Chapter 3
The Production of Pyschoactive
Substances
“But the farmers feel misunderstood.
‘Smoking is legal, it's freedom of choice and I think it's time for people to
get off the companies' backs, to get off our backs and let us do what we do,’
Mr Ray says…he pulls out a handful of seeds coated with a pink covering to
distinguish them from the earth. ‘When you can take a seed that you can barely
see and in half a year produce a crop that will potentially make $ 4,500 to $
5,000 an acre, it's pretty incredible.’”[1]
“…our coca
chewing is separate from all that. We are accustomed to it and have never had
anything to do with cocaine. Why should we be deprived of our coca because of
those narcotrafficantes?
There is no justice in this.”[2]
The consumer cannot consume
unless someone produces. In a relatively few cases, self-production is
sufficient: meth labs in kitchens, marijuana plants in the bathroom. But
virtually every user consumes a substance that has been produced by someone
else because they may not possess the necessary ingredients for production
(including climate), they may not want to run the legal and health risks
associated with self production, or they may just want to consume in the most
effortless way possible.
The pyschoactive commodity
system gives us a way to think about the link between consumer and producer. A
systemic approach tells us we cannot think of one without thinking of the
other, that what affects one phase has an impact on the other. But a systemic
perspective doesn’t answer some fundamental questions: Why do some people decide to become involved in the
production of psychoactive substances? Can the tobacco and coca farmers’
decisions to produce dangerous psychoactive substances be usefully
distinguished simply by referring to their legal status? Why is it that people are able to produce
illegal psychoactive substances?
Our three analytic
perspectives provide different answers to each of these fundamental questions.
Deviance analysis looks to the failure of individuals to determine who is
attracted to production of illegal psychoactive substances and to the faults of
governments to explain this illegal activity. Constructivists look to the ideas
people have concerning the substances themselves and the power of ideas against
the reach of governments attempting to impose a distinct set of ideas on
individuals and subgroups. Political economists look to the profit motive and
the ability of governments to impose a level of costs and an appropriate degree
of risk to outweigh the attraction of profits derived from producing an illegal
product.
If we know how and why
production occurs and is linked to the consumer we stand a better chance of
devising strategies to influence what is produced, by whom and under what
conditions. Our interest in these latter questions can be driven by many
different and even competing goals. For the drug prohibitionists, the goal is
to eliminate illegal production entirely. Others may feel the drug phenomenon
will always be with us but seek to minimize the environmental and human harm
resulting from the toxic processes used to process coca into cocaine, produce
synthetic drugs like methamphetamine, or that contaminate the product for the
consumer. Still others may be interested in helping the producer defend herself
against extortionists and get a “fairer” share of the profits. Finally, there
may be those who worry that producers may wind up being the unwilling or
unwitting accomplices of organized crime, rebellions and even terrorists.
Comparing Explanations for Production
|
MEDICAL MARIJUANA BILLBOARD OF CHILD & MOTHER W/SIGN “MY DAD IS
NOT A CRIMINAL” |
Each of our three
analytic frameworks attempts to explain the production of psychoactive
substances. In this section I will lay out the basic elements of such explanations
and leave the development of specific hypotheses for the study questions. You
should notice that each explanation looks to different causal factors; any
effort to combine explanations will need to justify which factors are chosen
and how they interact to produce the hypothesized outcomes.
Social Deviance analysts would argue that production of
marijuana and other psychological substances is illegal because society has
adopted norms against the consumption of those products. Although sociologists and
psychologists may question the appropriateness or consistency of those norms as
they are applied to different psychoactive substances, criminologists and
prohibitionists would not. This group of analysts, therefore, do not see any
utility for understanding the illegal drug markets in asking why someone would
choose to produce a legal psychoactive substance that contributes to addiction
and death.
The producer of
illegal psychoactive substances is expected to be someone who cannot attain the
social or economic achievements that would make him feel like a success in
mainstream society. He thus turns to the production of illegal products because
it generates wealth and may even generate prestige among a subgroup with whom
he interacts now that he has chosen this job. The deviant’s motivation can be
realized because the legal authorities (police, judiciary or politicians) are
either absent (weak or failed states) or are deviant themselves (corrupt).
A constructivist would look beyond
deviant producers without denying that some producers might be people who are
unable to achieve within the dominant social norms. For constructivists the
phenomenon is too big to be adequately understood in deviant or materialist
terms. This perspective recognizes the potential clash between belief systems
that see particular or even all psychoactive substances as acceptable and those
that do not. Hence the constructivist
would look to the norms of the producers, not to the laws, to understand why
some people might choose to produce psychoactive substances associated with
addiction and death.
