Report on cocaine, heroin prices suggests U.S. is losing war on drugs

fruitfly

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Oct 28, 2003
Messages
8,071
Prices for cocaine and heroin have reached 20-year lows, according to a report released Tuesday.

The Washington Office on Latin America, which usually is critical of U.S. policies in Latin America, said the low prices called into question the effectiveness of the two-decade U.S. war on drugs. A White House official said the numbers were old and didn't reflect recent efforts in Colombia to curb drug cultivation.

The Washington Office on Latin America (link), citing the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy, said the street price of 2 grams of cocaine averaged $106 in the first half of 2003, down 14 percent from the previous year's average and the lowest price in 20 years.

An official with the Office of National Drug Control Policy confirmed the figures, which haven't been publicly released.

The report comes as the Bush administration and Congress work with Colombian authorities to craft a successor to Plan Colombia, which will end late next year after pumping more than $3 billion into Colombia to fight drugs since 2000.

The Washington Office on Latin America accused the White House drug-policy office of not releasing price and purity numbers since 2000 because the data were "inconvenient."

"It strays too far from the message of imminent drug-war success, particularly around Plan Colombia," said John Walsh, a senior associate with the Latin America organization.

The organization said that not only had the price of cocaine on U.S. streets dropped to a fifth of its 1981 level, but heroin was much cheaper too. A gram of heroin, which cost $329 in 1981, sold for $60 in the first half of 2003, it said.

The drug policy adviser said Bush administration officials thought those numbers no longer reflected reality.

"We're always looking in the rearview mirror," said the official, who requested anonymity.

The official said the government of President Alvaro Uribe in Colombia, which took office in 2002, had made big gains in cutting back coca crops with fumigation campaigns and has put the drug industry "under duress." The drug-policy office figures on coca eradication in Colombia show a 33 percent decline in acreage under cultivation from 2001 to 2003.

"This does not preclude surprises," the official said. "This is an adaptable snake (but) we have a stranglehold on the snake."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report on cocaine, heroin prices suggests U.S. is losing war on drugs
By Pablo Bachelet. Knight Ridder Newspapers
12/01/04

Link
 
Last time I checked Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter also endorsed the drug war, so don't blame Bush. He has different priorities and there are too many things out there for one person to focus on. Yes, legalization is the only way to fix many many problems here (and abroad), but it takes time. Until more people wise-up (including most drug users, who say legalization would be bad) and start making their voice heard...it'll never happen. How did Alcohol Prohibition go into effect? Thousands of people marched in Washington. Not little BS numbers like those who march for "medical marijuana"...a LOT. Medical marijuana is stupid and the drug war is stupid, legalization solves almost all the problems except increase in use and addiction, but capitalism relies on addiction so that's not an issue at all.
 
yeah. But ive been thinking, and Im kind of against legalization, because if capitalist countries embrace drugs we will all be working ALOT harder.

My vision of legalized drugs would be everyone tweaking 18 hours a day at work, and having a 6 hour break with a shot of heroin. People would become total slaves, using drugs to make money to buy drugs. That shit happens even without drugs being legal.
 
People wouldn't shoot heroin, it'd be cheaply and widely available and could be drank or taken in pills. Laudnaum would be popular, more than heroin probably. People wouldn't be tweaking all the time, they'd get fired from work just like a drunk who is drunk all the time. Look at Adderall, it's a perfect example of a basically legal drug. It doesn't cause that many problems, although there are many people who abuse it, compared to illegal drugs. It's cheap, easily available, and you know what you're getting in each and every pill. They'd know the dangers of doing so because they'd be EDUCATED, there'd be no reason to lie about problems and benefits of all drugs. People do this stuff already, and drugs are illegal. They shouldn't have to waste their whole day trying to find them, use them, obsess about them, and spend all their earnings on shitty drugs. I don't do any illegal drugs because they're overpriced and a rip-off...you pay too much and get shit in return. I don't like paying $60 for 25% pure cocaine, but many many many people do and will as long as people are alive. People also wouldn't IV drugs if they were legal because needle-less, gas-powered systems have already been developed. They'd be much cheaper when mass-produced for the public. Even if someone did inject, for reason I don't know, the drugs would be sterile and accurately measured. Either way, heroin would be like $20 for 5 grams and cocaine would be just as cheap if it were legal....pure stuff. Cheap enough so no black market would exist because there would be no profit incentive. As we've seen from cigarettes and liquor, people don't LIKE high-concentration stuff though. They'd prefer to take tablets or drink cocaine wine/syrup or whatever. Just like people don't smoke Camel Non-Filters and drink straight 195 proof Everclear, Marlboro Lights and Bud Light are the most popular legal drugs.
 
