 |
| Marijuana farmer in central Jamaica |
According to Azam Ahmed writing in "Jamaica, Long Opposed to Marijuana, Now Wants to Cash In on It" (2016), there is now concern from the long-criminalised marijuana growers of Jamaica that they will miss out on a fair share in the profits as their government reverses decades of "draconian drug laws" to decriminalise the drug for the economic benefits of legal sale and use. Ahmed says that this follows relaxing of drug laws by the US administration of Obama, although under UN treaty obligations, the government of Jamaica can not technically legalise ganja.
_______________________________________
My response
The contrast between the sensible government of Jamaica, which follows the rapidly changing situation in many US states, and the morally evil situation in the Philippines could not be more stark. Like Thaksin in Thailand some years ago, the Philippines' President Duterte is eagerly killing his citizens against both reason and against good morals.
Unfortunately, the parallels between Duterte and Thaksin are even stronger. And since Duterte has himself already made the comparison, both share much in common with Hitler, who led Germany to murder, in accord with strict rule of law, millions of Jews, gays, blacks and other social garbage. Like Hitler, both Thaksin and Duterte were very popular. They were all elected by large majorities and in all three cases, their policies to solve social problems by getting rid of social garbage were popular across society, from people on the streets to hi-so types. The ugly similarities here remind us that just because some policy has great popular appeal, that does not make it right - the Germans who eagerly supported Hitler as he set about cleaning up their country, the Filipinos who are supporting Duterte as he cleans up their country, and the masses of Thais who supported Thaksin's war on drugs are all wrong and are guilty of great moral evil against their own fellow citizens.
I have trouble understanding why anyone would think it is even just to criminalize some drugs, such as heroin or yaa baa, when the most harmful drug of addiction, alcohol, is illegal. When intelligent young people see this, how can they possibly respect such law that is hypocritical, against reason and against good morals?
I think the explanation is that politicians and officials keep such disastrously failing drug laws because they are addicted to the drug mafias and corruption that come from such laws. After decades of evidence, it is clear that laws against the sale and use of drugs benefit exactly two groups in society: drug mafias and corrupt officials. So, why do so many politicians, police and others want to continue supporting these two groups in society? What is so wonderful about drug mafias and corrupt officials that they should get government income support denied other groups like farmers?
_______________________________________
Reference
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure why we ban drugs in our countries so do many other countries. I could be for the reason that a drug addict could inflict harm to people surrounding him or her. When I studied in primary school there were many seminar relating to the harm of drug including heroin, med amphetamine and so on . I think they jus make consumers become crazy and harm others. This might be the reason why we ban it; however, I cannot refute that some countries that allow marihuana trade in their countries don't have a corresponding number of crime. Let me see to provide a further information to oppose to the sale of this drug, we may have to look back to the time of China's empire. As we know that the empire's collapse was largely attributed to import of opium from England which make China weaker and weaker. I think we might have to weigh between pros and cons before taking action. Perhaps in the future when everyone is well informed on how to intake those drugs properly. Permission on their trades could be possible. Nonetheless, we cannot afford additional adversities that we might have to bear by having them.
ReplyDeleteThe Chinese experience with opium shows that the drug can have serious social consequences. But that same experience also supports that making it illegal does not help to reduce the social problems.
DeleteOpium had been legal for centuries in China before it was criminalized: the Thai kings used to send part of their tribute to the Chinese Emperor in the form of opium, which was much prized for medical benefits that were often as fantastic as the belief that rhinoceros horn increases sexual virility. My guess is that opium might make people feel more sexually aroused, but so does alcohol, which also undermines sexual performance.
According to Wikipedia, opium as a legal, taxable good in China from 1589. It was only after the importation was made illegal by imperial decree in 1729 that the real social harm exploded. We see the same thing in the US Prohibition, when alcohol dealing was made illegal between 1920 - 1933 in response to worries about social harm caused by alcohol: the results were very well documented. Making this popular drug of addiction illegal was a gift to the mafia and to corrupt officials.
The same thing happened in China. Because the corrupt Chinese government made opium illegal, it became a great profit to mafia and criminal groups, and it was a great encouragement to official corruption. Making it illegal also increased crime because the price was higher, so more money was needed to buy it. The criminalizing of the drug not bought only harm to society, it harmed the government by reducing tax revenue and increasing expenditure on the failing law enforcement. WOrse, it turned ordinary people who used the drug for fun or to socialise into criminals. There were no benefits to anyone except mafia groups and corrupt officials.
What would happen if Thailand legalized all drugs tomorrow? The best evidence is to compare what happens when other states either legalize or criminalize a drug. In the US, making alcohol illegal did not reduce alcohol addiction, it just increased corruption, crime and government costs.
When Portugal decriminalized personal use of all drugs, there was no great increase in drug use, but there were significant decreases in the social harms that drugs cause. I can think of no reason to suggest that Thailand would be any different. Which makes me wonder why so many who must know the relevant facts are opposed to a policy that is not only the most practical, but which is also far more moral than the current policy of criminalizing some drugs whilst leaving the worst for society, alcohol, legal.