Traditional
production is a legitimate enterprise in the eyes of people who have produced
for centuries. These people have experience with the substance in religion,
health and even culinary activities. Their own uses convince them that the
production of the particular psychoactive substance is not inappropriate and
shouldn’t be illegal. These producers may even know of the existence of other
psychoactive substances that produce harms but may be legal and even subsidized
by foreign governments that seek to eliminate their own production. Another set
of producers would be those who promote an important set of values of the
dominant value system --- individuality and freedom --- and see the prohibition
of their chosen psychoactive substance as an unacceptable intrusion by the
state into private affairs.
The
constructivist would also argue that the clash of norms around the issue of
producing psychoactive substances would be greater than the ability of any
government to control. These ideas are internalized by individuals and no
government is powerful enough to control ideas nor can it be omnipresent and
thus preclude individuals from acting upon their beliefs.
Political economists
would assume that producers of psychoactive substances choose these products
because the profit generated by them, minus the risk (economic or legal) is
greater than that they could earn producing a legal product or engaging in
legal employment. For the political economist the important distinction between
legal and illegal products is not normative but economic. The fact of
illegality means that the supply of, and risks associated with these products
produce retail prices that are particularly high relative to the costs of
production. Consequently, profits are expected to be attractive.
Political economists would not attempt to
identify which individuals would have preferences for wealth sufficient to lead
them into illegal production. Instead she would argue that some individuals in
every society would be tempted and the chief determinant of how much is
produced will be the ability of institutions (social, political or legal;
formal or informal) to generate risks that significantly drive down the
enjoyment one gets from the fruits of illegal production. Some production of illegal products would be
expected by political economists but they would expect more production in
countries that had institutions that were incapable of increasing the risks
associated with such production.
Evaluating the different hypotheses
requires that we collect relevant evidence. We should, therefore, begin our
pursuit with some basic facts about the role of production in the phenomenon we
are studying, as well as the characteristics (who, what and where) of
production before moving on to how our analytical frameworks explain the
existence and functioning of the production of illegal psychoactive substances.
PAS
Commodity Systems Framework
The commodity systems framework tells us that we should conceive of the production of psychoactive substances as one phase in a multifaceted effort to supply the consumer. Production does not exist or function in isolation; hence, we need to understand its role in the system and the nature of the linkages between producers and the other people operating in the system.
We know that the producer, whether of an agricultural or a synthetic product, creates a product that gets to the consumer through a distribution system. Production requires the standard items (inputs) that producers of legal products also need: start-up capital, seeds if one is producing a hybrid crop, chemicals if one is producing a synthetic product, and equipment.
In the case of illegal products, producers may need a distinct set of inputs avoided by their counterparts operating within a functioning legal system. The illicit nature of their work renders producers of illegal psychoactive substances vulnerable to extortion by those traffickers who would purchase their production and introduce it into the distribution network, by corrupt law enforcement officials, or by someone who would steal their product. Since it would be folly to call the police, the only protection producers can get is either through their own means or through playing one extortionist off of another.
Playing one extortionist off another requires
allying with one actor either by selling the product directly to them or by
paying a “tax” or fee for protection. Coca farmers in
BOX with dogs
protecting marijuana in Sierra
Defending oneself and one’s production against those
who would seize or destroy their crop requires the purchase of weaponry
adequate to the task (pistols in remote mountains, greater power firepower in
truly lawless zones like west Africa today) or dogs/booby traps in areas where
the potential thieves may be chance passers-by (marijuana production in the
California Sierra Nevada mountains). The
Figure 3.1 illustrates the linkages that develop
between the producer of an illegal substance and others who facilitate or
hinder her enterprise. The producer,
therefore, cannot be considered in isolation of the other actors who
facilitate, determine the manner in which production can be carried out, or perhaps
even make possible, his production.