Last edited:
JTMarlin said:
People wouldn't shoot heroin, it'd be cheaply and widely available and could be drank or taken in pills. Laudnaum would be popular, more than heroin probably. People wouldn't be tweaking all the time, they'd get fired from work just like a drunk who is drunk all the time. Look at Adderall, it's a perfect example of a basically legal drug. It doesn't cause that many problems, although there are many people who abuse it, compared to illegal drugs. It's cheap, easily available, and you know what you're getting in each and every pill. They'd know the dangers of doing so because they'd be EDUCATED, there'd be no reason to lie about problems and benefits of all drugs. People do this stuff already, and drugs are illegal. They shouldn't have to waste their whole day trying to find them, use them, obsess about them, and spend all their earnings on shitty drugs. I don't do any illegal drugs because they're overpriced and a rip-off...you pay too much and get shit in return. I don't like paying $60 for 25% pure cocaine, but many many many people do and will as long as people are alive. People also wouldn't IV drugs if they were legal because needle-less, gas-powered systems have already been developed. They'd be much cheaper when mass-produced for the public. Even if someone did inject, for reason I don't know, the drugs would be sterile and accurately measured. Either way, heroin would be like $20 for 5 grams and cocaine would be just as cheap if it were legal....pure stuff. Cheap enough so no black market would exist because there would be no profit incentive. As we've seen from cigarettes and liquor, people don't LIKE high-concentration stuff though. They'd prefer to take tablets or drink cocaine wine/syrup or whatever. Just like people don't smoke Camel Non-Filters and drink straight 195 proof Everclear, Marlboro Lights and Bud Light are the most popular legal drugs.

couldnt have said it better myself

Report on cocaine, heroin prices suggests U.S. is losing war on drugs

roflmfao
 
I think they meant "proves it to be a fact that anybody with a mind, eyes, and common sense knows"
 
1. If heroin's so cheap, how come I can't find any? I'm moving to the big city soon (not because of heroin, lol), and I sure hope it's better there.

2. If it were legal, you could use promethglumide/whatever, and/or small doses of opiate antagonists to make your opiates last longer/deal with tolerance.
 
Heroin is really cheap, thats why folks love it. $3 for a bag of tar that will fix someone without a habit pretty good. A quarter or a third of a $20 sack will fix a habitual user.
 
According to this report heroin is 60 a gram and coke is 53 a gram wtf is this?
 
JTMarlin, i would still shoot heroin =D but not regularly, i'd probably just stick to opium tea or something on most days and indulge in IV h every few months or so.

but i think you are right. if diamorphine were legal and regulated in the U.S. it'd probably be produced by the pharmacutical industry and would be pressed into pill form like oxycodone is. and most people take oxy-contin and percocets orally.
 
Please don't take this the wrong way as I don't mean this to offend you. I'm just trying to point out a kind of "myopic habit" of thinking about drug use we have created in our culture.

Hessel said:
yeah. But ive been thinking, and Im kind of against legalization, because if capitalist countries embrace drugs we will all be working ALOT harder.

My vision of legalized drugs would be everyone tweaking 18 hours a day at work, and having a 6 hour break with a shot of heroin. People would become total slaves, using drugs to make money to buy drugs. That shit happens even without drugs being legal.
That's how junkies are taught to think about drugs, and stems from an artifical component of desperation.

Allow me to reframe this for a moment.

yeah. But ive been thinking, and Im kind of against legalization, because if capitalist countries embrace food we will all be working ALOT harder.

My vision of legalized food would be everyone eating 18 hours a day at work, and having a 6 hour break with a glass of wine. People would become total slaves, using food to make money to buy food. That shit happens even without food being legal.


Of course someone will say something like, "Oh yeah?!!! Well we need food but we don't need drugs!" And that's true but has nothing to do with the point I am making.

The only time where either the original statement or the reframed one is true is under conditions of desperation. The factor which creates desperation in the drug user world is the Drug War itself.


There are counter arguments regarding drug use that question the absolute (life numbing) demands exibited by classic "drug addict" culture. Here is an excellent paper on amphetamine use involving a sociological study in the Netherlands. It's a good read and is from the Centre for Drug Research (CEDRO), University of Amsterdam:

http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/uitermark.amphetamine.html


Something else that I would like to point out is the notion of working 16 hours per day to buy drugs. Why?

