[Commons-Law] A loose drug policy? Why not? (Shishir K Jha)

[Jeebesh Bagchi]

Dear Hasit and Shishir

Your exchange raises many questions and so thanks for making elaborate 
postings.

It seems to me you both have an implicit image of the `look` of 
societies with `economic security and prosperity` with `stable` modes of 
producing social goods. And also an implicit image of a social / 
institutional arrangement that engenders creativity or inventiveness as 
values and in tangible forms. The images may vary in specificties, but 
they are there, and not so articulated.

But, what intrigues me is that both of you come up with a `narrative of 
disappointment` with anger and frustration over failures, defeat, lacks, 
in-competencies etc.

Was wondering why this narrative - which starts from articulations of 
two very different vantage points - reaches a similar affective logic.

Could this be because both these narratives share and draw upon a 
similar account of the path of history?

An account that takes as its assumption that what happened once will 
happen again with similar results and that what has been achieved in one 
'evolved' space is necessarily good and desirable.

The `disappointment` that is palpable in your mails may perhaps be from 
the speed ('slow') and blockage to the realisation of these goals - just 
there, but out of reach.

Here in this context I will bring in few points to consider:

-> How come societies that are extremely developed have biodiversity - 
poor ecologies/ resources, while societies that are in so-called 
'transition' to becoming developed, or are 'developing' are biodiversity 
- rich societies? What economic and social processes makes for this 
peculiar paradox? (We seem to learn `protection` from institutions and 
practitioners who never could protect!!)

-> How is it that so many kinds of species and knowledge survived in 
these `bio-rich` spaces within a context of massive inequality and 
expropriation, inspite of dispossessions through big dams, mining 
projects, forest enclosures, green revolution etc? What kinds of 
protocols kept these ecologies protected, nurtured and alive.?

-> 18th-19th C saw the massive expulsion of millions from the then 
rapidly developing spaces to many other parts of the world. Land was 
available and frontiers were open. Atleast that is the way it is largely 
taught. Is it possible today to `expel` so large a population away? What 
happens then?

-> 20th C is also not so easy. The mass slaughter in the first half of 
the Century was primarily within developed spaces. The next half saw the 
theatre expand and globalise in terms of further turmoil. The relative 
peace during this time in some parts of the globe numbs us to believe 
that `a certain` path is the `best` path. This path has emerged once - 
and with immense suffering - and is very difficult to reoccur with 
similar aesthetic results. What happens then?

-> Today among the first 100 largest economies 52 are corporations. 
These entities need to expand and need all kinds of protection. They are 
fragile. They can only survive by eating into all other forms of social 
arrangements. These are networked entities with presence in multiple 
countries spread out in terms of headquarters, productions, finance, 
research and development, etc. They lobbied to get international 
agreement on IP and will lobby further to have more of the greener 
playing field. Does our panoptic of the `national economies`/ `national 
institutions` help us understand these entities and their playing 
mechanisms and further their relation to the various states through 
which they negotiate? [The next slaughter may be around the mobilisation 
with the cry `we will produce cheaper and better` against `do not mess 
around with my IP`.]

-> The chimera of participation that happens around each round of state 
policy discussions just makes it impossible to think through the ideas 
that govern these interest groups. How far are we willing to re-think 
progress, utility, productivity and efficiency as social values.?

I am here sincerely arguing a case for a non-sectarian and non-national 
account of historical and social processes and linkages that can ask 
questions about its own assumptions and axioms.

At times the pause button maybe useful!!

all the best

Cheers
Jeebesh