Figure
3.1
Producer
Phase of
Psychoactive
Commodity System
|
PRODUCER |
|
EXTORTION BY BUYERS OF THE PRODUCT |
|
EXTORTION BY CORRUPT LAW ENFORCEMENT |
|
|
|
PRODUCTION INPUTS; START-UP CAPITAL SEEDS CHEMICALS,
|
|
DEFENSE INPUTS; WEAPONS DOGS, BOOBY TRAPS; MONEY LAUNDERERS |
Precursor chemicals, those required for the production
both of synthetic drugs and the processing of coca into cocaine is another
aspect of illegal production since there are international conventions and
national laws prohibiting the production or diversion of these chemicals for
illegal psychoactive substances. This situation is a major issue for
prohibitionists, as evidenced by the fact that the biggest drug bust in North
America did not involve Mexican gangs and cocaine or heroin, but Canadian
citizens providing ephedrine to meth superlabs in the
The producer’s role in the system may not be limited to simply providing a supply. Pharmaceutical companies and scientists are constantly producing synthetic drugs. In the case of new synthetic drugs approved for prescription use only, a pharmaceutical company interested in fomenting a demand for its particular drug, advertises its benefits on television, recommending that viewers ask their doctors if the drug is appropriate for their particular ailment. Even something as ambiguous in the viewers mind as “social anxiety syndrome” can be overcome if the viewer gets his doctor to prescribe Zoloft. (If the TV viewer also reads magazines he can try a different approach, as --- beer suggests in their print ad showing young people interacting in a friendly manner and the words “Be Yourself” alongside their logo.)
Such advertising promotes the social norm of a pill for every ailment, alerts deviants to new products and helps generate an increased supply of psychoactive substances that can be diverted to the illicit market. Oxycontin is currently the most notorious example because the manufacturer chose a formulation that would give their pain reliever a competitive edge over competing synthetic opioides but also made them more attractive on the illegal drug market.[6] Even when a new drug is not approved for prescription use, or a previously approved drug is decertified, the creators may have an incentive to promulgate the recipe. Timothy Leary went from legally experimenting with LSD for psychiatric purposes to advocating its production and use for counter-culture experiences after it had been removed from the legal prescription drug schedule.[7] Producers of legal psychoactive substances at times seek to market their product to those whose consumption would be illegal, e.g. alcohol and cigarette advertisements geared to underage consumers.[8]
What types of psychoactive substances are
produced?
The dorm party was a hit. The next day
everybody marveled at how many people were able to dance late into the night.
Of course, they also lamented that a few people drank too much and became
obnoxious.
There are numerous ways in which one can classify “types” of psychoactive substances. The specific classification used, however, should be directly related to the question under discussion. Since this chapter examines the production of psychoactive substances in order to better understand the psychoactive commodity system rather than what happens to consumers of specific substances (hallucinogens, tranquilizers, etc.) it may be most useful to distinguish substances according to their legal regime for production and consumption. The first two chapters should have convinced you that there are too many dangerous substances that are legal for the issue of danger to be the dividing line between psychoactive substances whose production we simply take for granted and psychoactive substances whose production we insist must be explained.
There are three general categories of production: legal, illegal or that in-between territory of decriminalization, in which the act itself is not legal but the authorities either do not pursue it or provide for minor penalties. Consumption can be legal, illegal or decriminalized. The relationships can be illustrated in a 3x3 table.
INSERT TABLE 3.--
Table 3.1
The Legal Characteristics
Of the Consumer-Producer Link
(some countries in 2003)
The
table illustrates quite nicely that there is no simple relationship between
production and consumption. We are most familiar with the extremes. Legal
production and legal consumption, though even
here we find limitations that can turn production illegal (e.g., not paying
taxes on it or not adhering to health and safety regulations) or renders
consumption illegal (e.g., alcohol while driving). And there are some
surprising examples here: Switzerland Italy , Spain ,
Portugal and Luxembourg Denmark , Germany and Austria
Readers will also be quite familiar with the rest of
the relationships among legal production
and decriminalized or illegal consumption. Underage smoking or drinking
itself brings no criminal action in the U.S. and since no use of psychoactive
substances in Italy, Spain or Portugal is subject to criminal sanction, the use
of prescription drugs (which are legally produced) without a prescription is
decriminalized there. In the
As we continue to explore the table we find more
variations. Perhaps the most interesting combination from the perspective of a
The decriminalized-decriminalized
combination is currently found in
|
The High Peaks of Europe: Whatever the Deadhead on
your gift list wants, Growland sells, including ten sticky strains of
marijuana -- all grown in Source: Media Awareness
Project, “Europe:
|
Where does production of illegal
psychoactive substances occur?
