Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
He'd Like to Sell the World Some Coca
Evo Morales, the leading contender for president of Bolivia, is the candidate of a party called the Movement Toward Socialism. But in at least one respect, he wants to move toward free markets--something the U.S. can't tolerate.
Baylen|11.28.05 @ 10:18AM|#
I don't believe Morales or his MAS flaks want a free market in coca. I believe -- and one MAS member told me this when I met with him in La Paz in Summer 2004 -- that the party's goal is to nationalize coca in much the same way the party wants to nationalize other resources (i.e., water, gas).
tomWright|11.28.05 @ 10:22AM|#
Predicition: US Invasion of Bolivia starts within a month of
legalization if he wins and does it. I bet planning is already
underway.
The only difficulty is overflying the surrounding countries since
Bolivia is landlocked.
But I bet he wins and legalization does not happen.
|11.28.05 @ 10:26AM|#
I second tomWright: were this to happen, we'd see Condaleeze
Rice at the UN with satellite photos showing a coca lab labelled
"Chemical Weapons Plant."
Fortunately, no one would believe her.
Rich Ard|11.28.05 @ 10:27AM|#
Prediction: If it's legalized, Bolivia will move towards being more social.
|11.28.05 @ 10:29AM|#
No, there are lots of things short of war that the U.S. and other nations would do to Bolivia - including shutting off World Bank, etc. loans, aid, etc., creating tariffs which punish the regime, changing the immigration procedures for Bolvians, etc. You don't need a war to cripple Bolivia.
|11.28.05 @ 10:32AM|#
The things you saw against the Garcia administration in Peru for cutting off debt payments you will also see if Bolivia stops fighting the "drug war."
|11.28.05 @ 10:36AM|#
Rich Ard, I totally understand what you're saying. Man. It totally reminds me of this story...
MP|11.28.05 @ 10:53AM|#
Here's what the drug warriors will say:
"See! This is what happens when you leave the hands of goverment to
corrupt, good for nuttin' Commies. They have no morals!"
|11.28.05 @ 10:56AM|#
Morales openly admires Che's "fight for equality" and plans to
nationalize the Bolivia's industries. If he follows in his buddy
Hugo's footsteps, individual liberties and freedoms will most
certainly deteriorate.
Because he might have a saner view of the War on Drugs isn't quite
enough for me to celebrate the man's election.
|11.28.05 @ 11:09AM|#
No, I wanna know - what the HELL is that supposed to mean?
HUH?!?
No, YOU keep it down!
theOneState|11.28.05 @ 11:13AM|#
Can't wait for the grand estate tours and the tasting rooms with
their giant windows and perfect views of the rolling cocoa
fields.
(I assume cocoa fields roll?)
Baylen Linnekin|11.28.05 @ 11:24AM|#
It can grow on the side of a mountain as easily as it can in a flat or rolling field.
theOneState|11.28.05 @ 11:26AM|#
Hmmm...that could make a really neat buddy flick, two guys
touring the South American cocoa estates, maybe one of 'em is about
to get married, the other one's divorced and unhappy....
Sadly, I can't come up with a good name for such a movie....
|11.28.05 @ 11:32AM|#
theOneState,
Coca tends to be grown in brushy and/or forested areas in order to
hide its presence and its difficult to discern the difference
between it and its surroundings because of all the foliage about
it. Its a very low-labor, low-capital, etc. crop that is also quite
hardy - which is one of the reasons why poor people grow it.
theOneState|11.28.05 @ 12:18PM|#
Mr. Le Mur, I'm sorry, but someone reploaced my "oa" key with oan "ooa" key.
|11.28.05 @ 12:37PM|#
Hmm, I'd imagine, if asked, Mr. Kissinger would suggest some illegal carpet bombing to prevent them darned Chilean...erh, Bolivians from irresponsibly getting their commie on.
|11.28.05 @ 1:06PM|#
Who cares if the US cuts off loans, etc. They're going to sell coke to the world! They will be richer than the OPEC nations.
|11.28.05 @ 1:07PM|#
"You don't need a war to cripple Bolivia."
I'll bet the Iraqis wished we would've crippled them with
sanctions, et al. Oh wait, we already did, and then we invaded.
|11.28.05 @ 1:16PM|#
How much does the US spend on the drug war each year? Might it be cheaper to just buy up Bolivia's 107 tons of cocaine and destroy them if the US Govt places such a high value on its citizens not getting drugs. I'd estimate that 107 tons would probably run you a few billion, so this may or may not be the economical thing to do, but then again, if you calculated the dollar amount of lives saved, it might be worth it.
theOneState|11.28.05 @ 1:35PM|#
Herrick, that would have to be matched by a massive subsidy on this side of the gringo line or it would put the small American family coke farmer out of business.
|11.28.05 @ 1:59PM|#
Well if Morales nationalizes the coca industry - from leaf to
paste to powder - won't the industry go the way of all nationalized
industries under enlightened technocratitic management?
1. Set prices for raw coca leaf >>> removes incentive for
the peasant growers to cultivate it.
2. Paste processors are all the local cacique's nephews and retard
cousins >>> waste and corruption >>> lower
output.
3. Powder processors are all the President's nephews and retard
cousins >>> waste and corruption >>> lower output
and lower quality blow.
