The environment as the innocent bystander shot in the war on drugs

The production of a gram of cocaine means the destruction of four square metres of Colombian forest, they said, raising the question of which supermodels, popstars and city types should be lined up with hummer drivers and big game hunters in the environmental most-wanted stakes.

which puts a nice counterpoint on this high-larious comicstrip:
Partially Clips' Model in Evening Gown

The Register notes damage associated with processing chemicals, clearing forests for roads and runways, and even damage from supply side suppression efforts.

[T]he Colombian government's efforts to eradicate the plantations only serve to exacerbate the situation. They use planes to spray herbicides over coca plantations, with predictably gruesome consequences for insects, amphibians and other plants in the area. Growers then move to other areas, clear the native vegetation and start all over again.

Now, let's note in fairness that it is downright perverse to call drug users morally culpable for "forcing" the Colombian government to take these destructive actions. 'Cause you know we voted for this in order to keep selection pressure high on those coca plants. Only the strongest stuff will do for us, y'understand.

I was recently involved in a discussion of the environmenal impact of drug use a while back where one discussant pointed out that there's no such thing as a "guilt-free high". Most pot is grown under high powered lights. Nitrous oxide is greenhouse gas. Organic synthesis of MDMA, LSD or your personal favorite brand of alphabet soup tends to produce toxic byproducts and due to the unregulated nature of the business, these are rarely disposed of properly even when the people in question would otherwise be inclined to. Let's take a moment to imagine the trial and press coverage of an Ecstasy producer busted when the Feds found out about their inexplicable hazmat disposal bills.

Chalk up two more arguments against the war on drugs. Lots of people talk about the human violence surrounding trafficking due to prohibition. But not only would legalized, regulated drugs reduce turf wars and maintain higher standards of product purity, it would also mean that producers would be held to the same environmental standards as other industries and the worlds' governments could stop trying to destroy their own ecologies in the name of safety and security.

In closing, the Register does hold one tip for a stim buzz that with less enviroguilt:

Coffee from shade trees cultivation farms, where the bushes are grown in the shadow of native taller trees, is a much more eco-friendly option. "Biodiversity in these plantations is almost as high as in primary forests," said botanist Sandy Knapp from the Natural History Museum.

Part of me wants to react to that with an incredulous "Have you examined the relative footprint of Folger's crystals, too? Or maybe the pickmeup of hugs from your loved ones?" I guess I'll cut them some slack on this one since they did qualify that as

For those who ... want to change for a milder and more ethical one, massive doses of caffeine are the way to go.

which is about as nonjudgmental and qualified as you can expect your advice to come when you're putting endangered parakeet habitats and precious carbon sinks straight up your nose just to get yer rocks off on how magnificently inflated your ego can get. Not everyone appreciates the simple joy of that any more.

At any rate, a huge thank you to JM for bringing this to our attention.