34 ms·

Colombia is considering legalizing its cocaine industry

542 points by prostoalex 6y ago

larrik 6y ago
> The programs for coca eradication each year cost four trillion pesos ($1 billion). Buying the entire coca harvest each year would cost 2.6 trillion pesos ($680 million). It costs less to buy the harvest than to destroy it. Yeah, I don't know how long that'll stay true when you have a guaranteed buyer for a product...
- jaywalk 6y ago
  It'll always stay true, because they're buying it to sell it. And just like the producers will have a guaranteed buyer, so will the government.
  - azundo 6y ago
    That's assuming the current $1B does nothing to disincentiveize production which can't be true.
    - jaywalk 6y ago
      Well the article does mention that they'll be paying market price for the coca. If the price goes up, they pay more and pass it on down the line. The government will literally be manufacturing cocaine, and even excluding recreational use there is still a high demand for it that isn't currently being met. They'll be printing money.
      - bbreier 6y ago
        Yea I'm not sure I understand how people are coming to the conclusion that Colombia will find a way to make selling cocaine into an unprofitable endeavor
- alpaca128 6y ago
  It tends to backfire so well there's a name for it[0]. And the current drug economy isn't just going to disappear just because someone else wants to pay for it. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect
  - alex_smart 6y ago
    I am about zero percent surprised that this is named after something that happened in India. Our entire country is built with layers upon layers of incorrect economical/political stimuli and their unintended consequences. Example: Some measures taken in the 60s and 70s to increase grain production caused groundwater levels in some states to deplete alarmingly a few decades later. To protect the groundwater levels, a law was passed in 2009 that now, along with the original measures, causes the pollution level of the national capital shoot through the roof (pm 2.5 > 500) every winter.
    - godelski 6y ago
      A lot of these, and the Cobra effect, are really consequences of Goodheart's Law[0]: > When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. These should make people think carefully about the metrics and targets used, but that seldom seems to happen. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
- strig 6y ago
  Could they not just pay them whatever profit they would normally get to not produce anything?
  - Rapzid 6y ago
    That does nothing for demand so the price would to through the roof. All the people you're not paying to not grow will step in to fill that demand.
  - raincom 6y ago
    This works if there is no collusion between politicians, the law enforcement, cartels and criminal elements.
mahesh_rm 6y ago
I don't know about cocaine, but I know a little about Colombia. This is a bold move that could single-handedly project the Country to a first world player position.
- Donald 6y ago
  Can you describe a little more?
  - mahesh_rm 6y ago
    Illegal Groups handling cocaine production and smuggling ("Narco-Guerrilla" and "Narco-Paramilitares") are de-facto creating a network of corruption and outright soldier recruitment, which has been the main factor of destabilization for Colombia in the last 20 years. This is especially true for rural areas. A Government sponsored Cooperative that handles cultivation of Coca would make earnings of Coca farmers legitimate, de facto improving their life conditions and the ones of their families. These resources would help bringing basic education to rural areas, while reducing the amount of conflict sponsored by armed illegals.
    - boterock 6y ago
      I would like to deepen a bit on "guerilla" and "paramilitaries": * Guerilla is a movement born and driven by farmers, where they weren't receiving aids from the central government, so they got into this business so they could afford themselves some security and sovereignty over the government that wouldn't care less about these country people. * Paramilitaries are more like mercenaries. They would basically be the guys that would do the dirty work of killing people that there is no reason to kill legally (i.e. enemies that the army should fight). These paramilitary groups have been hired (or created) by corrupt politicians and big companies to seize lands rich in gold or oil from their rightful owners. These groups would also end up being part of the trafficking networks. The current president has been demonstrated to have relationship with these paramilitary trafficking groups. That is why the president isn't pushing any effort that would affect the way the cartels work. Congress is pushing in this direction, but the government party is still majority in the congress, so it has been a challenge. A government entity that manages Cocaine networks would be a big opportunity for growing businesses, as it happens with some of the liquor brewers in the country. But that is directly against the interests of the current president. We all hope to change this in the next elections, as the current cartels are so powerful that they buy out, blackmail and kill almost any judge, senator, entity or individual that tries to fight back.
optimalsolver 6y ago
US gov will never allow it.
- bovermyer 6y ago
  Colombia, whatever the US government may think, is a sovereign entity. The US might apply pressure, but right now, the US isn't thinking about much beyond its own borders.
  - nicoburns 6y ago
    The US has shown itself willing to topple foreign governments (including in latin America) before. But perhaps they've learnt their lesson by now. It seems like the end of the War on Drugs is coming, even in the US.
  - LanceH 6y ago
    We're miles head and already banning straws.
  - modzu 6y ago
    do you realize the us has 7 military bases in columbia?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - dunefox 6y ago
    Yeah, the US don't have a history of attacking and destabilising other countries, especially in south america.
    - tehjoker 6y ago
      Amusingly, the US also has a history of shipping cocaine in military planes to fund their black-ops even when congress explicitly prohibits those operations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/index.html https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/index.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_drug_trafficking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_drug_traffi... If you think all that stuff is in the past, check out the US military defending poppy fields in Afghanistan. https://www.mintpressnews.com/opioid-crisis-trump-troops-afghanistan-poppies/231216/ https://www.mintpressnews.com/opioid-crisis-trump-troops-afg... For a good rap by Killer Mike look no further than: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lIqNjC1RKU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lIqNjC1RKU
sandworm101 6y ago
Won't happen. The US sends massive amounts of aid to columbia, both cash and military support. That is premised on the drug war. Legalize cocaine harvesting and that aid probably stops. "U.S. bilateral foreign assistance of $391 million - a part of the Administrations's $450 million whole of government request to support Colombia" https://foreignassistance.gov/explore/country/Colombia https://foreignassistance.gov/explore/country/Colombia All agency US aid: 800million https://explorer.usaid.gov/cd/COL https://explorer.usaid.gov/cd/COL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Colombia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Colombia "The official objectives of Plan Colombia were to end the Colombian armed conflict by increasing funding and training of Colombian military and para-military forces and creating an anti-cocaine strategy to eradicate coca cultivation. Partly as a result of the plan, FARC lost much of its power against the Colombian government, and cocaine production in Colombia dropped 72% from 2001 to 2012."
- nicoburns 6y ago
  I mean this article claims they'd save $320 million. And that's presumably before they sell any cocaine or other products they produce with the leaves. So it seems like it could be workable.
  - sandworm101 6y ago
    >> they sell any cocaine Lol. Take that money I mentioned above, all that military aid. If the Columbian government starts selling cocaine that money will fund the US military invasion of columbia. The US might be on the brink of legalizing weed, but it is a long long way from accepting colombia as an official narco state.
    - tonywastaken 6y ago
      Venezuela is already a narco state, no invasion there
      - martamorena9182 6y ago
bondarchuk 6y ago
>"US government will not allow it" Also my instinctive first thought, but actually I have to wonder why they care so much?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
caymanjim 6y ago
This article is ridiculous. The domestic cocaine industry in Colombia is irrelevant. The international market is what drives production. Regardless of domestic legality, international trade isn't going to become legal just because Colombia wants it to. Even if the US didn't interfere internally, they (and the UN and others) wouldn't change their stance on international trade. The government purchasing domestic production would only increase domestic production, and when they ultimately stopped buying it up due to cost and cancelled the entire program, the international market would be flooded with even more cocaine, and the economic disruption would cause even more internal conflict. Cocaine should be legal everywhere. It's not, though, so this is a stupid idea. A giant unsustainable agricultural subsidy isn't going to reduce domestic production when the entire market is international. On the contrary, it will only increase the size of the market and the amount of violent criminal behavior associated with it. By all means decriminalize consumption (which they've already done), but until there's a legal international market, don't subsidize it.