The reason that drugs are very expensive is a direct result of the Drug War. The economics are simple: high risk = high profits.

But are drugs really that expensive? Absolutely not.

With no legal restrictions for manufacture or sale imposed, (for example) methamphetamine would cost about 25 cents per gram to produce. Even if the retail mark up were 10 times the manufacturing cost, the cost of one gram of methamphetamine to the end consumer would be $2.50.

All of the illegal drugs are very cheap to manufacture when legal.

High cost is a direct result of the War on Drugs. And it is the War on Drugs itself which has produced a mega-high profit black market (along with all of the secondary crime associated with black market activities).


Demand is there whether society wants to repress it or not. If that were not the case the Drug War would have been won long ago, and recreational drugs would be at the status as small pox: eradicated. But that is far from the truth.

What is unfortunate is that the multi-generationally long Drug War has clouded our thinking, and it is difficult for people to think of other options without the assumptions that the Drug War has created. And this is just one case: the purchase price of a recreational drug is always thought of in "junkie terms" (i.e., it simply is because it is).

Issues of addiction are yet another issue. And even the notion of [psychological] addiction may partially exist simply due to collective agreement.


The real problem is that our culture has become addicted to a very expensive evil: the War on Drugs.
 
Last edited:
Good post, right on the button as they say! Drug users don't get the whole legalization deal, and non-drug users that talk about legalization just piss me off. It is the one issue where there is only one clear situation. It's a non-partisan, objective issue. It's not like arguing about abortion, affirmative action, or free government healthcare, where there are two arguments that are both plausible.

Legalization is the only way to make drugs safe and to reduce young people from doing them. Drug dealers don't ask for ID, after all. What I love about anti-drug advocates is how they say "Well, crack will be sold on playgrounds to kids!". They seem to think that legalization would mean a legal black market, where it's legal to possess and do drugs but the drug market stays unregulated. Crack is solely an invention of the War on Drugs, since it's a cheap high. Who the fuck wants to smoke crack if they had more options besides snort or smoke? People cut back smoking cigarettes because they became educated about the risks. The same would go for other drugs, too (although no drug is as dangerous as cigarette smoking, since tobacco HAS to be smoked or sucked on). If anything is PURELY a schedule I drug, it's tobacco. Extremely addicting, extremely unhealthy, and no medical use whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
People wouldn't shoot heroin, it'd be cheaply and widely available and could be drank or taken in pills.

A - You ignore factor of an IV rush. and tolerance - in this self assertion
B - If in whatever fantasy utopia people actually stopped shooting heroin because they could just rail/smoke/whatever a pure gram instead - so what??? Now the minority danger of spreading disease via shared rigs is "gone". What happens to the OD and addiction factors? Are you really about to convince yourself that individuals and/or a society (are) left safer with 12 cent grams of heroin; as long as they aren't administering it with needles?

Laudnaum would be popular, more than heroin probably.

oh. ok

People wouldn't be tweaking all the time, they'd get fired from work just like a drunk who is drunk all the time.

Right, because at the current level of illegality people don't have problems tweaking all the time and getting fired from work for abuse of any other substance. And just look at the rather 'tame' ills of alcohol, for comparison! That's exactly what would happen!

How about "no"? Accord each substance for what they are. Their own effects. Their own addiction potential(s). Their own risk and outright TOXICITY.

Invalid Usename said:
Issues of addiction are yet another issue. And even the notion of [psychological] addiction may partially exist simply due to collective agreement.

Issues of addiction are rather the issue. Effects of widespread availability of any and all mind altering substances on an addiction prone population is the key fear upon which the drug war is based. So if you want change, should that not first be approached with detailed counter?

And I'm curious as to the meaning your end lead:

the notion of [psychological] addiction may partially exist simply due to collective agreement.

Are you suggesting that with the removal of collective taboo, pyschological addiction will diminish enough to offset any increase of abuse that widescale legalization offers?

The real problem is that our culture has become addicted to a very expensive evil: the War on Drugs.[/QUOTE]

Good Lord, I'd just love to hear your version of a society that gets off easier when making any and all intoxicants a shelf bought reality. Seriously, I'd like to hear in detail how this supposedworld works - because I've myself tried time and again to envision a successful system where we're free to use. It doesn't seem to in any stretch, exist.

One doesn't have to read too far around here before crossing "insanity of the drug war" repeated in unison. As for the insanity of the opposing fantasy? Hahahaha.. nah, that isn't an issue.
 
