RSS feed for comments on this post.
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://poliblogger.com/wp-trackback.html?p=10014
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
0.094 Powered by Wordpress
Your analysis is correct, ASSUMING you take the whole Drug War rhetoric at face value.
On the other hand, one could argue that the entire “war on drugs” has a two-pronged set of effects that make its continuation entirely rational. First, on the foreign policy end, the drug war is a convenient way to assert US power over South America–a foreign policy goal that has been apparent in the US since the early 19th century. I think the trend of foreign policy-independent regimes in South America over the past 5 years is indicative of a popular antipathy towards the legacy of US involvement.
On the domestic front, the drug war allows a convenient way to moinitor and discipline inner-city surplus labor which is “slips through the cracks” in capitalist labor markets. Given the fact that the US does not pursue a labor policy of full-employment, many people who are obstructed from legitimate & decent paying work must pursue their material needs through the informal economy. The “war on drugs” is the rather futile way that we control these surplus populations in order to make sure that they do not disrupt the normal processes of market exchange.
One of the reasons that European countries have much lower levels of drug violence and drug use is that there is a stronger policy structure supporting employment opportunities in the formal sector AND the fact that they treat addiction as a health issue.
Comment by Ronald McDonald — Monday, May 22, 2024 @ 1:44 pm