Stop demonizing cocaine
Re: Cocaine dealer not entitled to sympathy, Dec. 7.
Robert Marshall tells us Kevin Hiebert is not entitled to sympathy because "Cocaine means fast money that destroys families (Hiebert's has disintegrated since his capture) and neighbourhoods. It is a major contributing factor to global social disorder characterized by kidnappings, beatings, amputations and murders." Marshall mistakes the consequences of cocaine with the consequences of drug prohibition. None of those evils go on in Peru where the coca plant is part of the cultural fabric rather than a demon to be destroyed at all costs. The proof is in the pudding in that cocaine used to be in a lot of consumer products such as Coca-Cola without any evidence of the mayhem Marshall writes about.
The fact of the matter is that drug prohibition, not drug use, has destroyed millions of lives all over planet Earth in a misguided attempt to control the natural right of man to self-medicate. The consequences of cocaine use are akin to the consequences of caffeine use absent the prohibition law as evidenced in Bolivia and Peru and everywhere else the plant is native. There are no kidnappings, beatings, amputation and murders attributed to coffee distribution since coffee is no longer outlawed as it once was. No one is tempted to smuggle coffee anymore, either.
Evo Morales, president of Bolivia and former union representative of the Coca Growers Association, has been trying to bring respectability back to the coca plant and showed up at the United Nations with one coca leaf to make his point. The biased reporting of prohibitionists unable to separate the effect of drugs and the effects of the law are proving to be the greatest challenge to ending worldwide drug prohibition as supported by Christian-based countries.
The government has no more right to control the substance people choose to use than the government has right to control ideas.
Chris Buors
Chris Buors’ extreme fervor for the decriminalization of drugs is well documented, and it seems that he is never one to let facts get in the way of a good argument. His recent letter (Stop Demonizing Cocaine, Dec. 10) attempts to demonstrate that cocaine prohibition is a greater problem than use of the drug by pointing out that the countries where coca is legal do not experience the problems of the Western nations where it is banned.
A fundamental problem with this letter is that it obscures the fact that those who use coca in its native regions do not ingest it in the highly refined form we in the West do. Munching on coca or making it into tea produces a distinctly different effect than snorting lines of coke. Whereas cocaine is a highly addictive psychotic that can have devastating repercussions to one’s mental and physical wellbeing, coca in its natural form is a mild stimulant that does not come close to being the demon many of us know cocaine to be.
Buors also makes an unforgivable mischaracterization of the coca policies of Evo Morales. A quick internet search reveals that Mr. Morales’ policy is based on the use of coca in traditional forms and it’s very name "Coca Si, Cocaina No." (Coca Yes, Cocaine No) aught to give a very clear indication that Buors has misrepresented its intent.
Although I am frequently entertained by Mr. Buors’ rants I believe that the Free Press should be a bit more cautious in publishing them. As his brazen dishonesty in this instance reveals he cannot be trusted to present facts fairly in pursuit of his point.
5 comments:
How right you are.
Dr. Buors is using the threat of violence as a bargaining tool to have Prohibition lifted. As long as he and others are inclined to do this, Prohibition may be lifted but the threat of violence never will.
Your diatribe would be more believable if there was such a force as addiction that can compel people to do things against their will. Have a look at Wikipiedia to see the 9 models of addiction listed. I support the Szasz "habit" model. The only reason to call anything an addiction is to persecute someone. You don't really think there are such things as external forces that can get a hold of people and make them do things against their own will do you?
I'm a libertarian the initiation of violence goes against my ideology. Lots of people should learn what they are talking about before they criticize others around here.
Mr. Buors, I'm well aware of your ideology. I reject your Libertarian views as thouroughly as you reject the notion of addiction. The pure selfishness and anti-humanism practiced by people who subscribe to your creed disgust me. Your dismissal of human nature based on a philosophical precept seems ridiculous to me. Believe what you want, but don't assume that people who criticise you are ignorant of your beliefs. I know what they are I just don't share them.
So you reject self-ownership and non-aggression, the two main tenets of Libertarianism. It is those like yourself who believe you have the right to tell others how to live their lives that disgust me. It is people like you who believe that stealing money from those who earn it at the point of a gun s somehow moral that disgust me. Only so much can be accomplished with political power at the point of a gun. I write the libertarian stuff I do just to upset socialists like you every day. So thanks for making my day. Anybody who thinks they can change the nature of human beings is a fool. Self-interest is what motivates people to get out of bed and go to work, better to deal with the truth than to try and get people out of bed to go work for the community which leads to poverty for everybody.
Post a Comment