? No. Will there be alcoholics if there is prohibition? YES.

god with a Captial “G” is christian theology. Most likley you learnt it in a covent school in India, which are making educated Indians half or crypto or soft christians.

Where as if you look at Australian model Michelle Leslie’s case where she was found using ecstasy in Indonesia was set free after a 3 months jail term. Though the drug laws are very strict in Indonesia…but the Australian got away just because the Indonesian government is highly depended on Australia…aid relief work…tourisim..etc.

Just wondering, shouldn’t the word “God” always be appearing with a capital “G” even if it occurs in the middle of the sentence ?

Also, when you refer to God as “he” or “him”, shouldn’t the H be in capitals as well ?

I remember this being taught way back in my childhood.. or is it one of those things I misunderstood and carried it over the years ?

Coming to your point on capital executions, I read in todays morning paper (telegraph in London) that China had 3500 executions this year ? Sounds horrific. Second is US though.

Excellent description on incentives.