36 South: "Let's Legalize Cocaine"

Tyler Durden's picture

From Jerry Haworth of 36 South Capital

Let’s Legalise Cocaine

Think about it – a substance which makes one feel good, promotes a feeling of well-being and confidence…..what is the problem with that?

The problem, as I explained to all my teenagers, is not that drugs are inherently bad per se, it is the medium to long term consequences of drug use that inevitably leave one worse off and forces one to make decisions one would not normally make e.g. selling your mother’s wedding ring for drug money.

Like the good pseudo-parents they are, the governments have (probably correctly) stepped in and outlawed drugs and their use. But there are other substances which also make one feel good, promote a feeling of well-being and confidence but is just as dangerous. With this substance the government does NOT limit use but promotes it! It is in fact the grower and distributor!

What is this stuff? Hint …. Comes in two flavours: money (present money) and credit (future money).

Our pseudo parents, the governments, are money pushers and we are the junkies. They have encouraged their “children” to take up the habit. Thus, we have all become addicts, the world is one big “needle park” and we are so habituated that any call to limit its creation is met with derision. The fiscal cliff, which should be renamed ‘last stop before insanity,' was merely an attempt by the “Salvation Army” to limit our addiction, to put a boundary on how much longer we can go on without consequence.

The governments have driven interest rates to near zero as well. What does this mean? Interest rates are like an automatic ship stabiliser. If the economy tilts too much towards credit, interest rates go up, telling the economy that there is too much credit in the system and vice versa. If the economy tilts too much towards present money, interest rates fall basically indicating there can be more credit money in the system. When governments subvert this indicator by effectively switching it off by artificially driving rates to near zero, there is no way to tell the correct mix of credit and money in the system. This suits the government, they know they have too much credit in the system (especially their own bonds) and they know that there is so much other credit in the system that any Volker-like move to raise rates to correct the imbalance would send the economy into another Great Depression. Thus they distort the present money/ future money balance to suit their and our short term avoidance of pain all at the expense of the medium and long term. Lyrics from Hotel California spring to mind, “you can check out any time you like but you can never leave”.

At time of writing I don’t know how the debt ceiling will turn out but I am eerily calm about it, the government, the ”pusher” of money, is not going to stop “pushing”. And the medium to long term consequences of this money and credit creation to solve a previous “money and credit creation” problem will be disastrous for so many. Why? It will result in high inflation and probably more likely the serious strain, stagflation. Imagine 20% unemployment, 20 % inflation and 1% interest rates. How would you protect wealth and savings?

The upshot of this scenario would be even more severe wealth inequality as a lucky few closest to the government spigots would benefit “oligarch style”. Hardest hit will be the middle class, the working mule of society, as inflation or stagflation tightens its stranglehold. The ultimate sadness will be taken to its logical conclusion; we will have a great depression anyway, in million dollar units instead of 10 dollar units.

So if our money junkie pseudo-parents, the government, have no regard for our medium to long term well-being, why stop at money?  Legalise drugs! Don’t pretend to have our interests at heart in one important area of our lives, our health and not in the other important area of our lives, our wealth.

For the record the above is nothing more than a metaphor, I don’t really condone the use of drugs and don’t want them legalised.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Robot Traders Mom's picture

For the record the above is nothing more than a metaphor, I don’t really condone the use of drugs and don’t want them legalised.


I know I'm missing the point of the story, but seriously. The whole article was ruined for me by that line about not wanting drugs legalized. How can someone understand our financial problems, yet not have the common sense to understand the ramifications of prohibition and the corruption and death it creates? 

flacon's picture

The problem isn't really the money or credit, it's the fact that they FORCE US AT GUNPOINT TO USE IT! Nobody would use their money if they ddn't have Legal Tender Laws. If we could be paid for our goods and services in silver coin I'd INSIST that my services as a software developer be paid in silver or gold. But if I do that today I go to jail. 


It's like saying: Legalize drugs, but force everyone to use them all day, every day... and if you don't use drugs, you're going to jail. 

SafelyGraze's picture

Amend the Constitution to Protect People from Borrowing Money

margaris's picture

No, government borrows money in the name of the people, that's the real problem.

Nothing more fucked up than somebody else loading you (and your children) up with debt..

GetZeeGold's picture



Who wants to buy my grandkids? I'm just looking for a fix here.


