What do you think?
Rate this book
The Political Economy of Narcotics
This scholarly examination of the worldwide web of narcotics today provides students, social workers, health providers, law enforcement officers and policy makers with an up-to-date, overall exploration of the world of drugs. Vast resources are pumped into the 'war on drugs'. But in practice, prohibition has failed. Narcotics use continues to rise, while technology and globalisation have made a whole new range of drugs available to a vast consumer market. Where wealth and demand exist, supply continues to follow. Prohibition has failed to stem consumption and production, criminalised social groups, impeded research into alternative medicine and disease, promoted violence and gang warfare, and impacted negatively on the environment. The alternative is a humane policy framework that recognizes the incentives to produce, traffic and consume narcotics.
256 pages, Hardcover
First published May 15, 2006
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
May 16, 2010
Another book for my research, and again, interesting and frightening. In a tone that clearly conveys she is not so pleased with the US (and, unfortunately, for good reason), Buxton presents a sweeping historical view of drug controls, and relates how the US came to dominate the international drug control system by tying its diplomatic and drug control goals together (when convenient, anyway), and strongly urging--if not bullying--other nations into accepting its strategy of prohibition (which is what you would think it was, 18th amendment-wise). Prohibition emphasizes criminalization of growers, sellers, and users; tries to completely eliminate drug cultivation and use (or, as Buxton points out, at least the drugs deemed by international groups to be "threats"); and, in the US context, focuses mainly on eliminating drugs from the supply-side rather than the demand-side (interfering in Colombia to try to keep farmers there from growing coca with the majority of our money, then, instead of focusing on education efforts in the US and treatment of addicts to reduce the demand for cocaine). Prohibition-strategies have also often been co-opted to try to eliminate any sort of rebellion or threat to the current regime, cracking down on civil liberties with the ostensible purpose of controlling the drug trade.
Buxton doesn't completely argue, but very strongly suggests, that the European model of harm-reduction is more of what we should try, considering that--despite over 100 years of the prohibition strategy now--we now have more drugs available that are purer and available at a cheaper price than ever before, all over the globe and in increasingly remote areas, not just in urban centers. This is because prohibition is self-perpetuating in that, if we haven't seen a decrease in drug availability and use from our enforcement tactics, then it's because we haven't been tough enough and we need to do more: be stricter, impose more and higher prison sentences (which has lead the US to have the highest prison population in the world), and increasingly involve the military. Harm-reduction takes a different tactic in that it says, okay, we recognize that no matter what we do, people are probably going to use drugs. So let's decriminalize some of the less dangerous ones (marijuana, for example, imposing fines for possessing/using it rather than jail sentences) so that we can focus on some of the drugs with more devastating effects, and provide more treatment and education to try to reduce overall use (she cites a statistic saying that a number of heroin addicts were treated and this lowered the demand for drugs overall in the US for a number of years much more than enforcement did). Harm-reduction also aims to frame drug use in more of a medical "treatment-needed" manner than a law enforcement manner, and works to eliminate the self-defeating incentive that prohibition provides to participate in the drug trade through legalization and state regulation of drugs (in prohibition, the more drugs that officials capture/take out of circulation, the rarer the supply. However, the demand hasn't declined, so prices will go up, providing an incentive for more people to get in on the business to make more money--especially in countries with weak governments and poor populations--thereby exponentially growing the drug trade because enforcement efforts be successful!). That goes along with the whole "balloon effect" that I talk about in my review of Tony Payan's book: the more you "squeeze" one area, the more business in another area will well up to take its place. I sure hope I summarized all that accurately, because as you can tell, it's complicated.
Overall, the book is very interesting, although a bit dense and heavy on statistics and acronyms at times, but that's to be expected for a more research-focused, rather than expose-type book. Particularly fascinating for me was the history of drug use and trade. It's amazing to think that opium and heroin were in *medicines* sold for regular consumption even up to the early 1900s (with heroin supposing to act as a cure for people who were addicted to opium!). It's also sad to see how drug use has often been made a threat by attaching it to other races/immigrants: although middle class US women were the primary abusers of opium/heroin, the anti-drug crusaders at the time made it seem evil by associating it with Chinese immigrants and the general anti-Chinese sentiment at the time by way of references to depraved Chinese men and their "opium dens of sin", etc. Similarly, marijuana was associated with "marijuana-crazed blacks" committing crimes in the South.
