Author: Pratishtha Mamgain

THE HIGH ROAD

Posted on by Pratishtha Mamgain

The US has seen a profound cultural shift on legalizing recreational and medical use of marijuana. The issue has garnered support from a major chunk of the American public- and not just ordinary (otherwise law abiding) citizens or party animals but from Nobel laureate and celebrated economist Milton Friedman too. Friedman and more than 500 noted economists endorsed a June 2005 paper by Dr. Jeffrey Miron, visiting professor of economics at Harvard University –‘The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition’ (Miron 2005). The paper concludes that replacing marijuana prohibition with a system of legal regulation would save approximately $7.7 billion in government expenditures on prohibition enforcement and revenue from taxation of marijuana sales would range from $2.4 billion per year if marijuana were taxed like ordinary consumer goods to $6.2 billion if it were taxed like alcohol or tobacco.

So while taxation will raise much needed revenue for the govt to spend on the public, it will also reduce the burden on the prison system and allow law enforcement agencies to focus on ‘other more dangerous vices’. An editorial in the New York Times has also argued that ‘the social costs of marijuana laws are vast and the result is racist, falling disproportionately on young black men, ruining their lives and creating new generations of career criminals’ (The Editorial Board 2014).

However, legalizing marijuana keeping these arguments in mind also undoubtedly creates a slippery slope for legalizing more dangerous drugs. Creating a legal marijuana industry would simply be the next Big Tobacco or Alcohol, with legalization bringing higher rates of addiction (to many substances and not just weed) and mental health problems.

The main problem with marijuana is the popular perception among young and adults alike that it is not addictive and relatively harmless compared to alcohol or other substances which reinforces its position as a gateway to harder drugs and is responsible for its widespread use. According to the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), marijuana accounted for 4.5 million of the estimated 7.1 million Americans who were addicted to, or abusing illicit drugs. Recent studies show that fewer adolescents believe that regular marijuana use is harmful to their health (MH, et al. 2012). In fact, many supporters view marijuana to be a lesser evil compared to alcohol. Surprisingly, while trying to understand this dubious reasoning, I came across two very interesting studies.

Economists D. Mark Anderson and Daniel Rees found that “studies based on clearly defined natural experiments generally support the hypothesis that marijuana and alcohol are substitutes.” Increasing the drinking age seems to result in more marijuana consumption, for instance, and pot smoking drops off sharply at age 21, “suggesting that young adults treat alcohol and marijuana as substitutes” (Anderson and Rees 2013). That conclusion is consistent with earlier research in which Anderson and Rees found that enacting medical marijuana laws is associated with a 13 percent drop in traffic fatalities (Anderson, Hansen and Rees 2012). That effect could be due to the fact that marijuana impairs driving ability much less dramatically than alcohol does, although the fact that alcohol is more likely to be consumed outside the home (resulting in more driving under its influence) may play a role as well.

However, the question that arises is- is it still okay to work or be around children when high? Marijuana has been proven to impair motor coordination and reaction time, being the second most prevalent drug (after alcohol) implicated in automobile accidents (Robert L. DuPont 2011). Research has shown that persistent and excessive marijuana use is associated with neuropsychological decline and more cognitive problems. Impairment is worst when marijuana use begins in adolescence, with more persistent use associated with greater decline. Heavy marijuana use during adolescence may lead to drug and property crime and criminal justice system interactions. Weed is not as harmless as people believe, so what makes it a better alternative than alcohol? Does its ‘safe’ image make it more dangerous? And more importantly, will legalization make weed socially more acceptable?

Until 1985, recreational use of marijuana was the norm in India. All cannabis derivatives were legally sold in this country. Owing to US pressure, marijuana was banned under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act 1985. And while some may argue that we have a cultural history of marijuana use, the fact remains that we also have a host of problems to deal with- an over worked police force, slow criminal justice system, lack of de-addiction and rehabilitation centres are some of the few. We need more weapons in our arsenal before we can even think of a debate on this issue.

Legalizing marijuana for recreational use is obviously a tightrope to walk on. Medical marijuana, for patients suffering from host of diseases such as AIDS, cancer, depression, Alzheimer’s, may not be a bad idea after all. Undoubtedly, it requires a lot of debate and more research before we can be sure that the social costs do not outweigh profits, and lives are put before dollars.