A few party-goers tried to impress their companions by discussing the
origins and merits of MDMA. During the pause in the music the topic of
conversation became whether Ecstasy produced in
Many countries in the world produce some type of
illegal substance that is consumed for its psychoactive properties. None of the
ready distinctions of rich and poor countries, nor developed and underdeveloped
economies, nor corrupt or honest governments gives us any insight into where
illegal production occurs. Certainly,
Production of illicit psychoactive substances boomed
in the late 1990s as new markets in
|
Ecstasy Labs A portable Ecstasy lab can produce up
to 12 million tablets a day. Portability also contributes to concealment,
since an Ecstasy lab can be hidden on the back of a flatbed trucked and
constantly on the move. Source:
Elizabeth Joyce, Current History |
Table 3.2
Illegal Production of Psychoactive Substances
Some Comparative Evidence
(Not all Producing Countries
Listed)
|
Substance |
Major
Producers |
Smaller
Producers |
|
Opiates (Heroin,
etc) |
|
|
|
Coca |
|
|
|
Cocaine |
|
|
|
Ecstasy |
|
|
|
Methamphetamines |
|
|
|
LSD |
|
|
|
Marijuana |
USA, Mexico, Colombia,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Philippines, S. Africa, Morocco |
|
|
High
Potency Marijuana |
|
|
|
Hashish |
|
|
Sources: OGD; List of Major Illicit Drug-Producing or Major Drug-Transit Countries
http://whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011102-13.html
The diversion of legitimate production to illegal
traffic is a factor not only for the legal pharmaceuticals sold without
prescription. Opium poppies are used not only for opium and heroin, but also for
medicinal products such as codeine and morphine. The UN International Narcotics
Control Board oversees the legal market for narcotics. Under the Single
Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961,[13]
the Board requires importing countries to estimate their need and exporting
countries to report sales to specific countries. Production and import are done
via regulated channels. Legal producers, except in
Turkish production of poppies has largely gone legal
since 1974 when the
The
decline in Turkish production for the illegal market was offset by increases
elsewhere. Afghani production was among those increasing. After consolidating
their domestic hold on the country the Taliban government instituted a ban on poppy
production that was extremely successful because the government was willing to tolerate
a dramatic decline in the standard of living of already poor farmers and had
demonstrated that it would deal harshly with those who questioned its policies.[15]
But opium production has thrived under
Why is illegal production possible?
|
Indoor production using high-pressure
sodium lamps and hydroponics watering systems. Import seeds from |
Readers were probably surprised to discover the broad
range of countries in which the illegal production of psychoactive substances
occurs. Certainly media and government reports in the
If poverty, corruption and weak states are not causal
factors, what determines the ability of deviants, or those pursuing alternative
lifestyles, or profit maximizers to act upon their motivations? The main
requirement for production of illicit substances may best be understood as concealment. If so, then even if we
eliminate poverty and corruption and reform failed and weak states, the
production of illegal psychoactive substances can be expected to continue.
Concealment
might come from paying off local police or farming in locales with little
transportation infrastructure. But the ability to be free from prying eyes also
comes from laws that protect the civil liberties of citizens, including their
right to be free from “unreasonable search and seizure.” It is these laws that
keep the U.S. and California state governments from simply having thousands of
law enforcement officers, supplemented by National Guard and U.S. Army troops,
sweep through the California central valley and, in a matter of days, dismantle
the labs that supply 60% of U.S. consumption of meth and cause environmental
damage to one of the most productive agricultural zones in the world. It is
also these civil liberties laws that make it possible for people to access GHB
Internet recipes to produce a “date-rape drug” in the privacy of their home
kitchen. Since civil rights tend to be better protected in middle and upper
class neighborhoods, it should also not come as a surprise that exclusive
neighborhoods become attractive to producers, e.g., high potency marijuana
production in the exclusive parts of
Recognizing the importance of legal means of
concealment is not to say that governments are helpless in pursuing production,
or that poverty, corruption and state weakness do not facilitate production. In
the U.S., the production of high potency marijuana is pursued using thermal
imaging equipment in National Guard helicopters to detect “intense heat” in
buildings and monthly electricity use is monitored in suspicious cases. Despite
the high tech capabilities, the paper trail, the relatively lower incidence of
poverty, and only a modest amount of corruption, the illegal production of
psychoactive substances continues in the
This
isolation is both beneficial and detrimental to the producer. While the secrecy
and isolation protects the producer from the police who would imprison or
extort him, it also renders him vulnerable to the law of the jungle. Her only
defense against those who would steal her production or extort her is her own
firepower. If the production is valuable, violence will be an ever-present threat
for most producers.
