Good Honest Dollar $$

Given the extent of harm which the illicit drugs industry has not only upon those individuals which suffer from addiction, but also upon broader society as a whole, calls to legalize the business may seem absurd.

But as long as drugs are taken by an estimated two hundred million people worldwide (refer article), calls for new approaches, including legalization, will continue to be made and should be given due consideration.

Last week’s call by The Economist magazine, where they ran a cover feature calling for the legalization of the entire industry, is just the latest example of these.

 
The Economist’s plan 
In brief, the magazine argues that governments should adopt the following approach:

(a) legalize both consumption and production of illicit drugs;
(b) tax and regulate the trade, with differing levels of taxation being applied according to the relative harm of each drug;
(c) redirect funding saved from enforcement efforts toward public education and treatment programs; and
(d) continue to ban the sale of drugs to minors.

Naturally, it is possible to legalize the act of consumption of illicit drugs without legalizing their production or trafficking, and indeed this is the approach which I would support (see below).

But for now, lets consider legalization of the entire trade – production, distribution and consumption.

 
Arguments for legalization of the trade
Proponents of a liberal approach would argue that legalization of the drug trade would help to:

(1) stimulate the creation of a somewhat legitimate industry, which in turn may reduce the extent to which the trade is controlled by organized crime gangs, thus helping to reduce the level of flow on crime, such as murder and thuggery, which is often associated with the trade;

(2) (assuming the legitimate industry referred to above could be created) reduce the extent to which otherwise law abiding users stand at the mercy of those who feed their addiction;

(3) (again assuming the creation of a legitimate industry) rid the trade of it’s ‘pot luck’ nature, where users cannot be certain about exactly what is contained within the substance with which they are taking or where it is coming from;

(4) reduce the degree of reluctance on behalf of drug users to seek help for their addition;

(5)  allow the creation of safe injecting houses, which would eliminate the risks associated with use of dirty needles and enable easy access to emergency services if required;

(6) take away part of the ‘thrill factor’ which is commonly associated with experimentation of an illegal product;

(7) allow resources currently spent on law enforcement to be reallocated toward programs aimed at treating addition as well as public education programs about drug use; and

(8) reduce the extent of injury and death on the part of law enforcement officers involved in efforts to crack down on producers and distribution chains; and

(9) eliminate the need to slap a criminal record on otherwise law abiding citizens, particularly those who only experiment with ‘soft’ drugs, such as marijuana.

With respect to the last point, criminal records can make it difficult to secure employment and other opportunities, and can lead to a nasty spiral. Not to mention the lessons to which young people are exposed in a prison environment.

 
Arguments against legalization
In response, critics of legalization may argue that it:

(1) sends the wrong message with respect to the seriousness of either drug use or any form of involvement with the drug trade;

(2) may encourage additional consumption if the extra supply from legalized producers lead to a fall in street price;

(3) takes away the ability of law enforcement to confiscate large stashes and prevent them from hitting the street; and

(4) does not in any way guarantee the creation of a (relatively) legitimate industry, and even if such an industry did develop, the prospect of gangsters being driven from the industry completely is highly unlikely.

 
My view
In terms of the consumption side of the equation, I feel that the benefits of allowing users to seek help without fear of prosecution and to use safe injecting houses outweighs the costs of any message which legalized consumption may send.

Those with a drug problem should receive help, not criminal records or jail time.

In terms of the supply side, I can appreciate the benefits associated with trade out of the hands of criminal gangs if that could be achieved. Nevertheless, given well justified concerns about the genuine legitimacy of any new producers that emerge, I just can’t bring myself to support any proposal under which the production and trafficking of substances which cause so much harm is deemed to be a legitimate, legal business activity.

What do you think?

In last week’s post, I outlined two common objections toward the concept of allowing workers the right to form unions and bargain on a collective basis.

Today, I would like to outline the reasons why I feel that workers should have the right to form unions.

 
The employer-employee relationship is a special case
In last week’s discussion, I asked why employees should be granted special rights, such as the right to bargain on a collective basis, which are not granted to other economic participants.

My answer – the employer/employee relationship is a special case.

As a result of the degree to which the majority of workers are financially dependent upon a singular employer, employees are considerably more susceptible than other economic participants toward abuses of their rights. In light of this, it is reasonable to expect there should be some respects where employees are given different treatment under the law to that of other economic participants.