- dfsegoat 6y ago
  Not an expert, but knowing what I do about the drug war and our involvement in it: A lot of the domestic pressure within Colombia, MX etc. comes FROM international partners, like the US - Colombia gets a ton [~500M USD] of defense and security related funding for it [1], and we send military partner forces there to train their military and security forces. All of that would need to be unwound as matter of course, regardless of whether or not the plan makes sense. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Colombia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Colombia
- Geminidog 6y ago
  There's certainly a lot of benefits of legalizing cocaine or heroin. But legalization also increases exposure to say like kids. I know I sipped some alcohol before I turned 21, what if I tried shooting up on heroin or sniffing coke? I think the story here is much more complicated then "legalize" it. Certainly the drug war was a huge mistake but completely legalizing drugs isn't exactly the right solution either. The current opioid epidemic is the result of legalization through medical usage. I'm also willing to bet that people who support complete legalization are users either casual or frequent (not necessarily addicts) so there's a personal agenda going on here as well. Is there anyone who is completely drug free who supports total legalization?
lordnacho 6y ago
My main question around legalization is how the transition happens. It seems to me that people who are already in the drugs business are at an advantage if we change the law to make things legal. I don't like the idea of enriching people who earlier made a living out of murdering their rivals, and I get this suspicion that they aren't going to immediately drop their whole muscle operation when they go legit. I simply disbelieve the idea that a random legit businessperson could decide to go into the drugs trade without fearing harassment from the existing players, as well as gain knowledge in the area without having to associate with the formerly criminal. What are some ways to address this? Any early indications from other places?
- nmca 6y ago
  How great would the benefit to humanity be, pricing in uncertainty of a practical legalisation scheme, before you'd be happy for the cartel leaders to get off scott-free? I haven't done the numbers in this case, but surely there are instances in the world where giving up on the prospect of individual retribution is worth the societal gain?
- Shacklz 6y ago
  The difference between a legit businessperson getting into the trade and an existing criminal is that one has the protection of the state/police etc. and the other does not. One could argue the same about the illegal bootleggers during the prohibition - might have taken a while to get rid of the criminal elements, but it did work out in the end, not?
- GekkePrutser 6y ago
  (Reply to nmca below, not sure why this shows above). If you make something legal you give them an incentive to obey rules. Yes they're very bad people, but it will attract better people as well. Once they become legal businessmen they will have something to lose. It will take time yes. But it will happen. Policy should still be very tough on actors using violence, for example those private cartel armies should not be tolerated in the legal model. But as the price drops due to legalisation they will have no way to pay for all those things anymore. And yes the US prohibition is a great example as others have mentioned. The alcohol trade went mob-free pretty quickly.
GekkePrutser 6y ago
Good idea. Fighting it only makes the product more valuable, and the cartels more powerful. In the Netherlands we have really good experience with legalisation. Cannabis is legal and hard drugs (or substitutes) are provided to long-term addicts only. It drives prices down, reducing black market profits and thus the power of cartels. Promotes legal vendors to abide by rules (or they'll lose their license) and makes it possible to have checks on the products to make sure they're safe, not mixed with real toxins. And the lower street price reduces crime around drugs (like theft, addicts stealing to pay for their hit) Banning drug use by force is a US pipe dream. It's impossible. All it provides is a pork barrel for drug agencies, weapons manufacturers etc. It escalates the price. They haven't made a dent in the 40 years of the war on drugs. When the demand doesn't cease, all you do is make the product more expensive and the ones that provide it more powerful. PS: I never used drugs of any kind (except alcohol ;) )
- YorickPeterse 6y ago
  > Cannabis is legal It's technically illegal by law, it's just condoned/tolerated under certain regulations. There have been plans to make it fully legal, but it's not really going anywhere if I'm not mistaken.
  - intricatedetail 6y ago
    Correct. Cannabis in coffee shops comes from black market and is not regulated in any way. Government basically gives organised crime tax free market of a highly desirable product.
    - roywashere 6y ago
      In most of the USA cannabis is much more allowed than in The Netherlands nowadays!
      - joejerryronnie 6y ago
        In the Bay Area, I can roll into a high end dispensary that feels like a Beverly Hills wellness spa. The breadth of product is amazing and the associates are super positive and knowledgable. Almost feels a bit bougie :)
anm89 6y ago
People in this thread seem to think it is some law of physics that the US gets to "allow" policies in other countries. We "allow" policy and action by other sovereigns to the extent that we have the ability to enforce our will upon them. Just because we have had this ability to varying extents over the last 50 -70 years, does not mean we have the exact same capabilities right now. US GDP is declining as a share of world GDP. US in no longer the biggest importer of commodities like we were for most of the time that we were "allowing" policies in other countries, and our international alliances are substantially more fractured then they were over most of that period. The fact that the US has had an outlier position in terms of Geopolitical influence for the last half century is not a guarantee of this being true in the future.
- joejerryronnie 6y ago
  Well, we still have the largest and deadliest army in the world (by orders of magnitude) and the US dollar is the world’s currency. So, while our diplomatic influence may have waned a bit, the US still exerts the lion’s share of hard and soft influence around the world.
  - abfan1127 6y ago
    I thought China had a larger army? https://www.brookings.edu/articles/chinas-hollow-military https://www.brookings.edu/articles/chinas-hollow-military
    - joejerryronnie 6y ago
      China is significantly upscaling their army in terms of numbers, technology, and capability - and will be a real threat to the US in a decade if left unchecked. But for now, the US army has far greater destructive force and reach than China.
  - mattlondon 6y ago
    Dollar is not the currency where I live.
intricatedetail 6y ago
That would be amazing and I wholeheartedly support it despite never trying this drug and having friends struggling to quit. Governments should make drug taking as safe as possible. People who use black market drugs experience most problems from contamination and unknown strength. Then these accidents are attributed to the substance itself. Prime example is teenagers overdosing PMA thinking it is ecstasy and MDMA taking the blame. At least you can see which media are trustworthy through this lens of dishonest reporting.
Mountain_Skies 6y ago
What happens to all of the government employees who have been given extensive experience in combat against the coca industry? Will they suddenly end up unemployed with a skillset that is primarily based on violence and imposing control? Even if they have used those skill for what they believed to have been positive goals, when they need to feed their families, who is going to be the buyer for those skills? Hopefully the government has considered this and has some sort of plan for easing these people into other lines of work.
- tehjoker 6y ago
  Amazingly, the USG never asked those questions about disbanding the Iraqi army and we got ISIS.
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  The other cartels disappear, and "goon vets" will probably form their own if they aren't already double-dealing, but they will all be a lot less extremely as faking domestic consumption opens a legal grey area. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/23/how-organised-crime-took-over-russia-vory-super-mafia https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/23/how-organised-c... would end up like this if everything averaged out, but while the USSR was basically turned into neoliberal hell, the trajectory in Colombia is much much more optimistic so I suspect the outcome will be far better. It's Mexico and Central America I'm more worried about than Colombia.
sadfev 6y ago
Let’s make everything legal!!
whalesalad 6y ago
I hope all drugs are legal before the end of my lifetime. We're making great progress with Cannabis and mushrooms.
joshxyz 6y ago
Viva colombia! Given the left and right decriminalization and legalization we are seeing these days this would be one of the greatest shifts in our world history
markus_zhang 6y ago
If we can't fight it then join them. I still don't quite understand this mentality although I know a lot of HN users may approve it. I'd rather have a stronger central gov that can fight the war instead of giving up and joining the game.