Her work definitely made me think a lot. I'm strongly against drug use, because I think that it's not good for people to be hooked on any substance too much, whether it's illegal drugs or alcohol or simply junk food or coffee (recognizing that each has its own danger, but that illegal drugs/alcohol endanger others more than the latter two). That made me think that I would be against any sort of legalization of drugs, but it's hard to still hold that position after reading about the horrible mess that prohibition-strategies have made of things, basically increasing drug supply and violence around the world by trying to suppress the drug trade. (Basically the only examples of successful prohibition efforts were the British/Dutch controlling early production of opium in the places where they wanted it and keeping it out of the places that they didn't so that they could preserve their monopoly on illegally trading it to China, and then Communist China's crackdown on opium, which was basically achieved by mass arrests and violence... not the way that we would ideally want to go. Now that their economy is more open, they're seeing a resurgence in use/trade). And yet, despite that, I want there to be some middle ground, or some other way. The prohibition strategy has engendered a lot of violence, and Buxton and many others point out that the reason that the drug trade is both profitable and violent is by virtue of it being illegal: the risk drives profits up, and the lack of regulation/rules leads to drug lords making their own rules, and enforce them with blood. At the same time, though, I'm not convinced that we should legalize something that we recognize is not good for us because of these reasons. It doesn't make sense to me to legalize murder and try to regulate it just because we recognize that--no matter what we do--people will probably still kill each other, and there will be collateral damage from that/more violence around it as we try to stop it with law enforcement. Perhaps the two situations are too different to make that analogy, because there's not supply/demand for murder per se (whereas drug proliferation is stemming from our having made it a commodity), but the idea behind it troubles me. I also wonder if "medicalizing" the issue will de-emphasize the idea of choice in the issue--even recognizing that there are some people who are genetically at a disadvantage by being more prone to addiction--and just end up legitimizing the practice of drug use without emphasizing the necessity of treatment/making it a personal and non-moral choice as to whether one seeks treatment or not. I do agree, regardless, that there should be more treatment available and, especially, more education, although that in itself is a thorny question considering that Buxton--and several European nations--feel that the prohibition model has made education all about a "scared straight" abstinence rather than a "safe sex/safe drug use" approach that says, drugs aren't good, but you might use them anyway, so if you are going to, this is how to keep yourself from harm.
With the view of Afghanistan and the violence in Ciudad Juarez in mind, I can't help thinking that those who do use drugs (even if they're using in a reasonable amount for recreation and aren't addicted, as Buxton says there's a good population that is), are profoundly selfish for causing so much suffering in the countries where the drugs are produced, and in the people who traffic them/die as a result of cartel in-fighting/transportation risks. The overall moral of what Buxton says is that if there wasn't a demand, there wouldn't be so many people (in some cases forced into) supplying. Granted, many of the people who do use are doing it because of mental problems, poverty, abuse, etc, but for those recreational users, I can't help thinking... what makes you think you have the right? .
This book obviously has led to a good deal of pondering, and leaves me wondering if there are other authors out there who reach a different conclusion about solutions (haven't found any so far although I'm at the beginning of my research and I'm not primarily researching drug trade control itself), and what results European countries who are trying harm-reduction strategies are seeing so far.
Buxton doesn't completely argue, but very strongly suggests, that the European model of harm-reduction is more of what we should try, considering that--despite over 100 years of the prohibition strategy now--we now have more drugs available that are purer and available at a cheaper price than ever before, all over the globe and in increasingly remote areas, not just in urban centers. This is because prohibition is self-perpetuating in that, if we haven't seen a decrease in drug availability and use from our enforcement tactics, then it's because we haven't been tough enough and we need to do more: be stricter, impose more and higher prison sentences (which has lead the US to have the highest prison population in the world), and increasingly involve the military. Harm-reduction takes a different tactic in that it says, okay, we recognize that no matter what we do, people are probably going to use drugs. So let's decriminalize some of the less dangerous ones (marijuana, for example, imposing fines for possessing/using it rather than jail sentences) so that we can focus on some of the drugs with more devastating effects, and provide more treatment and education to try to reduce overall use (she cites a statistic saying that a number of heroin addicts were treated and this lowered the demand for drugs overall in the US for a number of years much more than enforcement did). Harm-reduction also aims to frame drug use in more of a medical "treatment-needed" manner than a law enforcement manner, and works to eliminate the self-defeating incentive that prohibition provides to participate in the drug trade through legalization and state regulation of drugs (in prohibition, the more drugs that officials capture/take out of circulation, the rarer the supply. However, the demand hasn't declined, so prices will go up, providing an incentive for more people to get in on the business to make more money--especially in countries with weak governments and poor populations--thereby exponentially growing the drug trade because enforcement efforts be successful!). That goes along with the whole "balloon effect" that I talk about in my review of Tony Payan's book: the more you "squeeze" one area, the more business in another area will well up to take its place. I sure hope I summarized all that accurately, because as you can tell, it's complicated.