JTMarlin said:
It is the one issue where there is only one clear situation. It's a non-partisan, objective issue. It's not like arguing about abortion, affirmative action, or free government healthcare, where there are two arguments that are both plausible.

i'd just like to point out that people can have strong convictions on any of those issues that you listed, and drug legalization is no different. controversial social issues are controversial because there are strongly opinionated proponents for both sides.

as with most contentious issues, drug legalization is largely disputed because of misinformation. misinformation is usually a result of political/economic interests. until the misinformation can be cleared up, the right choice of action will remain muddled in the public mind.
 
I'm 100% with JTMarlin on this one.

In the end, I think if you get addicted to a drug (say, alcohol right now, or heroin if it were legal...) it's your own damn fault. If you wanna sit in your room all day and shoot up go ahead...*shrugs*

(I don't think society should protect a man from himself!!!
It's just limiting our freedom. If a man doesn't feel that society loves him, then protecting him from himself feels more like oppression than caring, anyhow. And that man is more likely to rebel against the tyrant. It's like an overbearing mother whose kids become under-the-table alcoholics.)

I don't think society will have some kinda epidemic where everyone gets addicted to something. At least people won't get addicted to anything very disabilitating, because most people just aren't after that in life. They want to have a job, friends, have fun, etc. And all the cigarette smokers and coffee-drinkers we have now are doing fine in society, anyhow. Sure, maybe they die a bit younger, but people don't do much when they're 65+, anyhow.

You're always gonna have the depressed junkies, you've got em, anyhow. Society shouldn't have to make prohibitionist laws just to "help" them (cause it doesn't help them at all, really, anyhow, it just raises prices and makes them ruin their lives all the worse).

If you're using, and you still think drugs should be illegal, you're a hypocrit of the worst kind. I honestly try not to do anything that I think should be illegal. I don't think I am "above the system". If I take acid, it's because I think it's a fine thing to do, I see nothing wrong here, anyone else should be allowed to do the same. If I smoke a cigarette, I think the same thing. I've never done heroin nor coke, but I've done oxy's before (after wisdom tooth surgery, mind you), and they felt nice, but didn't gimme any profound thoughts, really (what I'm after a lotta the time...I have metaphysical problems, it seems), and I wouldn't be doing them most of the time, anyhow, cause I can tell it wouldn't be good for me (I haven't done them or any opiates since, nor have much desire to).
 
In the end, I think if you get addicted to a drug (say, alcohol right now, or heroin if it were legal...) it's your own damn fault. If you wanna sit in your room all day and shoot up go ahead...*shrugs*

Yes, but not according to the government, because if you do that you will presumably be a "useless and non-productive" member of society, not working , not paying taxes and draining the social assistance programs (welfare etc etc).
 
Jesus motherluving Christ. Some of you people have no fucking idea what you're talking about. No matter how cheap heroin would be, no matter what form the pharmaceutical companies sold it in and no matter how legal it would be, I would boot if it I did it. What the fuck is the point of doing heroin if you're not gonna oil up?

Oh yeah, and let's start calling heroin diamorphine or diacetylmorphine so it doesn't sound as scary.

What else? Oh yeah. I've have profound-as-shit thoughts on the nod. I'm fucking brilliant on heroin.

And right, I've never met ANYONE with an adderall problem before. And the fact that meth users tend to be more self-destructive than adderall users has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the fact that they have access to a far, far greater supply. There are plenty of people who shoot balls of meth a day when they can afford it. That's about, say 100 or more Adderall 30s a day. LOTS OF PEOPLE can get that much Adderall!

Oh yeah. Crack is preferable to coke because it's a cheap high. It has ABSAFUCKINLUTELY NOTHING to do with the enormous pleasurable rush you get that can't be duplicated with snorting. We can prove this by analogy to meth. Since meth comes in the same form for the same price whether smoked or snorted, NO ONE ever smokes it.

Do you people leave your bedrooms?

PS: There's a line midway through this post where I become facetious. See if you can spot it!
 
no one said people would stop shooting heroin if it were legal. i know i sure the hell wouldn't stop. but if it's a legal pharmacutical more people will use it who aren't junkies, or who aren't IV drug users. the people who shoot h now would keep shooting it up, but more people would use it as an oral drug.

you don't think if h were legalized it would have less of a social stigma around it and attract more pill poppers who wouldn't necessarily stick a needle in their arm? it has nothing to do with the pharmacutical name being less scary or whatever, i dont know where you even got that from. it just has to do with the way the drug would be produced and how it is distributed.

but you're right. none of us know what we are talking about. you alone know everything and we are all just idiots.
 
Top