Nationalization of Bolivia's coca production will lower supply and
lower quality.
|11.28.05 @ 2:03PM|#
Why are you so quick to predict war? If the U.S. invaded every
country we had a beef with, we would have had troops not just in
Iraq but in Liberia, Somalia, Bosnia, Serbia, Haiti, Panama,
Afghanistan, Cyprus, Korea ...
... wait a moment ...
|11.28.05 @ 2:16PM|#
Vynnie,
We don't have any troops in Liberia. What soldiers we sent there
were to rescue Americans. The peacekeeping force there is made up
of troops from African nations.
As far as I know, Somalia was a U.N. sponsored mission with lots of
troops from various nations.
We never invaded Serbia.
We never invaded Bosnia.
When did we invade Cyprus?
MP|11.28.05 @ 2:24PM|#
Blue,
You can't make an apples to apples comparison of nationalizing a
previously illegal product with nationalizing a legal one. I
suspect that nationalized production of Bolivian coca will result
in greater supply and quality than what is produced now, but less
than what would result from an open coca marketplace.
Rick|11.28.05 @ 2:54PM|#
It's not until you get to the end of the story that it is made
clear why farmers in Bolivia are adamant about growing cocoa for
export:
"Though 20,848 acres of coca was uprooted in eradication efforts in
2004, farmers keep planting it. They say they have no choice but to
grow coca, since other crops fare poorly here and American-financed
efforts to encourage them to switch to legal crops have stumbled.
Mr. Torrico's 20 acres are filled with crops like bananas, fruit,
yucca, coffee and cacao. On a tour of his plot, though, he listed
off the hurdles he faces making ends meet, from high transportation
costs to bottom-basement prices for most of his crops. Coca, on the
other hand, earns him as much as $162 dollars a month. It is not a
windfall, even by Bolivian standards, but it is a living, he said.
With coca, I was able to send my children to study," said Mr.
Torrico, who has eight children. The other stuff, the citrus fruit,
the bananas, give us nothing. Coca is what sustains us
here.""
A multinational agricultural corporation, like ADM or Cargill, you
can easily weather a drop in commodities prices. If you're an
independent farmer in Bolivia you can't tell your family to wait a
year or two before they can eat again. If they government isn't
going to kick in the costs for your losses when the prices of
bananas and other crops drop, then you have to make up for it
somewhere else.
Underlying this story is the gradual century long campaign to ban
as the Embodiment of Satan popular drugs that have been around
centuries. Namely, cocoa, poppies and marijuana. Drugs that you
can't even get with a permission slip from a doctor under any
circumstances. The banning of these popular drugs, which can't be
patented since they are derived from plants and have been around
for hundreds or thousands of years, has a lot to do with the demand
and success of newer drugs brought onto the market since the
introduction of Prozac in December 1987. Obviously, it would be
much cheaper and more profitable for us to treat adults as adults.
To allow once again the over-the-counter purchase and use of cocoa,
poppies and marijuana, rather than criminalizing the people who
produce and use these popular drugs.
One the issue of what "legalization" means, I have a very strict
definition of the term. Legalization means that consenting adults
are allowed to purchase whatever they want over-the-counter and
that they don't have to ask a doctor for the drug. Just like we
used to do in this country prior to 1914. A lot of misguided people
believe that these so-called "medical marijuana" laws are
decriminalization/legalization laws. They aren't. All they do is
change the scheduling of marijuana, but they still require you to
get a doctor's permission to use the drug without being
criminalized for it. If you're not sick, whatever that might mean,
and want to use your marijuana while hosting a party at your house,
why that's still considered a crime against humanity and the feds
are empowered to kick down your door and send you up the river for
many years. Then when you get out of jail you are forced to endure
the stigma of wearing the scarlet letter of a federally convicted
drug felon. If "medical marijuana" is your idea of "legalization",
then count me out when it comes to supporting it. As long as the
regime of federal prohibition of over-the-counter sales of drugs
remains on the books and zealously enforced there can be no
legalization of drugs.
|11.28.05 @ 3:45PM|#
"One step at a time Rick, one step at a time."
Wrong. There is nothing worse than believing the road to freedom
and the end of the War On Drugs is paved through state capitols.
State medical marijuana laws are an evasion of the real problem,
which is the federally mandated regime of drug prohibition. These
state laws make the problem worse by creating this illusion that we
are making progress towards an end to drug prohibition, when in
reality we help butress the regime of drug prohibition by passing
these laws. We kiss the ring of federal drug prohibition when we
pass unjust laws that say a person who is sick can use marijuana
with a permission slip from a doctor, while the voluntary use of
the drug to have fun at a party is a "crime". Why vote for laws
that butress the crimilization of an activity millions of people
have engaged in voluntarily at parties in their liftimes? Why vote
for laws that are the great grandchildren of the Harrison Narcotics
Act of 1914?
|11.28.05 @ 8:00PM|#
This is a great idea! They can even buy that "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing" jingle for their ad campaign. Won't even have to change the words.
|11.28.05 @ 8:02PM|#
Dammit. Didn't read the title of the post. Well, *I* thought I was being original.
|11.29.05 @ 2:03PM|#
Shem, no one else was unoriginal in the same way as you. So that sets you apart, doesn't it?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245