4 ms·

Reading material for you from the president of Columbia, citing the failures of the War on Drugs. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/18/colombia-united

by fma 10y ago

Reading material for you from the president of Columbia, citing the failures of the War on Drugs. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/18/colombia-united-nations-assembly-war-on-drugs https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/18/colombia-unite... "“We need to provide social and economic alternatives to small growers of illegal crops and other vulnerable communities in order to create the necessary conditions to bring them back to legality,” wrote Santos in an opinion piece in the Observer." And your analogy of the mugging is invalid. In mugging there's two parties, the mugger and the victim. The war on drugs is the closest analogy. It is an illegal trade, just like ivory. There's three parties. The grower, seller, and buyer. If you do not get the grower, in this case, the ivory hunter, a legal path to providing food for their family, it will be a failure, just like the crackdown on cocaine for the last 30 years.

adamnemecek 10y ago
> We need to provide social and economic alternatives to small growers of illegal crops and other vulnerable communities in order to create the necessary conditions to bring them back to legality, We don't want legality. The reason why the situation is really bad currently is because back in 2008, CITES lifted restrictions on ivory sales which allowed several African nations to sell their ivory stockpiles to China and Japan. The current situation is believed to be a direct result of this and the demand has skyrocket since then. In 80's, there was a similar poaching crisis, what eventually put an end to it was making as much of the trade as possible illegal. War on drugs and poaching are similar only on the superficial level. Read my comment below where I talk about it.
- zimzam 10y ago
  The "them" in this sentence is the farmers not the drugs: the quote is arguing for giving the farmers a path to a legal livelihood. Similarly the parent is arguing for legal alternatives to poaching as desperate, starving people will always care about feeding their families more than an arbitrary law.
  - adamnemecek 10y ago
    Oh, thanks, I did have a hard time understanding that sentence. It's true that the people need something else to feed their families, however western and Asian countries will have an easier time banning these products than providing these alternatives. If the demand goes away, so will the supply.
tn13 10y ago
Totally agree. War on Drugs is a failure and Ivory trade ban would be another failure. Government wants to ban something which people want and some people willing to supply. Unless someone has strong private property right over elephants I don't see how these people are going to change. Ban might increase cost and risks and might lead to serious exploitation of the foot soldiers in this business but it is not going to be good for animals. China could have imported 1000 elephants and could farmed them for their ivory.
- adamnemecek 10y ago
  > Totally agree. War on Drugs is a failure and Ivory trade ban would be another failure. They are more dissimilar than similar. Not all illegal goods have the same economics as illegal substances. Kinder Surprise eggs are illegal in the US, yet there isn't much of a market for them. > Government wants to ban something which people want and some people willing to supply. The situation is really different. When people go buy ivory, they are buying it to show off their wealth. Similarly, few rich people would buy a Faberge egg from a shady guy on the street, esp. if being seen with it in public (you know, the reason why you might be buying it in the first place) might raise question about the product's origin. People want luxury goods, not necessarily ivory in particular. If you ban Ferraris, people will buy Lamborghinis. If you ban sports cars, they might buy yachts. > China could have imported 1000 elephants and could farmed them for their ivory. Do you know much about elephant husbandry? Disregarding ethical issues, it's not possible for financial and ecological reasons.
  - tn13 10y ago
    > Not all illegal goods have the same economics as illegal substances Dont see your point. Kinder would not have much demand even if it is illegal as it competes with many other similar products easily available. Ivory appears to me something very similar to marijuana or cocaine than Kinder eggs to me. > When people go buy ivory, they are buying it to show off their wealth. You don't have much idea about illegal trade. What makes you think the black market only has shady guys on street peddling smuggled items. Rich people extensively deal in illegal items and get them home delivered in armored car if needed. > People want luxury goods, not necessarily ivory in particular. I don't see much of logic. On the contrary Ivory might get far more desirable and much bigger status symbol once it is made illegal. You should remember that every illegal thing in a society eventually has exceptions for powerful. A hand-gun is a big status symbol in India and UK where gun control is hysterical. Same is likely to happen with Ivory.
mullingitover 10y ago
> If you do not get the grower, in this case, the ivory hunter, a legal path to providing food for their family, it will be a failure, just like the crackdown on cocaine for the last 30 years. This is entirely speculative. How do you know that the poachers don't have perfectly reasonable means of providing for their families, and are simply poaching because they make more money that way?