- avianlyric 6y ago
  You’re making the assumption that the war is just, fair and in the best interests of the people. Don’t think anyone’s interested in a strong central government fighting unfair, unjust wars that just victimise their people. With regards to the war on drugs. That was never started with noble intentions, and has pretty much failed. This is not so much “joining them” as accepting the reality that maybe the whole war was bad idea from the start.
- thatguy0900 6y ago
  It doesn't really seem like a war that can be won, the harder you crack down the more expensive it gets and the more incentive gangs have to try and make it.
- Dirlewanger 6y ago
  Because fighting it has been doing on for decades with 0 progress and the only winners being a massively powerful black market cartel.
- simonswords82 6y ago
  The law was never intended to prosecute people for what they do to themselves. Furthermore this is not a "war", and if it is a war - don't you think that after 40+ years of trying to win it the people doing the fighting (the government) should be praised for wondering whether they will ever win it?
Shorel 6y ago
This leftist senator has minimal support. Something like this will never happen, particularly with the current right wing government.
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  If the US gets national legalized weed under an aggressively centrist Biden administration, and then the likes of Phillip Morris gobble up much of the industry, expect the situation abroad to change really fast.
  - Shorel 6y ago
    Not even relevant. Right wing supporters control all the industries and therefore the government. Drugs can be legal in all other countries in America (north and south) and we will still be radicalized about the idea of legalization.
    - Ericson2314 6y ago
      Right-wing moralists do not control industry. Right wing moralist and capitalists have aligned themselves with a common enemy, but the capitalists can break that coalition whenever they want, and generally prefer to maintain relations with all major political parties. (Don't underestimate deaccelerationist business support for Biden.)
      - Shorel 6y ago
        I am writing about Colombian capitalists. They seem to align themselves with the extreme right, including paramilitary forces.
        Ericson2314 6y ago
        Semi-legal industry ever could still fit their interests. Like as in Russia.
  - 6y ago
jrochkind1 6y ago
In the past, I believe the U.S. would not have allowed this. And the U.S. has some very "persuasive" mechanisms to not allow Latin American countries to do things, in explicit or implicit, overt or covert ways. I am no fan of the Trump administration, but honestly they should have tried this while Trump was still in office, they would have had more chance of getting away with it. For whatever reason "drugs" never really became one of Trumps hot button issues (which kind of surprised me; it used to be a right-wing trigger, but apparently is no longer?), and the Trump administration didn't see to care at all about traditional U.S. foreign policy objectives (for good or ill; in this case it would be for good), or anything that wasn't one of his hot-button issues.
- hackeraccount 6y ago
  The U.S.? Do you think China would like this? Even Europe? You think Europe would be gung ho for a bunch of Columbian cocaine rolling into their country? Really? Maybe Columbia will legalize but I would tend to think 95% of the rest of the world will say "we're going to make importing it illegal" and after that the Columbian government is going to have a lot of people knocking on their door asking them to help stop Columbians who are exporting to places that don't want it. And when they either can't or won't do that there are going to be consequences. But who knows. Maybe it'll all work out. I don't think so though and I don't think it's just a matter of U.S. thinking it a bad idea.
  - jrochkind1 6y ago
    Importing it is already illegal in most of the world (including the US, Europe, and China), that would not be something the rest of the world has to do, it's already done. Perhaps Columbia is hoping it will change. The U.S. is historically the actor with the desire and power to enforce this sort of thing on Latin America, with both carrot and stick. Other countries can decide they care and want to try to enforce it (although the U.S. is the powerful country that's closest to Latin America). I'm not sure if I'd expect them to try or not, really. One example of what the U.S. has done is require toxic spraying of coca crop in Columbia, even though it causes health and pollution problems. In some cases it's even U.S. planes doing it, whether Columbia likes it or not (how would anyone else like it if a foreign country insisted on their right to spray toxic chemicals without permission?) But googling for a cite for that... I see I was wrong about the Trump administration, they actually were trying to force Columbia to start doing the spraying again. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-colombia-drugs/colombia-will-have-to-restart-aerial-spraying-to-destroy-coca-trump-idUSKBN20P2WT https://www.reuters.com/article/us-colombia-drugs/colombia-w...
blindm 6y ago
I can't understand the fascination people have for coke. It's a terrible drug, and consumed in a filthy way through the nose which damages it and adds extra mucus. And as for the effects - it just makes your heart beat faster and makes you loquacious/chatty. But that's about it. For me it doesn't make me feel 'buzzy' or even trippy in any way, just makes me feel like I had a good running session, but without the effort of running (even with purer/strong coke). And it was even an ingredient in Coca-cola until it was eventually removed after cocaine became widely prohibited. For me adding lignocaine[0] to a bit of caffeine produces the same effect. I just don't see the allure and fascination. Anyone else think it's a shitty drug? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidocaine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidocaine
- c-c-c-c-c 6y ago
  Hollywood and status. Its the world we live that promotes it!
- minikites 6y ago
  When you describe it in a clinical way, what's the appeal of any drug? Alcohol is literally poisonous to your body. Cigarette packaging in some countries has to be plasters with images of tumorous lungs and other smoking related injuries. Caffeine is a result of evolution selecting for plants with the ability to produce a natural pesticide, but I doubt coffee and tea drinkers think of caffeine as a pesticide.
- tmpz22 6y ago
  It’s an incredibly potent high and being loquacious and increasing heart rate is like saying a car speeds up travel just a little bit over walking. For me it’s the incredibly short half life of the drug leading to a massive craving for more only ~20 minutes later. It turns people with addictive tendencies into annoying ass holes as they follow the friend who has more around the room constantly. Seeing how people act when they want to get more should be required media just so they can understand the behavioral changes everyone one misses when they are the one who is high.
sanguy 6y ago
What a perfect posting for Hunter Biden in the new administration!
motohagiography 6y ago
Appreciating the irony that Columbia's strategy to destroy an industry that not even decades of U.S. military intervention could slow is to buy up the coca crops and turn it into a government monopoly not unlike Canada's wheat board and dairy policies, or Quebec's syrup cartel. Yes, that is basically how you remove the opportunity from an industry. Columbia could be wealthier than Saudi Arabia with a legal cocaine industry. Trouble with that is it becomes "resource cursed," as the economy won't diversify, the government and military/police can fund itself from the drug proceeds, and there is no incentive for the govt to implement policies to help citizens, whose tax dollars and consent they no longer need. I'm not against the legalization, but it might not solve the problem they believe. Consider that all the horror and expense of the war on drugs was still preferable to what could have been resolved with an equally brutal but much narrower and shorter war on public corruption.
- Cactus2018 6y ago
  Fun Syrup Cartel story https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Canadian_Maple_Syrup_Heis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Canadian_Maple_Syrup_Hei... t
- boterock 6y ago
  War on drugs is what corrupts do to divert politics from fighting the corruption on politics. They just keep blaming the country problems to cocaine, otherwise the blame would fall on themselves.
abfan1127 6y ago
The more interesting question is: Once legal, we assume the cartels will lose profit margins as competitors move in. But, will the cartels move their violence to shutting down the competition? Or is this a bluff to calm the cartels down, because they both know it will eat into their profits.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > But, will the cartels move their violence to shutting down the competition? Maybe, but then the government resources that went into fighting the cartels with the goal of eradication can go into fighting the cartels with the goal of suppressing unauthorized violence, with the financial support (through taxation) of the drug profits from the law abiding competition. (If they aren't amnestied for past violence, that probably happens to the cartels anyway; if they are, they are faced with a choice of peace and trying to monopolize the market from an initially-advantaged position peacefully and waging war on the competition which inevitably becomes a return to war with the government, but now with the competition's profits funding the government effort rather than the competition facing the same suppression and dividing government resources.)
