The “woke coke” story surfaced again last week. Like it did last month. And last year. It’s the one about how middle-class users are buying very expensive, ethically sourced cocaine from dealers who allege their product is fair trade and cartel-free. The media obviously love the story, and not just because it rhymes.
Stories about drugs have always been used to sell papers. They’re usually the perfect mix of the forbidden, the immoral and the shocking. These days they’re clickbait. The British media has re-published the same two stories — “what to do if you suspect your neighbours are smoking weed” and “how cocaine can make your skin rot” — thousands of times since 2017, because they never fail to get traction. But the tales of “woke coke” provide an extra twist: they serve as culture war missiles aimed at the metropolitan liberal elite.
The problem with these stories, like many others lobbed around in the war on drugs, is that they are mainly bullshit. Woke coke doesn’t really exist. It’s largely a media invention based on the fact that occasionally a dealer might try and claim their powder is whiter than white, to give them an edge in a competitive market. But you’ve got to be fairly gullible to believe that Barry from Bermondsey or Snow_Flake on Telegram have really been to Bolivia to ensure their wares are 100% ethical.
The only tangible evidence, to date, offered by the media of fair trade coke being sold outside of South America has been an advert on the dark web posted in 2013. I’ve been investigating the drug trade for 20 years, and I’ve only heard of one case, now five years old, where a UK dealer had convincing proof his powder was ethically sourced from a small group of cartel-free Peruvian farmers. Bona fide ethical supply chains like this are extremely rare, especially in Europe: virtually every grain of the 117 million grams of cocaine consumed in Britain each year will be the usual rain forest-damaging, cartel-linked product. That’s just the nature of the industry.
“Organised crime groups invest direct with Latin American sources and control domestic wholesale,” says Tony Saggers, the former head of drugs at the National Crime Agency. “Why would they be interested in ‘woke coke’ concepts when they’re already shifting hundreds of kilograms to a market disinterested in the consequences?”
Most of the ‘evidence’ regarding woke coke, then, comes from unsubstantiated claims made by dealers, and parroted by users to journalists. But the reality is, newspapers aren’t that bothered about whether ethical coke actually exists. The real point of these stories is to have a go at hypocritical liberals who buy organic shoes but are happy to snort a drug that — whether or not it’s fair trade — stems from an illegal, inherently exploitative industry.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeWear a fur coat and get stuff thrown on you and disapproval from all sides.
Use coke and be thought edgy, cool, and classy. Although there is more suffering inflicted in the coke than the fur.
“Is it OK for rich, right wing drug users to buy coke drenched in the bloodshed caused by prohibition?” Not really. So why are the liberals who purchase what’s marketed as “woke coke” getting all the flack?” Ffs
It’s quite simple – hypocrisy. In reality it makes f-all difference who buys the coke – still the same awful origins – but there’s hypocrisy if one side has been camping hard on the moral high ground, yet still takes part in unethical practices.
The overwhelming social narrative has been that liberals/left are good people who care about others whereas being right wing is selfish and evil.
I will stick to my supplier of choice – Waitrose’s wine department. So thank heavens no ethical dilemmas!
How about all the fish that make up the isinglass in wine?
Until the various governments decide they will become the supplier and control production at the source the problem will exist. Users will never go away but government set pricing can ensure the illegal trade isn’t so profitable. The morality of use remains an issue no matter what. Many jobs will disappear but converted to the supply chain.
Wouldn’t government intervention have the opposite effect? They would manipulate all elements of the product to either maximise government revenue, or stop users buying the product, so a black market would rapidly emerge. Comparisons with alcohol and tobacco immediately spring to mind, and so does anything and everywhere where government tries to manipulate the relationship between suppliers and buyers. Shipbuilding, car use, railways, smaller chocolate bars, etcetc. In fact, I wonder if the growth in coke and weed use is because of the government making cigarettes expensive and unfashionable
I’m not suggesting a free market in cocaine. But, perhaps with light regulation as to quality and safety, it would lower the price of the drugs, bring the industry into the light, enable better control over quality, create tax revenues. And the users could, if they wanted, go to hell in a fragrant handcart, but at a cheaper cost than they do now.
Or the west could set up a task force to burn the plantations. There is no easy answer to this.
Gove, BJ, & Osborne or Nikki Sixx, Ozzy Osborne & Anthony Keidis. What’s the difference ? (obvs several pages worth). The important differences are the latter have recovered from mad levels or barley abuse and help and mentor others to do the same, plus i’d love to have an orange juice with them. The former still think coke is “cool” plus they feed from a trough that only works if Cartel and Mafia drug money is allowed to prop up their economies. Imagine Gove on a big run? no thanks.
Interesting article, thanks. Too much emphasis on claiming there is a culture war between newspapers and the Liberal elite, rather than admitting the matter of illegal drug use and nasty criminality is a big problem which we in society need to address. The article admits that curbing drug demand is a good idea, then tries to claim Liberal brownie points by ridiculing Shaun Bailey’s proposal to drug test people regularly. To me, that seems a good idea – I will listen to counter-arguments, but so far have seen none.