Another counter to the advantage of physical isolation
is that alternative products are not easily substituted for the illegal product
once a producer has tired of illegality. The very inaccessibility that kept
people (except those seeking products with low bulk, long shelf-life and high
value), out of the area make it difficult to produce legitimate crops for a
domestic or international market. Here the producer who depends upon civil
liberties to hide his illegality has an advantage: the infrastructure
connecting him to ready markets (including labor markets) for legal products
reduces his opportunity costs for switching to a legal commodity. Lack of
transportation infrastructure means that it is expensive to get things in (thus
her input costs are high) and out (marketing costs and perishableness are the
issues here).
Why do people produce illegal
psychoactive substances?
Concealment is only an enabling factor for
production. Clearly, not everyone who has the benefit of concealment engages in
illegal activity. If that were the case, most societies would be mired in
anarchy.
Our three frameworks for analysis provide answers to
the question of why some people take advantage of concealment to produce
illegal drugs. These answers can be competing, or in some formulations,
complementary. So we return to the hypotheses set out at the beginning of this
chapter and gather data to evaluate them.
Microgram Bulletin, Published by the Drug Enforcement Administration Office of Forensic Sciences Washington, D.C. 20537 http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/programs/forensicsci/microgram/mg0703/mg0703.html
Why do people produce pyschoactive substances?
Barriers to entry for production
Four main reasons for people to choose to produce
illegal psychoactive substances are often given.
Tradition: Pyschoactive substances
harvested from natural products have been used for ages by people for
religious, medicinal and culinary purposes. For cultures in which people still
have links back to those traditions, we
Peyote harvested by the North American Church, under
protection of the US Constitution, is legal but limited to traditional
religious use by members of the Church. We’ve already mentioned that coca
production for traditional chewing, as well as for the newer tees and soups to
help tourists deal with the affects of altitude in highland
The tradition argument for
production cannot deal with the expansion of that production by traditional
producers who then sell their product to non-traditional buyers who produce
substances for new uses in new places (e.g., Turkish opium for use as heroin in
Poverty. Many producers of coca and opium poppies are mired in poverty. For some
the production of illegal psychoactive substances provides an escape from
poverty (
Poor farmers who are poor
because they have land that is marginally fertile may relieve their poverty by
planting hardy though illegal crops. Other farmers can have fertile land but
little effective access to the inputs necessary to produce high value licit
crops because local monopolists keep prices exorbitantly elevated. These
farmers might be able to sell illicit crops and purchase electricity, potable
water, telephone and television, health care and education for their children,
thereby finding a path out of poverty.
But many poor farmers in the
developing world live in regions characterized by a total lack of
infrastructure: no highways, no electricity, no local health care, one room
schools for multiple grades, no potable water or sewage. For these farmers
higher prices for illegal crops do not translate into higher standards of
living as long as they live in the same area. But leaving the area most likely
means losing the ability to earn an income above the one they are likely to
earn in irregular work in the informal and unskilled economy. These farmers may
have bank accounts in the regional cities but the lack of infrastructure can
still mean having the living standard of poverty.[18]
Unemployment is not necessarily indicative of
poverty, but it does contribute to the same type of argument about why people
produce: their economic condition forces them into it. Some producers move in
and out of production depending upon their legal job situation. Some people in
Figures on how much coca grower gets per kilo of
cocaine sold in US and opium grower per gram of heroin sold in US or
profit,
Finance Rebellion and Terrorism. Rebels are ordinarily at a financial disadvantage
against established governments that can tax legal activities to recruit, arm,
train and mobilize police and the military. Traditional sources of income for
rebellions have been kidnapping, extortion such as levying their own ‘taxes’ in
territory controlled by them, and contraband sales of natural resources and
commodities under their control (such as timber or diamonds). (
Rebels and terrorists who use proceeds from
contraband trade are most likely to tax or traffick that production rather than
produce it. But the reason we put them here is the perception by some that
producers may be forced to produce illicit substances by rebels who want to tax
the production. The Shan rebels in
Summary:
Production for the Consumer
Conditions of production determined by substance
characteristics & legal framework
Producer rarely makes direct contact with consumer
Therefore, a distribution phase is necessary to link
consumer and producer
If
Mr. Ray, the tobacco farmer, were legally liable for the damage caused by the
tobacco he produced ……………….