- emiliobumachar 6y ago
  Organized crime does maintain violent monopolies on legal goods in various times and places, but that tends to be much smaller than illegal markets.
chairmanwow1 6y ago
I feel like many of the comments here are missing the greater point of the legalization. It seems fairly well targeted at the 200k Colombians that are employed in the production of cocaine. These people have multiple generations that have grown up with this industry being a fantastic way to make a living. The cat and mouse game of destroying the growing fields has led to an expanded destruction of Columbia’s rain forrest. To me this policy seems like a social policy to bring these people on the right side of the law, limit the additives, and most important have a hand in distribution. Honestly, the point the author makes about protecting the lives of Columbians is included by necessity, but it is argued weakly. It seems that other comments seemed to have latched onto this idea. To me, this seems like a pretty innovative policy for a Columbia.
justicezyx 6y ago
Look at the insanity we are descending to...
greengrom 6y ago
It seems to me that this can be done in a country with a stable economy and a minimum crime rate. For the situation in the country to be stable. Sorry, no offence
inson 6y ago
I've recently finished watching Narcos on Netflix and this news comes out... Is the whole planet in depression or something ? Why in the world people would think about legalization of cocaine when it kills you eventually. Cannabis and alcohol is different thing. Economy?! There are different way to support economy, get rid off mafia and narcos first.
rv-de 6y ago
I'd argue this is bad timing. Biden won't let that slip.
tangbaohn 6y ago
Just curious.. Why people cannot buy all prescriptions directly from stores, like all other OTCs? Mistakenly using prescriptions just hurt the user himself/herself, no 3rd party involved.
Communitivity 6y ago
It's going to be an interesting problem for the US and other UN Security Council countries if Colombia legalizes the cocaine industry, but the rest of the world does not. Cocaine is a huge industry, and I wonder how much of Colombia is controlled by that industry. If it's a large percentage, then that could be driving this too. There is a precedent, Afghanistan and opium production. Opium provides about 400,000 jobs in Afghanistan, more than the Afghani National Security Forces. To be clear, I am not taking a stance on morality of it. I think smaller countries will look to leverage the vices of the larger countries into sources of income, as economies of smaller countries around the world suffer more due to climate change, increased diseases, and resource scarcity.
wayanon 6y ago
Never taken drugs or even smoked but bravo Colombia! We should decriminalise/legalise drugs.
dr_dshiv 6y ago
I'm not a big fan of cocaine -- i don't really get the appeal. But I'd totally go for coca tea or even the leaves themselves. It's hard to see someone ruining their lives over those modes of ingestion.
werber 6y ago
I’ve done cocaine and overdosed because of it being laced with fentanyl. It should be legal just so people don’t instantly die, it’s about equal to alcohol and we stigmatise it and it’s users into horrible places
DoctorNick 6y ago
CIA: "What's that? You want ANOTHER coup? Ok..."
dr_dshiv 6y ago
Whatever happened to the "cognitive liberty" movement? I always thought that was the best rationale for a regulated, open-drug policy. Buy whatever you like, with a license. Abuse the privilege (e.g, drunk driving) license is suspended.
ta1234567890 6y ago
As in the title of the article, the name of the country is Colombia, there are no u's in there.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
rcardo11 6y ago
Sooner or later all analyses for many problems here in Colombia (e.g. violence, poverty, education, corruption et al) get to the conclusion that drug trafficking influences if it's not the root cause for all of them. If you as the government take the monopoly of drugs then drug trafficking is over and with it many other problems. The key is, taking that monopoly has side-effects for us like being put on US blacklists which will badly affect our economy in other ways. We've been talking about this for a long time and have concluded that legalization in the states is the only way [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/04/us/ballot-measures-propositions-2020.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/04/us/ballot-measures-propos...
dfilppi 6y ago
Good idea. And now they can fill up container ships with cubic acres of coke and go straight to Portland.
yholio 6y ago
The end game of such a strategy doesn't sound too bright. Recreational cocaine will be still ilegal in any other country and the internal and medical markets are not significant to the problem. So you are legalizing an export industry that cannot be lawfully exported anywhere in quantity. This is problematic for many reasons. By necessity the legal producers will have to sell large quantities to clandestine entities that export unlawfully it out of the county (since nobody would accept a lawful import with all the required customs paperwork). The value chain will push prices down in the supply and manufacture and reward the international smugglers who take the risks and can eliminate competition by forming cartels. So you will have immensely powerful cartels based in Colombia that purchase in bulk on the legal market, that can bribe politicians to maintain a favorable regulatory framework, you get the whole Escobar situation, state capture and narco-state structures. The next fallout is diplomatic. Countries served by smugglers based in Colombia will ask for cooperation to stop those export routes. You either ignore them and get sanctions or military action, or you put pressure on the legal industry, driving it underground again.
- dcolkitt 6y ago
  That analysis sounds compelling, but doesn't really match up with the experience of state-level cannabis legalization in the US. For two years, Colorado was the only state in the US with legal cannabis, let alone the world. Did cannabis get exported from Colorado? Absolutely. Did it corrupt the legal industry or the Colorado state government? Not to any extent, I'm aware. Like you said, the margin on inter-state smuggling are so large, that there's no reason for exporters to even bother with grey market wholesale sourcing to save a few pennies. Just source retail, then ship overseas. Back of the envelope math. Let's say cocaine is recreationally legal in Colombia and retailed at $5/gram. (Black market prices inside Colombia are already cheaper than this.) Let's say wholesale production costs $1000/kilo. Current wholesale smuggling prices in the US are $25,000/kilo in the US, and double that in Europe. The simplest option for any would-be is just to have smurfs continuously accumulate recreational product from Colombian legal retailers. Then package small-scale retail buys into wholesale international shipment. Trying to buy wholesale from produces only increases profit margins by ~20%, and makes your operation a lot more visible and attackable. Pablo Escobar was a different beast because he had to run an enormous and visible illegal operation inside Colombia. He needed farms, processing facilities and all the logistics that come with that. That required bribing a lot of politicians to protect those operations. A post-legalization Escobar doesn't need anything more than a warehouse, a small payroll of shoppers, a Silk Road account, and some international postage. This isn't speculation, it's pretty much how the large-scale MDMA traffickers (who are so lightly prosecuted that it might as well be legal) operate in Holland.
wizardforhire 6y ago
After reading the article and skimming the 300+ comments already on this thread I’m afraid ya’ll are missing the forrest for the trees here. This isn’t a drug issue although ethically this should have been done years ago! THIS IS A GLOBAL WARMING ISSUE and a HUMAN RIGHTS issue! 300,000 hectares of forests destroyed a year is roughly 1100 square miles! Anybody care to do the calculations on the carbon sink on that!? 200,000 families! Not people, FAMILIES! These aren’t nuclear families either. There could be close to a million people (if they each have 3 kids on average) that would not be subject to cartels and forced to live in hiding. Holy shit this would be a huge win!
vmception 6y ago
narcostate for real this time! wooohoo
nitwit005 6y ago
Currently, the government tries to switch people to other crops, but there has been violence related to that effort, as it obviously cuts off the drug traffickers supply of coca. This just seems like it will produce the same sort of problem, where people selling to the government will be threatened.
scotty79 6y ago
I read that only a small fraction of people who take cocaine get addicted. Shouldn't we figure some (genetic?) tests so anyone check if he can safely use or is prone to addiction?
hugozap 6y ago
I hope, but both narcos and the military complex business would get affected so I doubt it will happen.
FpUser 6y ago
>"First, you would bring 200,000 families into a legal sphere where they would no longer be persecuted by the state." The law might be stupid but if they're currently illegal they're rather prosecuted, not persecuted. At least technically.
octodog 6y ago
I hate headlines like this. It's one senator who has introduced a bill, not the government actively considering it. In fact it mentions that both mainstream parties are strongly against the policy.
- unityByFreedom 6y ago
  Thank you for the context. I don't appreciate being misled like this either.