I can totally handle my problem.....and I've got the legislation to prove it.

francis_sawyer's picture

 "It's a helluva drug"

~ Rick James

MsCreant's picture

I thought that was James Rickards?

"We're bustin' out on some serious funk, y'all!"

Peter Pan's picture

Regarless of the addiction, the problem is threefold. Firstly, it is virtually impossible to let go. Seondly, you need a bigger and bigger hit as time goes on. Finally, you often succumb to other addictions as well.

francis_sawyer's picture

I don't fully agree with that [though there are probably some truths to be found]...


I was never a drug user of any kind as a teenager... But after I left home [moved to California], I wound up casually doing some drugs with some roomies... I pretty much tried everything [from coke, to mescaline, hash, ludes, amphetamines, & even purple micodot]... Never got hooked on any of it & I haven't gone near the stuff in decades...

To add to that, it would be easy to say that none were ever a 'habit' but that's not entirely true... During that time [which lasted about 12-16 month], I probably smoked pot every single day... Then ~ one morning I just woke up & decided to quit... Stopped cold... Had nothing to do with 'morality'... It just stopped being interesting to me anymore...

trav777's picture

fuck the stupid author of this article.

YES, legalize coke.  WTF is the point of banning it?  The ban DOESN'T WORK.

I don't give a shit how much you disagree with the gd'd use of drugs; reality DOESN'T NEED YOUR CONSENT or APPROVAL.

The REALITY is that bans like this DO NOT WORK, therefore they shouldn't be tried or considered as options.

billsykes's picture

Ron paul made an interesting point about drugs when he was speaking about gun control, he said think about it- if you are in jail you can get drugs.


RockyRacoon's picture

Must have been that Christmas Club account I had when I had when I was a kid.  It was just gateway credit to being hooked and making me get a mortgage.  The bastards.

Boris Alatovkrap's picture

Boris is cannot borrow money any more, must sell kidney. Try to sell liver but is - how you say - cirrhosis?

Parrotile's picture

Come to Australia as a "Refugee" and we'll treat your cirrhosis (and whatever else there is lurking in there - HCV, HIV, whatever) for FREE!!!

Seeing as Melbourne's a bit overwhelmed right now, may I suggest landing at Sydney - I'm SURE NSW Health would be more than happy to help (Hee, Hee!!)

FeralSerf's picture

The livestock mistakenly believe that the pasture belongs to them.  This is as true in Australia as it is in  America and the rest of The Empire.  Debt based money prevents the livestock from ever having a real ownership interest other than that of a place to be fattened up and provide the ranchers new young livestock.

It is also important that the livestock not be allowed means to protect themselves from their owners so they don't become too dangerous to their owners and herders.

Often the owners wish to increase their herds.  A popular method to do this is to encourage "immigration" from other herds.  Since Australians and Americans do not breed fast enough anymore to satisfy the ranchers' desires for growth, it is necessary to acquire additional, preferably young livestock, from their southeast Asian or Latin American neighbors.  Their existing livestock usually complain about having to share their pastures and services like medical care with these new immigrants.  The ranchers, in "democracies", provide all sorts of bullshit disingenuous explanations why this is necessary.  In the end the ranchers usually benefit by this immigration.

old naughty's picture

"Force us at gunpoint to use money or credit..."

Did they real-ly?

Every step of the way there're "acceptance" by us, no?

I think the article is correct in metaphoring, albeit not spelling out clearly.

Hint: Flow.

Oil, drug, money-credit...(choke point = control)

and guess what's coming?


Now, back to ponder the acceptance bit...


margaris's picture


Well you can argue that the guy who has a gun to his head is guilty himself for being afraid and not just walking away from the situation... d'uh.

The problem is more complex than that.

Yes, we are afraid. And we are often alone, unorganized and fearful of our neighbor.

That's why a few ten thousand henchmen from the IRS are able to intimidate 300 million people...

Watch "TheTinyDot" ----> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6b70TUbdfs

damage's picture

I felt the same way.

Whole article ruined by this stupidity even if he had something worthwhile to say.

Dr Benway's picture

The author proved he is an idiot right from the moment he opened his mouth with his drug warrior shit. He might have something worthwhile to say on other subjects, but it would be like a blind pig accidentally finding an acorn.