Bibliography
Board, The editorial. “Repeal Prohibition, Again.” The New York Times. July 27, 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/27/opinion/sunday/high-time-marijuana-legalization.html?_r=0.
D. Mark Anderson, Benjamin Hansen,Daniel I. Rees. “Medical Marijuana Laws, Traffic Fatalities, and Alcohol Consumption.” uoregon.edu. October 2012. http://pages.uoregon.edu/bchansen/MML_Alcohol_Consumption.pdf.
D. Mark Anderson, Daniel I. Rees. “The Legalization of Recreational Marijuana: How Likely Is the Worst-Case Scenario?” Wiley Online Library. October 22, 2013. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pam.21727/abstract.
Meier MH, Caspi A, Ambler A, Harrington H, Houts R, Keefe RS, McDonald K, Ward A, Poulton R, Moffitt TE. “Persistent cannabis users show neuropsychological decline from childhood to midlife.” NCBI. October 2, 2012. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=22927402.
Miron, Jeffrey A. “The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition .” prohibitioncosts. June 2005. http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/mironreport/.
Robert L. DuPont, M.D. “Drugged Driving Research: A White Paper .” whitehouse.gov. March 31, 2011. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/issues-content/drugged-driving/nida_dd_paper.pdf.

Sanctioning Peace (Or Destruction?)

Posted on by Pratishtha Mamgain

When not resorting to military action, economic sanctions become an indispensable weapon in America’s limited arsenal for engaging with countries that do not heed American diktat. Sanctions, however, are neither less aggressive nor more accommodating and peaceful than military action. Sanctions rarely have a justifiable cause (more often a murky ulterior motive) and have unintended consequences on both the target country and the sanctioning country.

The authors of ‘Economic Sanctions Reconsidered’ did a major study (Hufbauer 1990)that analysed the effectiveness of sanctions. The study considered many countries during several decades. The conclusion was that sanctions are usually a failure in terms of altering the target country’s behaviour in the right direction. The goal that has the lowest probability of being achieved is military impairment (20%). Only slightly better is the success rate for disruption of military adventures (33%). The goal with the highest probability of achievement, the only one that is achieved more than half the time, is destabilisation (52%) (McGee 2003), and it is questionable whether destabilisation is a worthy goal of sanctions.

Since 2010, Iran has been the target of steadily escalating unilateral U.S. economic sanctions, in addition to the sanctions that have been imposed by the United Nations, EU, Japan South Korea and Canada. Several other countries including India were forced to reduce their imports of Iranian Oil(BBC News). The logic of all of these programs has been to gain leverage on Iran’s nuclear development program via the impoverishment of the Iranian civilian population. Rampant inflation, a currency in freefall, oil exports slashed and a brutal squeeze on the middle class have left the Iranian economy in shambles. Though commentators attribute the negotiations between the West and the moderate Rohani government over the nuclear programme to sanctions, fact remains that losers outnumber the gainers. The office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Tehran has slammed the US sanctions on Iran, saying such sanctions have hindered the humanitarian support that Iran provides for the refugees inside the country. Iran is one of the global record-holders in hosting millions of refugees from neighboring countries for more than three decades. The punitive measures introduced against Iran by the US Department of the Treasury have limited the amount of humanitarian aid that can be transferred into Iran. The sanctions have also complicated efforts to provide shelter, food security, information and legal assistance, water and sanitation, and education to the refugees (Tasnim News Agency 2014).

The sanctions against Iraq have killed perhaps as many as 2 million Iraqis between the early 1990s, when they were first imposed, and April 2003 when they more or less ended. According to a 1995 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report almost half a million Iraqi children under the age of five have died as a result of the sanctions. The main cause of death was the lack of adequate medical supplies and malnutrition and the diseases that emanate from there(Crossette 1995). A major study by the American Association for World Health (AAWH 1997)found that the US embargo dramatically harmed the health and nutrition of a substantial segment of the Cuban population. The study documents a significant rise in suffering and even deaths. Members of the research team visited a paediatric ward that had gone 22 days without metoclopramide, a drug that prevents nausea for patients undergoing paediatric chemotherapy. Because the 35 children in the ward were deprived of the drug, they were each vomiting an average of 28 to 30 times a day (McGee 2003). One wonders how withholding the sale of such drugs is helping to overthrow the Castro regime.