542 points by prostoalex 6y ago

> The programs for coca eradication each year cost four trillion pesos ($1 billion). Buying the entire coca harvest each year would cost 2.6 trillion pesos ($680 million). It costs less to buy the harvest than to destroy it. Yeah, I don't know how long that'll stay true when you have a guaranteed buyer for a product...

jaywalk 6y ago
It'll always stay true, because they're buying it to sell it. And just like the producers will have a guaranteed buyer, so will the government.
- azundo 6y ago
  That's assuming the current $1B does nothing to disincentiveize production which can't be true.
  - jaywalk 6y ago
    Well the article does mention that they'll be paying market price for the coca. If the price goes up, they pay more and pass it on down the line. The government will literally be manufacturing cocaine, and even excluding recreational use there is still a high demand for it that isn't currently being met. They'll be printing money.
    - bbreier 6y ago
      Yea I'm not sure I understand how people are coming to the conclusion that Colombia will find a way to make selling cocaine into an unprofitable endeavor
alpaca128 6y ago
It tends to backfire so well there's a name for it[0]. And the current drug economy isn't just going to disappear just because someone else wants to pay for it. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect
- alex_smart 6y ago
  I am about zero percent surprised that this is named after something that happened in India. Our entire country is built with layers upon layers of incorrect economical/political stimuli and their unintended consequences. Example: Some measures taken in the 60s and 70s to increase grain production caused groundwater levels in some states to deplete alarmingly a few decades later. To protect the groundwater levels, a law was passed in 2009 that now, along with the original measures, causes the pollution level of the national capital shoot through the roof (pm 2.5 > 500) every winter.
  - godelski 6y ago
    A lot of these, and the Cobra effect, are really consequences of Goodheart's Law[0]: > When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. These should make people think carefully about the metrics and targets used, but that seldom seems to happen. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
strig 6y ago
Could they not just pay them whatever profit they would normally get to not produce anything?
- Rapzid 6y ago
  That does nothing for demand so the price would to through the roof. All the people you're not paying to not grow will step in to fill that demand.
- raincom 6y ago
  This works if there is no collusion between politicians, the law enforcement, cartels and criminal elements.

mahesh_rm 6y ago

I don't know about cocaine, but I know a little about Colombia. This is a bold move that could single-handedly project the Country to a first world player position.

Donald 6y ago
Can you describe a little more?
- mahesh_rm 6y ago
  Illegal Groups handling cocaine production and smuggling ("Narco-Guerrilla" and "Narco-Paramilitares") are de-facto creating a network of corruption and outright soldier recruitment, which has been the main factor of destabilization for Colombia in the last 20 years. This is especially true for rural areas. A Government sponsored Cooperative that handles cultivation of Coca would make earnings of Coca farmers legitimate, de facto improving their life conditions and the ones of their families. These resources would help bringing basic education to rural areas, while reducing the amount of conflict sponsored by armed illegals.
  - boterock 6y ago
    I would like to deepen a bit on "guerilla" and "paramilitaries": * Guerilla is a movement born and driven by farmers, where they weren't receiving aids from the central government, so they got into this business so they could afford themselves some security and sovereignty over the government that wouldn't care less about these country people. * Paramilitaries are more like mercenaries. They would basically be the guys that would do the dirty work of killing people that there is no reason to kill legally (i.e. enemies that the army should fight). These paramilitary groups have been hired (or created) by corrupt politicians and big companies to seize lands rich in gold or oil from their rightful owners. These groups would also end up being part of the trafficking networks. The current president has been demonstrated to have relationship with these paramilitary trafficking groups. That is why the president isn't pushing any effort that would affect the way the cartels work. Congress is pushing in this direction, but the government party is still majority in the congress, so it has been a challenge. A government entity that manages Cocaine networks would be a big opportunity for growing businesses, as it happens with some of the liquor brewers in the country. But that is directly against the interests of the current president. We all hope to change this in the next elections, as the current cartels are so powerful that they buy out, blackmail and kill almost any judge, senator, entity or individual that tries to fight back.

optimalsolver 6y ago

US gov will never allow it.

bovermyer 6y ago
Colombia, whatever the US government may think, is a sovereign entity. The US might apply pressure, but right now, the US isn't thinking about much beyond its own borders.
- nicoburns 6y ago
  The US has shown itself willing to topple foreign governments (including in latin America) before. But perhaps they've learnt their lesson by now. It seems like the end of the War on Drugs is coming, even in the US.
- LanceH 6y ago
  We're miles head and already banning straws.
- modzu 6y ago
  do you realize the us has 7 military bases in columbia?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dunefox 6y ago
  Yeah, the US don't have a history of attacking and destabilising other countries, especially in south america.
  - tehjoker 6y ago
    Amusingly, the US also has a history of shipping cocaine in military planes to fund their black-ops even when congress explicitly prohibits those operations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/index.html https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/index.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_drug_trafficking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_drug_traffi... If you think all that stuff is in the past, check out the US military defending poppy fields in Afghanistan. https://www.mintpressnews.com/opioid-crisis-trump-troops-afghanistan-poppies/231216/ https://www.mintpressnews.com/opioid-crisis-trump-troops-afg... For a good rap by Killer Mike look no further than: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lIqNjC1RKU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lIqNjC1RKU

sandworm101 6y ago

Won't happen. The US sends massive amounts of aid to columbia, both cash and military support. That is premised on the drug war. Legalize cocaine harvesting and that aid probably stops. "U.S. bilateral foreign assistance of $391 million - a part of the Administrations's $450 million whole of government request to support Colombia" https://foreignassistance.gov/explore/country/Colombia https://foreignassistance.gov/explore/country/Colombia All agency US aid: 800million https://explorer.usaid.gov/cd/COL https://explorer.usaid.gov/cd/COL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Colombia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Colombia "The official objectives of Plan Colombia were to end the Colombian armed conflict by increasing funding and training of Colombian military and para-military forces and creating an anti-cocaine strategy to eradicate coca cultivation. Partly as a result of the plan, FARC lost much of its power against the Colombian government, and cocaine production in Colombia dropped 72% from 2001 to 2012."

nicoburns 6y ago
I mean this article claims they'd save $320 million. And that's presumably before they sell any cocaine or other products they produce with the leaves. So it seems like it could be workable.
- sandworm101 6y ago
  >> they sell any cocaine Lol. Take that money I mentioned above, all that military aid. If the Columbian government starts selling cocaine that money will fund the US military invasion of columbia. The US might be on the brink of legalizing weed, but it is a long long way from accepting colombia as an official narco state.
  - tonywastaken 6y ago
    Venezuela is already a narco state, no invasion there
    - martamorena9182 6y ago

bondarchuk 6y ago

>"US government will not allow it" Also my instinctive first thought, but actually I have to wonder why they care so much?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

caymanjim 6y ago

This article is ridiculous. The domestic cocaine industry in Colombia is irrelevant. The international market is what drives production. Regardless of domestic legality, international trade isn't going to become legal just because Colombia wants it to. Even if the US didn't interfere internally, they (and the UN and others) wouldn't change their stance on international trade. The government purchasing domestic production would only increase domestic production, and when they ultimately stopped buying it up due to cost and cancelled the entire program, the international market would be flooded with even more cocaine, and the economic disruption would cause even more internal conflict. Cocaine should be legal everywhere. It's not, though, so this is a stupid idea. A giant unsustainable agricultural subsidy isn't going to reduce domestic production when the entire market is international. On the contrary, it will only increase the size of the market and the amount of violent criminal behavior associated with it. By all means decriminalize consumption (which they've already done), but until there's a legal international market, don't subsidize it.