Overall, the book is very interesting, although a bit dense and heavy on statistics and acronyms at times, but that's to be expected for a more research-focused, rather than expose-type book. Particularly fascinating for me was the history of drug use and trade. It's amazing to think that opium and heroin were in *medicines* sold for regular consumption even up to the early 1900s (with heroin supposing to act as a cure for people who were addicted to opium!). It's also sad to see how drug use has often been made a threat by attaching it to other races/immigrants: although middle class US women were the primary abusers of opium/heroin, the anti-drug crusaders at the time made it seem evil by associating it with Chinese immigrants and the general anti-Chinese sentiment at the time by way of references to depraved Chinese men and their "opium dens of sin", etc. Similarly, marijuana was associated with "marijuana-crazed blacks" committing crimes in the South.
Her work definitely made me think a lot. I'm strongly against drug use, because I think that it's not good for people to be hooked on any substance too much, whether it's illegal drugs or alcohol or simply junk food or coffee (recognizing that each has its own danger, but that illegal drugs/alcohol endanger others more than the latter two). That made me think that I would be against any sort of legalization of drugs, but it's hard to still hold that position after reading about the horrible mess that prohibition-strategies have made of things, basically increasing drug supply and violence around the world by trying to suppress the drug trade. (Basically the only examples of successful prohibition efforts were the British/Dutch controlling early production of opium in the places where they wanted it and keeping it out of the places that they didn't so that they could preserve their monopoly on illegally trading it to China, and then Communist China's crackdown on opium, which was basically achieved by mass arrests and violence... not the way that we would ideally want to go. Now that their economy is more open, they're seeing a resurgence in use/trade). And yet, despite that, I want there to be some middle ground, or some other way. The prohibition strategy has engendered a lot of violence, and Buxton and many others point out that the reason that the drug trade is both profitable and violent is by virtue of it being illegal: the risk drives profits up, and the lack of regulation/rules leads to drug lords making their own rules, and enforce them with blood. At the same time, though, I'm not convinced that we should legalize something that we recognize is not good for us because of these reasons. It doesn't make sense to me to legalize murder and try to regulate it just because we recognize that--no matter what we do--people will probably still kill each other, and there will be collateral damage from that/more violence around it as we try to stop it with law enforcement. Perhaps the two situations are too different to make that analogy, because there's not supply/demand for murder per se (whereas drug proliferation is stemming from our having made it a commodity), but the idea behind it troubles me. I also wonder if "medicalizing" the issue will de-emphasize the idea of choice in the issue--even recognizing that there are some people who are genetically at a disadvantage by being more prone to addiction--and just end up legitimizing the practice of drug use without emphasizing the necessity of treatment/making it a personal and non-moral choice as to whether one seeks treatment or not. I do agree, regardless, that there should be more treatment available and, especially, more education, although that in itself is a thorny question considering that Buxton--and several European nations--feel that the prohibition model has made education all about a "scared straight" abstinence rather than a "safe sex/safe drug use" approach that says, drugs aren't good, but you might use them anyway, so if you are going to, this is how to keep yourself from harm.
With the view of Afghanistan and the violence in Ciudad Juarez in mind, I can't help thinking that those who do use drugs (even if they're using in a reasonable amount for recreation and aren't addicted, as Buxton says there's a good population that is), are profoundly selfish for causing so much suffering in the countries where the drugs are produced, and in the people who traffic them/die as a result of cartel in-fighting/transportation risks. The overall moral of what Buxton says is that if there wasn't a demand, there wouldn't be so many people (in some cases forced into) supplying. Granted, many of the people who do use are doing it because of mental problems, poverty, abuse, etc, but for those recreational users, I can't help thinking... what makes you think you have the right? .
This book obviously has led to a good deal of pondering, and leaves me wondering if there are other authors out there who reach a different conclusion about solutions (haven't found any so far although I'm at the beginning of my research and I'm not primarily researching drug trade control itself), and what results European countries who are trying harm-reduction strategies are seeing so far.
Displaying 1 of 1 review