The question that needs to be asked is ‘Is it worth it?’ In fact, Lesley Stahl, a commentator on60 Minutes, an American television programme, asked that very question of Madeleine Albright, former US Secretary of State under President Clinton in 1996 to which she replied- ‘I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it’ (Hoft 2008).

Clearly, sanctions have tended to hit home against the ordinary people – the ruled – rather than against the rulers who are often the real target for pressure, yet the US stands firm on its pro-sanctions stand. Sanctions haven’t exactly served American interests either. According to the President’s Export Council (an American government council), the US has imposed more than 40 trade sanctions against about three-dozen countries since 1993.The council estimates that those sanctions cost American exporters $15 billion to $19 billion (Griswold 2012) in lost annual sales overseas in 1995 and caused long-term damage to US companies—lost market share and reputations abroad as unreliable suppliers (PEC 1997).

Even the recent sanctions against Russia will most likely prove ineffective (on account of the close economic ties amongst Russia, US and European Union) and will only end up hurting diplomatic ties. So what could be the cause of such stubbornness? Well, the US is in the grip of the Neoconservative ideology which has declared it to be the ‘exceptional, indispensable country’ chosen by history to exercise hegemony over all others. This ideology is buttressed by the Brzezinski and Wolfowitz doctrines (Roberts 2014)that are the basis of US foreign policy.

The Wolfowitz Doctrine (named after Paul Wolfowitz, a neoconservative intellectual who formulated US military and foreign policy doctrine) propounds that any other strong country is defined as a threat and a power hostile to the US regardless of how willing that country is to get along with the US for mutual benefit.

Zbigniew Brzezinski (an important US foreign policy advisor since President Jimmy Carter) has propounded that China and “a confederated Russia”(break up Russia into associations of semi-autonomous states whose politicians can be suborned by Washington’s money) will be part of a “transcontinental security framework,” managed by Washington in order to perpetuate the role of the US as the world’s only superpower (Roberts 2014).

With its hegemony challenged by emerging powers, America’s propensity to repeatedly impose unilateral economic sanctions as a substitute for the rigors of diplomacy may one day backfire completely. As the world learns more about America’s audacious attempts to undermine other nations’ sovereignty and more voices register their dissent, one can only hope that their leaders understand and respect changing power dynamics.

Bibliography

AAWH, The American Association for World Health. “Denial of Food and Medicine-The impact of the US embargo on health and nutrition in Cuba.” Medicc.org. March 1997. http://www.medicc.org/resources/documents/embargo/The%20impact%20of%20the%20U.S.%20Embargo%20on%20Health%20&%20Nutrition%20in%20Cuba.pdf.

BBC News, Middle East. “Q&A: Iran sanctions.” BBC. January 20, 2014. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-15983302.

Crossette, Barbara. 1995. “Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports.” The New York Times. December 1, 1995.

Griswold, Daniel. “Going Alone on Economic Sanctions Hurts U.S. More than Foes.” Cato Institute. http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/going-alone-economic-sanctions-hurts-us-more-foes.
Hoft, Jim. “Madeleine Albright: “500,000 Dead Iraqi Children Was Worth It”.” Gateway Pundit. March 6, 2008. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2008/03/madeleine-albright-500000-dead-iraqi-children-was-worth-it/.
Hufbauer, Schott & Elliott. “Economic Sanctions Reconsidered-Case Studies in Sanctions and Terrorism.” The Peterson Institute for International Economics. December 1990. http://www.iie.com/research/topics/sanctions/sanctions-summary.cfm.

McGee, Robert W. “The Ethics of Economic Sanctions.” Institute of Economic Affairs (Blackwell Publishing, Oxford), 2003: 41-42.

PEC, The President’s Export Council. “Unilateral Economic Sanctions.” Crytome.org. June 10, 1997. http://cryptome.org/jya/pecsea061097.htm.

Roberts, Paul Craig. “US hegemonic drive makes war with Russia/China inevitable.” PressTV. http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/05/26/364229/why-war-is-inevitable/.

“UNHCR: Anti-Iran Sanctions Affect Refugees.” Tasnim News Agency. June 28, 2014. http://www.tasnimnews.com/English/Home/Single/414968.