dfsegoat 6y ago
Not an expert, but knowing what I do about the drug war and our involvement in it: A lot of the domestic pressure within Colombia, MX etc. comes FROM international partners, like the US - Colombia gets a ton [~500M USD] of defense and security related funding for it [1], and we send military partner forces there to train their military and security forces. All of that would need to be unwound as matter of course, regardless of whether or not the plan makes sense. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Colombia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Colombia
Geminidog 6y ago
There's certainly a lot of benefits of legalizing cocaine or heroin. But legalization also increases exposure to say like kids. I know I sipped some alcohol before I turned 21, what if I tried shooting up on heroin or sniffing coke? I think the story here is much more complicated then "legalize" it. Certainly the drug war was a huge mistake but completely legalizing drugs isn't exactly the right solution either. The current opioid epidemic is the result of legalization through medical usage. I'm also willing to bet that people who support complete legalization are users either casual or frequent (not necessarily addicts) so there's a personal agenda going on here as well. Is there anyone who is completely drug free who supports total legalization?

lordnacho 6y ago

My main question around legalization is how the transition happens. It seems to me that people who are already in the drugs business are at an advantage if we change the law to make things legal. I don't like the idea of enriching people who earlier made a living out of murdering their rivals, and I get this suspicion that they aren't going to immediately drop their whole muscle operation when they go legit. I simply disbelieve the idea that a random legit businessperson could decide to go into the drugs trade without fearing harassment from the existing players, as well as gain knowledge in the area without having to associate with the formerly criminal. What are some ways to address this? Any early indications from other places?

nmca 6y ago
How great would the benefit to humanity be, pricing in uncertainty of a practical legalisation scheme, before you'd be happy for the cartel leaders to get off scott-free? I haven't done the numbers in this case, but surely there are instances in the world where giving up on the prospect of individual retribution is worth the societal gain?
Shacklz 6y ago
The difference between a legit businessperson getting into the trade and an existing criminal is that one has the protection of the state/police etc. and the other does not. One could argue the same about the illegal bootleggers during the prohibition - might have taken a while to get rid of the criminal elements, but it did work out in the end, not?
GekkePrutser 6y ago
(Reply to nmca below, not sure why this shows above). If you make something legal you give them an incentive to obey rules. Yes they're very bad people, but it will attract better people as well. Once they become legal businessmen they will have something to lose. It will take time yes. But it will happen. Policy should still be very tough on actors using violence, for example those private cartel armies should not be tolerated in the legal model. But as the price drops due to legalisation they will have no way to pay for all those things anymore. And yes the US prohibition is a great example as others have mentioned. The alcohol trade went mob-free pretty quickly.

GekkePrutser 6y ago

Good idea. Fighting it only makes the product more valuable, and the cartels more powerful. In the Netherlands we have really good experience with legalisation. Cannabis is legal and hard drugs (or substitutes) are provided to long-term addicts only. It drives prices down, reducing black market profits and thus the power of cartels. Promotes legal vendors to abide by rules (or they'll lose their license) and makes it possible to have checks on the products to make sure they're safe, not mixed with real toxins. And the lower street price reduces crime around drugs (like theft, addicts stealing to pay for their hit) Banning drug use by force is a US pipe dream. It's impossible. All it provides is a pork barrel for drug agencies, weapons manufacturers etc. It escalates the price. They haven't made a dent in the 40 years of the war on drugs. When the demand doesn't cease, all you do is make the product more expensive and the ones that provide it more powerful. PS: I never used drugs of any kind (except alcohol ;) )

YorickPeterse 6y ago
> Cannabis is legal It's technically illegal by law, it's just condoned/tolerated under certain regulations. There have been plans to make it fully legal, but it's not really going anywhere if I'm not mistaken.
- intricatedetail 6y ago
  Correct. Cannabis in coffee shops comes from black market and is not regulated in any way. Government basically gives organised crime tax free market of a highly desirable product.
  - roywashere 6y ago
    In most of the USA cannabis is much more allowed than in The Netherlands nowadays!
    - joejerryronnie 6y ago
      In the Bay Area, I can roll into a high end dispensary that feels like a Beverly Hills wellness spa. The breadth of product is amazing and the associates are super positive and knowledgable. Almost feels a bit bougie :)

anm89 6y ago

People in this thread seem to think it is some law of physics that the US gets to "allow" policies in other countries. We "allow" policy and action by other sovereigns to the extent that we have the ability to enforce our will upon them. Just because we have had this ability to varying extents over the last 50 -70 years, does not mean we have the exact same capabilities right now. US GDP is declining as a share of world GDP. US in no longer the biggest importer of commodities like we were for most of the time that we were "allowing" policies in other countries, and our international alliances are substantially more fractured then they were over most of that period. The fact that the US has had an outlier position in terms of Geopolitical influence for the last half century is not a guarantee of this being true in the future.

joejerryronnie 6y ago
Well, we still have the largest and deadliest army in the world (by orders of magnitude) and the US dollar is the world’s currency. So, while our diplomatic influence may have waned a bit, the US still exerts the lion’s share of hard and soft influence around the world.
- abfan1127 6y ago
  I thought China had a larger army? https://www.brookings.edu/articles/chinas-hollow-military https://www.brookings.edu/articles/chinas-hollow-military
  - joejerryronnie 6y ago
    China is significantly upscaling their army in terms of numbers, technology, and capability - and will be a real threat to the US in a decade if left unchecked. But for now, the US army has far greater destructive force and reach than China.
- mattlondon 6y ago
  Dollar is not the currency where I live.

intricatedetail 6y ago

That would be amazing and I wholeheartedly support it despite never trying this drug and having friends struggling to quit. Governments should make drug taking as safe as possible. People who use black market drugs experience most problems from contamination and unknown strength. Then these accidents are attributed to the substance itself. Prime example is teenagers overdosing PMA thinking it is ecstasy and MDMA taking the blame. At least you can see which media are trustworthy through this lens of dishonest reporting.

Mountain_Skies 6y ago

What happens to all of the government employees who have been given extensive experience in combat against the coca industry? Will they suddenly end up unemployed with a skillset that is primarily based on violence and imposing control? Even if they have used those skill for what they believed to have been positive goals, when they need to feed their families, who is going to be the buyer for those skills? Hopefully the government has considered this and has some sort of plan for easing these people into other lines of work.

tehjoker 6y ago
Amazingly, the USG never asked those questions about disbanding the Iraqi army and we got ISIS.
Ericson2314 6y ago
The other cartels disappear, and "goon vets" will probably form their own if they aren't already double-dealing, but they will all be a lot less extremely as faking domestic consumption opens a legal grey area. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/23/how-organised-crime-took-over-russia-vory-super-mafia https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/23/how-organised-c... would end up like this if everything averaged out, but while the USSR was basically turned into neoliberal hell, the trajectory in Colombia is much much more optimistic so I suspect the outcome will be far better. It's Mexico and Central America I'm more worried about than Colombia.

sadfev 6y ago

Let’s make everything legal!!

whalesalad 6y ago

I hope all drugs are legal before the end of my lifetime. We're making great progress with Cannabis and mushrooms.

joshxyz 6y ago

Viva colombia! Given the left and right decriminalization and legalization we are seeing these days this would be one of the greatest shifts in our world history

markus_zhang 6y ago

If we can't fight it then join them. I still don't quite understand this mentality although I know a lot of HN users may approve it. I'd rather have a stronger central gov that can fight the war instead of giving up and joining the game.

avianlyric 6y ago
You’re making the assumption that the war is just, fair and in the best interests of the people. Don’t think anyone’s interested in a strong central government fighting unfair, unjust wars that just victimise their people. With regards to the war on drugs. That was never started with noble intentions, and has pretty much failed. This is not so much “joining them” as accepting the reality that maybe the whole war was bad idea from the start.
thatguy0900 6y ago
It doesn't really seem like a war that can be won, the harder you crack down the more expensive it gets and the more incentive gangs have to try and make it.
Dirlewanger 6y ago
Because fighting it has been doing on for decades with 0 progress and the only winners being a massively powerful black market cartel.
simonswords82 6y ago
The law was never intended to prosecute people for what they do to themselves. Furthermore this is not a "war", and if it is a war - don't you think that after 40+ years of trying to win it the people doing the fighting (the government) should be praised for wondering whether they will ever win it?