(Whilst sensible employers will always honor the rights of their staff, we must nevertheless accept the unfortunate reality that some attempts to exploit workers do occur from unscrupulous employers.)

 
The case for unions
There is, in my view, a strong case for allowing workers to form a representative body and bargain on a collective basis:

 
• A powerful deterrent to abuse of worker rights.

Fear of confrontation with powerful unions can, on one hand, result in employers accepting unreasonable demands.

On the other hand, such a fear provides a powerful deterrent to the abuse of worker rights.

Whilst primary responsibility for worker protection should rest with the government, the unfortunate reality is that government actions are not always sufficient to prevent exploitation of workers in every country.

In any case, even in countries where governments do adopt proactive measures toward the protection of worker rights, the fear of confrontation with unions (in addition to the prospect of legal penalties) still acts as a powerful deterrent toward the abuse of such rights.

 
• Affordable legal advice and representation.

Legal action never should be considered in terms of the resolution of workplace disputes until all other possible approaches have been exhausted.

Nevertheless, in cases of genuine rights abuses from unscrupulous and unrepentant employers, it is imperative that aggrieved workers not be disadvantaged in the legal system from either: (a) a lack of financial capacity to pursue legal remedies; or (b) any lack of understanding of their legal rights.

This is one area where a union can play a pivotal role – by providing its members legal advice and representation.

Furthermore, in many cases, a visit from union representatives (along with the associated message that the employee concerned has a powerful organization standing right behind him or her) is sufficient to pull unscrupulous employers into line.

 
An Internationally Recognized Right
The right to join the union is specifically recognized in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (article 23, sub-section 4), along with the right of refusal to do so (refer article 20, sub-section 2).

Human rights must have a global baseline standard, beyond which any breaches are considered to be human rights abuses.

Whilst the declaration is not perfect, it is the best we have in terms of internationally agreed standards. Any attempt by any government (or any other party) to prevent citizens from acting upon their rights as specified under the declaration, including the right to belong to a union, should be considered a human rights abuse.

 
The strongest argument – common sense
In some cases, collective bargaining through unions would appear to be a matter of simple common sense.

This is particularly the case where firms employ large numbers of workers and/or the tasks performed by a significant portion of an organization’s staff are largely homogeneous in nature.

In such cases, attempting to negotiate wages and conditions on an individual basis, with each and every individual worker, would be pointless, impractical and inefficient. Equally ineffective is the practice whereby employers simply offer employment conditions on a take it or leave it basis without any form of negotiation. Such an approach provides no mechanism for worker input, nor any opportunity for sensible discussion as to how the agreement can be structured to best suit the requirements of both parties.

The most sensible option in these types of cases is for staff to elect representatives to negotiate workplace agreements on their behalf. This approach is not only efficient, but it provides an effective mechanism to enable the agreement to be structured in the best possible way in order to meet the requirements of both parties.

 
The right not to join a union
Whilst the right to belong to a union has international recognition, so to does the right of refusal to do so, and under no circumstances should union membership ever be mandatory, compulsory, or a condition of any form of employment.

Dear readers,

Recently, I had the privilege of being interviewed by Saad Khan of Social Bridges, an organization dedicated to promoting responsible behavior amongst business in Pakistan.

The interview can be viewed here.

It was truly a pleasure to share my thoughts and opinions with readers of Social Bridges, particularly as I have a high level of respect for those involved with the organization and what they are trying to accomplish.

During the interview, Saad asked some thought provoking questions relating to Corporate Social Responsibility and Socially Responsible Investing, and I was challenged to think deeply about my responses.

Dear readers,

As I mentioned last week, I will be on vacation until August 30.

However, contrary to what I indicated last week, I will not be posting any further entries until I return from vaction. My next post is scheduled for Friday August 30, and will deal with some common objections to Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) based upon principle.

Cheers

Andrew

Dear readers,

As of Friday, I will be on vacation for three weeks.

On a personal note, this will be very exciting for me, particularly as it is the first time my family has been on an overseas holiday together.

I have forward scheduled posting during this period, so that entries entries are scheduled on Tuesdays and Fridays as per normal. Most likely, I will check my blog and respond to comments every three or four days or so.

In addition, I will probably not be doing a great deal of commenting on other blogs, but I look forward to visiting all of your blogs in early September.

Cheers,

Andrew