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.

Comments

[Baylen]

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]

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.

[joe]

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.

[thoreau]

What better way to end corruption than by nationalizing it?

[Rich Ard]

Prediction: If it's legalized, Bolivia will move towards being more social.

[Hakluyt]

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.

[Hakluyt]

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."

[joe]

Rich Ard, I totally understand what you're saying. Man. It totally reminds me of this story...

[Rich Ard]

I love you, joe.

[joe]

...What's that supposed to mean?

[Hakluyt]

joe and Rich Ard sittin' a tree... 🙂

[MP]

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!"

[D Allen]

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.

[Rich Ard]

(sniff) nothing, man, nothing.

whoo!

[Hakluyt]

D Allen,

Yes, all things being equal, he'll create a nightmare there.

[joe]

No, I wanna know - what the HELL is that supposed to mean? HUH?!?

No, YOU keep it down!

[theOneState]

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]

It can grow on the side of a mountain as easily as it can in a flat or rolling field.

[theOneState]

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....

[Rich Ard]

"No, YOU keep it down!"

Okay, you win. 🙂

[Hakluyt]

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.

[Mr. F. Le Mur]

HAY!

Cocoa = "A powder made from cacao seeds, etc."

Coca = the cocaine plant.

[theOneState]

Mr. Le Mur, I'm sorry, but someone reploaced my "oa" key with oan "ooa" key.

[Johnny Clarke]

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.

[bill]

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.

[Juan]

"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.

[Herrick and His Balls]

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]

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.

[Hakluyt]

Herrick and his Balls,

Other producers would just fill the gap though.

[Blue]

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.

[Vynnie]

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 ...

[Hakluyt]

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]

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]

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.

[citizengnat]

One step at a time Rick, one step at a time.

[Rick]

"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?

[Shem]

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.

[Shem]

Dammit. Didn't read the title of the post. Well, *I* thought I was being original.

[Stevo Darkly]

Shem, no one else was unoriginal in the same way as you. So that sets you apart, doesn't it?