by fma 10y ago

adamnemecek 10y ago

> We need to provide social and economic alternatives to small growers of illegal crops and other vulnerable communities in order to create the necessary conditions to bring them back to legality, We don't want legality. The reason why the situation is really bad currently is because back in 2008, CITES lifted restrictions on ivory sales which allowed several African nations to sell their ivory stockpiles to China and Japan. The current situation is believed to be a direct result of this and the demand has skyrocket since then. In 80's, there was a similar poaching crisis, what eventually put an end to it was making as much of the trade as possible illegal. War on drugs and poaching are similar only on the superficial level. Read my comment below where I talk about it.

zimzam 10y ago
The "them" in this sentence is the farmers not the drugs: the quote is arguing for giving the farmers a path to a legal livelihood. Similarly the parent is arguing for legal alternatives to poaching as desperate, starving people will always care about feeding their families more than an arbitrary law.
- adamnemecek 10y ago
  Oh, thanks, I did have a hard time understanding that sentence. It's true that the people need something else to feed their families, however western and Asian countries will have an easier time banning these products than providing these alternatives. If the demand goes away, so will the supply.

tn13 10y ago

Totally agree. War on Drugs is a failure and Ivory trade ban would be another failure. Government wants to ban something which people want and some people willing to supply. Unless someone has strong private property right over elephants I don't see how these people are going to change. Ban might increase cost and risks and might lead to serious exploitation of the foot soldiers in this business but it is not going to be good for animals. China could have imported 1000 elephants and could farmed them for their ivory.

adamnemecek 10y ago
> Totally agree. War on Drugs is a failure and Ivory trade ban would be another failure. They are more dissimilar than similar. Not all illegal goods have the same economics as illegal substances. Kinder Surprise eggs are illegal in the US, yet there isn't much of a market for them. > Government wants to ban something which people want and some people willing to supply. The situation is really different. When people go buy ivory, they are buying it to show off their wealth. Similarly, few rich people would buy a Faberge egg from a shady guy on the street, esp. if being seen with it in public (you know, the reason why you might be buying it in the first place) might raise question about the product's origin. People want luxury goods, not necessarily ivory in particular. If you ban Ferraris, people will buy Lamborghinis. If you ban sports cars, they might buy yachts. > China could have imported 1000 elephants and could farmed them for their ivory. Do you know much about elephant husbandry? Disregarding ethical issues, it's not possible for financial and ecological reasons.
- tn13 10y ago
  > Not all illegal goods have the same economics as illegal substances Dont see your point. Kinder would not have much demand even if it is illegal as it competes with many other similar products easily available. Ivory appears to me something very similar to marijuana or cocaine than Kinder eggs to me. > When people go buy ivory, they are buying it to show off their wealth. You don't have much idea about illegal trade. What makes you think the black market only has shady guys on street peddling smuggled items. Rich people extensively deal in illegal items and get them home delivered in armored car if needed. > People want luxury goods, not necessarily ivory in particular. I don't see much of logic. On the contrary Ivory might get far more desirable and much bigger status symbol once it is made illegal. You should remember that every illegal thing in a society eventually has exceptions for powerful. A hand-gun is a big status symbol in India and UK where gun control is hysterical. Same is likely to happen with Ivory.

mullingitover 10y ago

> If you do not get the grower, in this case, the ivory hunter, a legal path to providing food for their family, it will be a failure, just like the crackdown on cocaine for the last 30 years. This is entirely speculative. How do you know that the poachers don't have perfectly reasonable means of providing for their families, and are simply poaching because they make more money that way?