Its not just the obvious examples like cocaine and methamphetamines. Im mean MDMA and other synthetic drugs are usually manufactured abroad and smuggled into the UK/US by criminal organizations whose income also finances violence and corruption.
Theres no stopping the demand for party/recreational drugs, we may as well legalize them already. But if you buy these illicitly you should know that you’ve likely financially contributed to despicable acts abroad. I find the idea of ‘safe’ illicitly purchased drugs deeply ironic.
> whose income also finances violence and corruption
I find this concept problematic. Does violence or corruption require funding? What sort of violence or corruption? Isn't the point of violence or corruption often to make money, rather than the other way around?
This argument is often made about drug sales but I'm not sure it holds up. It seems to me that making money is often the end-goal of such an operation.
> But if you buy these illicitly you should know that you’ve likely financially contributed to despicable acts abroad.
Even if this is true, is that the moral responsibility of the buyer? If the government decided to ban carrots tomorrow and a black market sprung up around vegetables, whose fault would any collateral social damage be?
What do I mean by financing violence and corruption?
I mean that the money these organizations make is then used to strengthen the power and reach of these organizations through violence and corruption, the means of coercion. Mexico is a perfect example of how criminal organizations destabilize a country through both.
About moral responsibility...
If carrots were the only food around and the choice were between starvation and buying them, then of course it wouldnt be the consumers fault.
But were not talking about foodstuffs or basic needs here, I’m mainly concerned with recreational drugs whose consumption is not a prerequisite for survival. In this case I think that consumers have some kind of responsibility here to exercise discretion. I just find it deeply ironic that people in 1st world countries are paying for fun times, while their money goes on to destabilize other countries. I’m not sure what it is, but it just feels wrong to me.
Ah - you mentioned "chain of production" so I assumed you were only referring to the production of the drug, not its trafficking.
When you include trafficking you're right - but I did mention examples in my post that don't involve any exploitation, such as pharmaceutical diversion and people who grow and supply their own drugs.
I really don't care if people consume/purchase/make/sell drugs if the money isn't financing terrible things someplace in the world. I think the first step to making these kind of guarantees for consumers is legalizing the market for drugs.
I've got friends who grow weed and Ill smoke their stuff anyday cause I know where it comes from.
Most trafficking is not forced or exploitive. It's some poor person seeing a quick payday and going for it.
Beside, most drugs flowing into the US are from underground tunnel, or shipping container, or the back of a commercial truck. At one point they were buying used 747s, flying them full of coke to the US, and then just ditchiing the plane because they made way more than the cost of the plane.
> Most trafficking is not forced or exploitive. It's some poor person seeing a quick payday and going for it.
I'unno - after watching TV shows like _UK Border Force_ (which won't be unbiased, and undoubtably uses contrived selective editing to trigger some strong emotion from the viewer - either sympathy for people in crappy situations and the human-interest sob-stories, to reinforce xenophobic and anti-immigrant views about foreigners by focusing on the people the border officers refuse entry, and so on) but there's seemingly a lot of people shown who clearly were in very, very shitty situations where being a drug-mule was the least-worst option - like needing to find $20,000 quickly to pay for medical care of a loved one in a country without universal healthcare (INB4 jokes about the US).
In any event, ideally no-one should be in a position where they need to compromise their criminal record - or moral principles - to achieve at least a minimally comfortable standard of living.
> At one point they were buying used 747s, flying them full of coke to the US, and then just ditchiing the plane because they made way more than the cost of the plane.
I think that was happening in Africa with smaller jets. Which... is not that far from Brazil. Then smuggle over-land across Africa and mix in with N. African exports/shadow boats.
Who was ditching a 747? The joke from the cartels was they could afford to do that if they wanted to. Plenty of GA aircraft were ending up in fields and at the bottom of the Atlantic and gulf, though.
We all certainly have the capacity for it, but by no means can you say each and every person on Earth gives into it. Rise above it or not, its your choice.
Haven't seen a person (on the Internet or otherwise) who doesn't act in a manner consistent with your description. So far the evidence is pretty strong.
I think you have a very cynical view of things and expect anybody short of being a saint to be a hypocrite. Sure people care about some things while ignoring others, but that doesnt make them indifferent, there is only so much moral bandwidth a person can handle.
Cocaine farmed from Columbia by the cartel's bonded-labour workfocrce? Sure.
A pharm-tech diverting a few boxes of Desoxyn from the Walgreens they work at? No.
Afghan opium? It's a cash-crop in the region; by buying it you're actually helping people escape poverty.
Some mate's attic hydroponics operation? No.