Clint Liquor's picture

There is not one thing positive that has come from Richard Nixon's 'War on Drugs'.

It cost trillions.

It incarcerated millions and put millions of dependents on welfare.

It corrupted and destabilized Mexico, all of Central America and the northern half of South America.

It destroyed Civil Liberties.

It diverted Law Enforcement from actual criminal investigation.

That is just some of the negatives, please feel free to add your own.

And it never kept anyone who want to from getting high.

For fuck-sakes, they can't even keep drugs out of Prison, let alone High School.

Radical Marijuana's picture

EXCEPT if those were the things intended to happen! Stop assuming that the "drug war" was a failure based on it not accomplishing the impossible ideals it was supposed to accomplish. The "drug war" was a great SUCCESS at promoting social slavery through other means. That was the real purpose of the drug wars, and that purpose has been fantastically achieved.  The drug war is mostly war on marijuana. It was perfect propaganda, a HUGE LIE, to assert that the single best plant on the planet for people was "almost as bad a murder." That huge lie necessarily required more and more violent law enforcement, which could never make that lie become true, but could and DID drive social polarization towards greater social slavery.

The drug wars were an enormous success, in terms of promoting much more sophisticated social slavery, inside the general context of debt slavery. However, just as the debt slavery is become debt insanity, so too, the drug wars have become so obviously insane that comments like yours, Clint Liquor, are now understood at correct by a majority of people.

However, your arguments are what I describe as those made by mainstream morons, that do not understand the greater human ecology context, and therefore, have no better solutions to offer. You are still stuck inside perceiving the world using the same language as the biggest bullies' bullshit.

jeff montanye's picture

p.s. blind pigs (not to be confused with speakeasies) find acorns by sense of smell.  like the pinball wizard.

Clint Liquor's picture


"However, just as the debt slavery is become debt insanity, so too, the drug wars have become so obviously insane that comments like yours, Clint Liquor, are now understood at correct by a majority of people."

My, my, aren't you a condesending little cocksucker. A majority of the people in the USA support the War on Drugs. They believe it is necessary for an orderly society. Rants like yours, accomplish nothing.

Radical Marijuana's picture

Actually, opinion polls in the USA demonstrate that, for the first time, the majority support legalizing marijuana.

Legalization in "Cascadia"




Of course, you are right that "rants" like mine accomplish nothing. The real world is controlled by lies, backed by violence, and therefore, more radical "truth" does nothing. The established systems must drive themselves mad, and thereby destroy themselves. Nothing else is practically possible.

You may consider me a condesending little cocksucker, however, I am simply an expert on this topic. If one looks into the history of drug prohibitions, one will find that the banksters were behind that, like almost everything else, since they conspire to profit from every evil thing that they can possibly do!

The tipping point where the majority of people think that the majority of the drug war has failed HAS happened in America, and that tipping point is related to more and more people perceiving that the banksters are out of control criminals.

Your assessment of the standing social facts is no longer correct, Clint Liquor, although it was true, not so long ago. Of course, I predict that none of the facts which I linked you to above will change your opinion. Indeed, people are primarily controlled by lies, backed by violence, and nothing else tends to change what they believe than for that to backfire badly enough so that it destroys them. You happen to now be wrong. However, I have learned to expect that that will make no significant difference to anything.

dark pools of soros's picture

And of course the irony is the social decay has to happen first, without legalizing those drugs, before they get legalized to sedate the hopelessly despaired populance... They get legalized after the moral decay has occurred without them, which was the fear in banning them

The drug lifestyle was never shutdown, hollywood, the media, the socialites became the pusher for vicarious drug use which affects a nation more than individual use

But even that is a big ruse which the country's crony elite hid behind as they fleeced the wealth from the distracted masses

Dr Benway's picture

The war on marijuana was also backed by the alcohol industry, and still is.

Radical Marijuana's picture

For sure, Dr. B!

History of Prohibition


How alcohol as a fuel was killed

That is a 5 minute section from a video presentation about how the "temperance movement" was funded, so that their ulterior purposes of alcohol prohibition could be achieved, through the influence of funding on the political process in the USA, & elsewhere ...