Shorel 6y ago

This leftist senator has minimal support. Something like this will never happen, particularly with the current right wing government.

Ericson2314 6y ago
If the US gets national legalized weed under an aggressively centrist Biden administration, and then the likes of Phillip Morris gobble up much of the industry, expect the situation abroad to change really fast.
- Shorel 6y ago
  Not even relevant. Right wing supporters control all the industries and therefore the government. Drugs can be legal in all other countries in America (north and south) and we will still be radicalized about the idea of legalization.
  - Ericson2314 6y ago
    Right-wing moralists do not control industry. Right wing moralist and capitalists have aligned themselves with a common enemy, but the capitalists can break that coalition whenever they want, and generally prefer to maintain relations with all major political parties. (Don't underestimate deaccelerationist business support for Biden.)
    - Shorel 6y ago
      I am writing about Colombian capitalists. They seem to align themselves with the extreme right, including paramilitary forces.
      - Ericson2314 6y ago
        Semi-legal industry ever could still fit their interests. Like as in Russia.
- 6y ago

jrochkind1 6y ago

In the past, I believe the U.S. would not have allowed this. And the U.S. has some very "persuasive" mechanisms to not allow Latin American countries to do things, in explicit or implicit, overt or covert ways. I am no fan of the Trump administration, but honestly they should have tried this while Trump was still in office, they would have had more chance of getting away with it. For whatever reason "drugs" never really became one of Trumps hot button issues (which kind of surprised me; it used to be a right-wing trigger, but apparently is no longer?), and the Trump administration didn't see to care at all about traditional U.S. foreign policy objectives (for good or ill; in this case it would be for good), or anything that wasn't one of his hot-button issues.

hackeraccount 6y ago
The U.S.? Do you think China would like this? Even Europe? You think Europe would be gung ho for a bunch of Columbian cocaine rolling into their country? Really? Maybe Columbia will legalize but I would tend to think 95% of the rest of the world will say "we're going to make importing it illegal" and after that the Columbian government is going to have a lot of people knocking on their door asking them to help stop Columbians who are exporting to places that don't want it. And when they either can't or won't do that there are going to be consequences. But who knows. Maybe it'll all work out. I don't think so though and I don't think it's just a matter of U.S. thinking it a bad idea.
- jrochkind1 6y ago
  Importing it is already illegal in most of the world (including the US, Europe, and China), that would not be something the rest of the world has to do, it's already done. Perhaps Columbia is hoping it will change. The U.S. is historically the actor with the desire and power to enforce this sort of thing on Latin America, with both carrot and stick. Other countries can decide they care and want to try to enforce it (although the U.S. is the powerful country that's closest to Latin America). I'm not sure if I'd expect them to try or not, really. One example of what the U.S. has done is require toxic spraying of coca crop in Columbia, even though it causes health and pollution problems. In some cases it's even U.S. planes doing it, whether Columbia likes it or not (how would anyone else like it if a foreign country insisted on their right to spray toxic chemicals without permission?) But googling for a cite for that... I see I was wrong about the Trump administration, they actually were trying to force Columbia to start doing the spraying again. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-colombia-drugs/colombia-will-have-to-restart-aerial-spraying-to-destroy-coca-trump-idUSKBN20P2WT https://www.reuters.com/article/us-colombia-drugs/colombia-w...

blindm 6y ago

I can't understand the fascination people have for coke. It's a terrible drug, and consumed in a filthy way through the nose which damages it and adds extra mucus. And as for the effects - it just makes your heart beat faster and makes you loquacious/chatty. But that's about it. For me it doesn't make me feel 'buzzy' or even trippy in any way, just makes me feel like I had a good running session, but without the effort of running (even with purer/strong coke). And it was even an ingredient in Coca-cola until it was eventually removed after cocaine became widely prohibited. For me adding lignocaine[0] to a bit of caffeine produces the same effect. I just don't see the allure and fascination. Anyone else think it's a shitty drug? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidocaine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidocaine

c-c-c-c-c 6y ago
Hollywood and status. Its the world we live that promotes it!
minikites 6y ago
When you describe it in a clinical way, what's the appeal of any drug? Alcohol is literally poisonous to your body. Cigarette packaging in some countries has to be plasters with images of tumorous lungs and other smoking related injuries. Caffeine is a result of evolution selecting for plants with the ability to produce a natural pesticide, but I doubt coffee and tea drinkers think of caffeine as a pesticide.
tmpz22 6y ago
It’s an incredibly potent high and being loquacious and increasing heart rate is like saying a car speeds up travel just a little bit over walking. For me it’s the incredibly short half life of the drug leading to a massive craving for more only ~20 minutes later. It turns people with addictive tendencies into annoying ass holes as they follow the friend who has more around the room constantly. Seeing how people act when they want to get more should be required media just so they can understand the behavioral changes everyone one misses when they are the one who is high.

sanguy 6y ago

What a perfect posting for Hunter Biden in the new administration!

motohagiography 6y ago

Appreciating the irony that Columbia's strategy to destroy an industry that not even decades of U.S. military intervention could slow is to buy up the coca crops and turn it into a government monopoly not unlike Canada's wheat board and dairy policies, or Quebec's syrup cartel. Yes, that is basically how you remove the opportunity from an industry. Columbia could be wealthier than Saudi Arabia with a legal cocaine industry. Trouble with that is it becomes "resource cursed," as the economy won't diversify, the government and military/police can fund itself from the drug proceeds, and there is no incentive for the govt to implement policies to help citizens, whose tax dollars and consent they no longer need. I'm not against the legalization, but it might not solve the problem they believe. Consider that all the horror and expense of the war on drugs was still preferable to what could have been resolved with an equally brutal but much narrower and shorter war on public corruption.

Cactus2018 6y ago
Fun Syrup Cartel story https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Canadian_Maple_Syrup_Heis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Canadian_Maple_Syrup_Hei... t
boterock 6y ago
War on drugs is what corrupts do to divert politics from fighting the corruption on politics. They just keep blaming the country problems to cocaine, otherwise the blame would fall on themselves.

abfan1127 6y ago

The more interesting question is: Once legal, we assume the cartels will lose profit margins as competitors move in. But, will the cartels move their violence to shutting down the competition? Or is this a bluff to calm the cartels down, because they both know it will eat into their profits.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> But, will the cartels move their violence to shutting down the competition? Maybe, but then the government resources that went into fighting the cartels with the goal of eradication can go into fighting the cartels with the goal of suppressing unauthorized violence, with the financial support (through taxation) of the drug profits from the law abiding competition. (If they aren't amnestied for past violence, that probably happens to the cartels anyway; if they are, they are faced with a choice of peace and trying to monopolize the market from an initially-advantaged position peacefully and waging war on the competition which inevitably becomes a return to war with the government, but now with the competition's profits funding the government effort rather than the competition facing the same suppression and dividing government resources.)
emiliobumachar 6y ago
Organized crime does maintain violent monopolies on legal goods in various times and places, but that tends to be much smaller than illegal markets.

