Look, I don’t like cocaine. I don’t buy it. But this has to be one of the most wrong-minded ideas I’ve heard since Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No.” And it has just as much chance of succeeding.
You say it yourself: prohibition is the cause. Prohibition is the cause of almost every problem associated with recreational drugs, not the drugs themselves. So it’s difficult for me to understand why you’d waste time on calling for a boycott of cocaine, which will certainly fail. As others have pointed out, boycotts are only effective when an alternative exists. But nobody knows (or cares) where their coke comes from. It’s a commodity in a world market, like oil.
On the other hand, efforts at ending prohibition are finally seeing some daylight. Doesn’t it make more sense to attack the root problem, especially now when some progress seems possible? I understand your intent, but this boycott idea just strikes me as a shot in the wrong direction.

Totally Agree with all comments. I wrote the article in order to make the simple point that the best motivation for abstinence should never be the illegality of drugs. The prohibition of drugs is a failure that has lead to this catastrophe. And the reason for the war – supporting these unjust laws and general drug deterrence is a farce and a failure. I am just inspired by boycotts after seeing the success of the farm workers in California in the 60s – we can change things for the better.

The author presumes a bit much.
So, if the trillion-dollar war on drugs, with all its casualties, failed to stop people from using cocaine, then this author’s exhortations will succeed? Come now. A boycott? Do you have any idea what withdrawal pangs feel like?
Place the responsibility squarely where it belongs, with the corrupt “leaders” who continue this deadly policy.
“…until Governments deal with this problem properly by regulation…” As though that were somehow out of our control as citizens, like the weather. Far from it, we are directly responsible for putting those corrupt leaders in power, and we can just as easily elect better ones. We have all the power to change policy, when we recognize it.

Hmm, as a matter of fact this past May marked 25 years since I last had occasion to touch the stuff. That being said I fully disagree with the “reasoning” in the article above.

The difference between boycotting cocaine and boycotting meat is that with meat, there’s a choice of producers. We don’t just boycott less than ethical meat dealers, we also reward others for behaving ethically. The thinking in this article forgives the people who were responsible for creating the black market and in fact rewards them for doing so. I’ll assert that that at least as evil as the organized criminal syndicates created by the epic failure of public policy embodied in the war on (some) drugs.

You gave a couple of very good reasons to stay the heck away from the cocaine. I wholly recommend that everyone do so but not because the US government has chosen to assign the duties of production, distribution and quality control to organized criminal syndicates which are ethically bereft and morally bankrupt.

If you haven’t figured out that cocaine is just plain evil please don’t let this article make you feel like you’re responsible for what the U.S.A. has created.