Our current industrial addiction to oil, and cutting down trees, was pushed through history. Our overall economic development was not based on objectively rational overviews of the alternatives, but rather controlled by the triumph of dishonesty and violence done by those who benefited from those real ways our economic developments were guided. ...  Our industrial addiction to oil etc. are flip side facets of the history of the systems of drug prohibitions. Just like dishonesty backed up with violence subsidized atomic energy far more than any other alternatives,  drug prohibition systematically was distributed and integrated in the emerging global economy. ...


The Great Amnesia

How we became slaves to oil


These issues ALWAYS go deeper, the more one examines them!

Ethanol is the fundamental chemical of organic chemistry.

Alcohol prohibition was paid for, in order to achieve ulterior purposes, and now, the currently established alcohol industries pay for campaigns to keep other drugs illegal. One reason is that other drugs could barely complete with cannabis. If cannabis was completely legal, it would cost pennies per gram, since it costs no more to produce than lettuce or tomatos. Indeed, cocaine would be about the same cost as sugar, and so on and so forth ...

What human beings "should" do is adapt to live with abundance. Instead, they have been forced to adapt to live with artificial scarcity. What has happened is that natural scarcity evolved social pyramid systems, which then maintained artificial scarcity, in order to benefit those systems. We are now stuck in that vicious rut ... Alcohol should be cheap and abundant, the same as everything else that could be produced to be that way. Instead, insane artificial scarities and economic distortions were driven through the triumph of huge lies, primarily through the means of funding the political processes (including paying for the assassination of politicians that could not be bribed.)

Thus, the history of prohibition was an excellent example of the divide and conquer strategy.

Skateboarder's picture

Thank you much for your eloquent posts, RM. The strings have been pulled to distort our natural progression of living in abundance. Everyone's confused now, having no idea what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' in our lives. Competition for artificial resources that are artificially scarce... that's what seems to be prized now. But that won't be the case for too long. The human brain doesn't have cannabinoid receptors by accident. The entirety of the marijuana plant isn't useful to us by accident. What is an accident is how we as a collective let a few fucking psychopaths steer our evolution for their own personal profit.

No fear, no regret. Only truth will forgive our dirty past.

Curiously_Crazy's picture

+1 (yeah mate it took me all of a day to realise logging in and logging out was to much bloody effort so just stay logged in now) but in reference to what you are saying, though I'm sure you've seen it before. Bill Hicks:



TWSceptic's picture

lol what drugs were you on when writing this?

macholatte's picture


There is not one thing positive that has come from Richard Nixon's 'War on Drugs'.


He man, too many negative vibes. Isn't the glass half full?

Look a the other side of the war on drugs. The positives.

We now have a whole bunch of young Americans employed guarding the poppy fields in Afghanistan, there's more heroin on the streets than ever before and we have a very well established military industrial complex dedicated to making things that get destroyed. The police state is thriving. South America is doing much better as well as Mexico. And lets not forget the hospitals and rehab centers. All that drug money and USA injected aid to fight & support the drug business simultaneously has created or saved millions of jobs. Lots of banks have been getting fat laundering drug money. Lots of politicians and cops have been getting fat taking bribes.  It's the economy, man. Every dollar wasted fighting drugs probably generates 3 or 4 or 5 dollars in corruption. Which eventually gets back to expensive cars, big houses and yachts and jewelry and.... gold.The war on drugs is really a cleaverly disguised stimulus package fabricated before econ stimulus was fashionable.


Curiously_Crazy's picture

Precisely. I won't add to your list of negatives, but I will add some (well known) positives of legalisation:

- The drugs would be manufactured in clean premises eliminating issues with all the dirty production methods and the cut crap.

- Costs would come down to an affordable level as the black market would pretty much cease to exist. This would pretty much eliminate drug crime, which would reduce the prison load dramatically.

- There wouldn't be the WOW factor for young kids to start; there will always be young kids wanting to try stuff out but it will lose a lot of the 'coolness' it currently has because they would no longer be doing something illicit

- Doses would be standardised drastically cutting down OD's

People are going to find what they want regardless of what TPTB tell them (and as mentioned before might even be more inclined to do so). The cynic in me says the gov doesn't care about losing the drug war because A. It helps there prison industrial complex and B. It shows the average sheep they are "doing something to protect the children"  (all the while giving the ludicrous vaccines, wacking them on SSRI's or ADD drugs by the truckload - then again big pharma owns the rights to them). Oops I'm digressing... time to bugger off.



e_goldstein's picture

"There is not one thing positive that has come from Richard Nixon's 'War on Drugs'."