chairmanwow1 6y ago

I feel like many of the comments here are missing the greater point of the legalization. It seems fairly well targeted at the 200k Colombians that are employed in the production of cocaine. These people have multiple generations that have grown up with this industry being a fantastic way to make a living. The cat and mouse game of destroying the growing fields has led to an expanded destruction of Columbia’s rain forrest. To me this policy seems like a social policy to bring these people on the right side of the law, limit the additives, and most important have a hand in distribution. Honestly, the point the author makes about protecting the lives of Columbians is included by necessity, but it is argued weakly. It seems that other comments seemed to have latched onto this idea. To me, this seems like a pretty innovative policy for a Columbia.

justicezyx 6y ago

Look at the insanity we are descending to...

greengrom 6y ago

It seems to me that this can be done in a country with a stable economy and a minimum crime rate. For the situation in the country to be stable. Sorry, no offence

inson 6y ago

I've recently finished watching Narcos on Netflix and this news comes out... Is the whole planet in depression or something ? Why in the world people would think about legalization of cocaine when it kills you eventually. Cannabis and alcohol is different thing. Economy?! There are different way to support economy, get rid off mafia and narcos first.

rv-de 6y ago

I'd argue this is bad timing. Biden won't let that slip.

tangbaohn 6y ago

Just curious.. Why people cannot buy all prescriptions directly from stores, like all other OTCs? Mistakenly using prescriptions just hurt the user himself/herself, no 3rd party involved.

Communitivity 6y ago

It's going to be an interesting problem for the US and other UN Security Council countries if Colombia legalizes the cocaine industry, but the rest of the world does not. Cocaine is a huge industry, and I wonder how much of Colombia is controlled by that industry. If it's a large percentage, then that could be driving this too. There is a precedent, Afghanistan and opium production. Opium provides about 400,000 jobs in Afghanistan, more than the Afghani National Security Forces. To be clear, I am not taking a stance on morality of it. I think smaller countries will look to leverage the vices of the larger countries into sources of income, as economies of smaller countries around the world suffer more due to climate change, increased diseases, and resource scarcity.

wayanon 6y ago

Never taken drugs or even smoked but bravo Colombia! We should decriminalise/legalise drugs.

dr_dshiv 6y ago

I'm not a big fan of cocaine -- i don't really get the appeal. But I'd totally go for coca tea or even the leaves themselves. It's hard to see someone ruining their lives over those modes of ingestion.

werber 6y ago

I’ve done cocaine and overdosed because of it being laced with fentanyl. It should be legal just so people don’t instantly die, it’s about equal to alcohol and we stigmatise it and it’s users into horrible places

DoctorNick 6y ago

CIA: "What's that? You want ANOTHER coup? Ok..."

dr_dshiv 6y ago

Whatever happened to the "cognitive liberty" movement? I always thought that was the best rationale for a regulated, open-drug policy. Buy whatever you like, with a license. Abuse the privilege (e.g, drunk driving) license is suspended.

ta1234567890 6y ago

As in the title of the article, the name of the country is Colombia, there are no u's in there.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

rcardo11 6y ago

Sooner or later all analyses for many problems here in Colombia (e.g. violence, poverty, education, corruption et al) get to the conclusion that drug trafficking influences if it's not the root cause for all of them. If you as the government take the monopoly of drugs then drug trafficking is over and with it many other problems. The key is, taking that monopoly has side-effects for us like being put on US blacklists which will badly affect our economy in other ways. We've been talking about this for a long time and have concluded that legalization in the states is the only way [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/04/us/ballot-measures-propositions-2020.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/04/us/ballot-measures-propos...

dfilppi 6y ago

Good idea. And now they can fill up container ships with cubic acres of coke and go straight to Portland.

yholio 6y ago

The end game of such a strategy doesn't sound too bright. Recreational cocaine will be still ilegal in any other country and the internal and medical markets are not significant to the problem. So you are legalizing an export industry that cannot be lawfully exported anywhere in quantity. This is problematic for many reasons. By necessity the legal producers will have to sell large quantities to clandestine entities that export unlawfully it out of the county (since nobody would accept a lawful import with all the required customs paperwork). The value chain will push prices down in the supply and manufacture and reward the international smugglers who take the risks and can eliminate competition by forming cartels. So you will have immensely powerful cartels based in Colombia that purchase in bulk on the legal market, that can bribe politicians to maintain a favorable regulatory framework, you get the whole Escobar situation, state capture and narco-state structures. The next fallout is diplomatic. Countries served by smugglers based in Colombia will ask for cooperation to stop those export routes. You either ignore them and get sanctions or military action, or you put pressure on the legal industry, driving it underground again.

dcolkitt 6y ago
That analysis sounds compelling, but doesn't really match up with the experience of state-level cannabis legalization in the US. For two years, Colorado was the only state in the US with legal cannabis, let alone the world. Did cannabis get exported from Colorado? Absolutely. Did it corrupt the legal industry or the Colorado state government? Not to any extent, I'm aware. Like you said, the margin on inter-state smuggling are so large, that there's no reason for exporters to even bother with grey market wholesale sourcing to save a few pennies. Just source retail, then ship overseas. Back of the envelope math. Let's say cocaine is recreationally legal in Colombia and retailed at $5/gram. (Black market prices inside Colombia are already cheaper than this.) Let's say wholesale production costs $1000/kilo. Current wholesale smuggling prices in the US are $25,000/kilo in the US, and double that in Europe. The simplest option for any would-be is just to have smurfs continuously accumulate recreational product from Colombian legal retailers. Then package small-scale retail buys into wholesale international shipment. Trying to buy wholesale from produces only increases profit margins by ~20%, and makes your operation a lot more visible and attackable. Pablo Escobar was a different beast because he had to run an enormous and visible illegal operation inside Colombia. He needed farms, processing facilities and all the logistics that come with that. That required bribing a lot of politicians to protect those operations. A post-legalization Escobar doesn't need anything more than a warehouse, a small payroll of shoppers, a Silk Road account, and some international postage. This isn't speculation, it's pretty much how the large-scale MDMA traffickers (who are so lightly prosecuted that it might as well be legal) operate in Holland.

wizardforhire 6y ago

After reading the article and skimming the 300+ comments already on this thread I’m afraid ya’ll are missing the forrest for the trees here. This isn’t a drug issue although ethically this should have been done years ago! THIS IS A GLOBAL WARMING ISSUE and a HUMAN RIGHTS issue! 300,000 hectares of forests destroyed a year is roughly 1100 square miles! Anybody care to do the calculations on the carbon sink on that!? 200,000 families! Not people, FAMILIES! These aren’t nuclear families either. There could be close to a million people (if they each have 3 kids on average) that would not be subject to cartels and forced to live in hiding. Holy shit this would be a huge win!

vmception 6y ago

narcostate for real this time! wooohoo

nitwit005 6y ago

Currently, the government tries to switch people to other crops, but there has been violence related to that effort, as it obviously cuts off the drug traffickers supply of coca. This just seems like it will produce the same sort of problem, where people selling to the government will be threatened.

scotty79 6y ago

I read that only a small fraction of people who take cocaine get addicted. Shouldn't we figure some (genetic?) tests so anyone check if he can safely use or is prone to addiction?

hugozap 6y ago

I hope, but both narcos and the military complex business would get affected so I doubt it will happen.

FpUser 6y ago

>"First, you would bring 200,000 families into a legal sphere where they would no longer be persecuted by the state." The law might be stupid but if they're currently illegal they're rather prosecuted, not persecuted. At least technically.

octodog 6y ago

I hate headlines like this. It's one senator who has introduced a bill, not the government actively considering it. In fact it mentions that both mainstream parties are strongly against the policy.

unityByFreedom 6y ago
Thank you for the context. I don't appreciate being misled like this either.