Elvis got a federal badge. 


trav777's picture

um...the nation in those days was like 85, 90% white.  It was a different nation.

That America is gone.  Nothing can be taken from "how things were" and applied to now anymore than you can apply the way Sweden does things to Haiti.

blindman's picture

from Del in KS wrote 2 years 20 weeks ago
"Smell, hearing sight in that order. In Europe trained pigs are used to find Truffles. I would say that is a very good nose. Much of my youth was spent hunting porkers in Central Florida. They aren't blind but the nose and ears are the best."

Skateboarder's picture

"Here's some ramblings I pooped out. I can give an impression of a somewhat rational stance on the drugs issue. Btw, I'm a hypocrite and don't give two shits about the actual welfare of my fellow planeteers. Drugs are bad mmkay?"

That's what I got out of this shit. If I could give a 0 rating, I would. Tyler, did this fool pay to get this on here?

midtowng's picture

I don't want ALL drugs legalized, just like all types of weapons shouldn't be legalized.

Pot should be legalized. Heroin not. Why? Because one is safe and the other is very dangerous.

Same story with rifles and rocket launchers.

margaris's picture

What makes a drug "safe" is a healthy down-to-earth lifestyle, no matter what drug you are talking about.

Say for example you are more or less 100% "happy" in your life and then you take drugs that push this happyness level to 120%....

It makes you feel a little bit more special (if you desire to feel that way), and after your state of intoxication is over you fall back to the previous 100% happy easy orderly lifestyle.

Most probably you don't even have a desire for drugs because your lifestyle gives you many different fulfilling satisfactions like family, friends, art, science, hobbies etc...

...your inner child is alive and kicking so to speak.


Now imagine you are a poor fuck with debt problems, social problems and no bright future. You are at a 20% level, and feel like scum all day.

Now your drug of choice pushes you to an immense 100% happyness level. You enter a realm you never even imagined before...

Thats like 5 times happier then before... you literally enter a wonderland. It's insane...

Well, what happens when someone falls from 100% heaven back to the 20% hell and also on a regular basis?

It's the most horrific psychological rollercoaster you can be in. And it's the biggest driver for a sick slave like addiction...


Safety in drugs is about this difference. If you need drugs to flee from reality than you are in deep shits.


It's like with guns, they are not the problem, but everyday reality.

ToNYC's picture

Drugs are nothing more than molecules, and if naturally -derived, entitled to human rights by Genesis 1:29. That Biblical prescription existed until Richard Nixon and John Mitchell, two corporate NY lawyers who knew jack-squat about Science or Medicine, but 100% about controlling any tool with political vectors, natural or synthetic, that affects percetion of dogmatic reality especially as regards tweaking the sensory inputs. This frontier thinking is essential to the discovering the remaider of the laws of Nature by the centuries-blessed Scientific method, which dominance-controllers have no interest and then prejudicial interest beyond that . So much for Science and the subsequent Protection racket which they kicked off almost exactly 40 years ago just before the hammer was to fall on the both of those proto-fascists.

caShOnlY's picture

Same story with rifles and rocket launchers.

if I had a rocket launcher some sumbitch would die!!


trav777's picture

how exactly is heroin unsafe?

Heroin is actually very safe if it is pure...you take the same shit in narcotic painkillers

nmewn's picture

And I caught the metaphor early on...the Fed.

Well done!

rehypothecator's picture

The author has it backwards.  It's the government that is addicted to money.  It has the needle very, very deeply in its arm: taxes are to be paid before all other debts, we pay interest and penalties for late payments but the government pays neither with overpayment refunds, and, worst of all, no matter how much is printed, it always, always needs more. Much, much more.  It is better to saddle our children's children with unpayable debts than restrain spending just a little, tiny bit.  It can't even understand simple words like "cut," as in, the budget was "cut," when, in fact, the expenditures merely went up less than they would have otherwise gone up.  Less of an increase isn't a "cut" to anybody else except to the most hardened addict.  

Radical Marijuana's picture


"Drug problems" exist inside some environmental situation.

The government is run by puppets controlled by banksters.

The masses of people are the muppets being manipulated.

And the "pushers" are those who privatized their "profits."