Good for them. Can I just reiterate how completely insane it is that an attempt to prevent Americans from consuming Bolivian Marching Powder has now become the single largest determinant of our foreign policy in Latin America and much of the Caribbean? It's as if we were boycotting Cuba in an effort to crack down on diabetes.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I believe "Cocca Live, Yankee Die" was a prominent slogan in Morales' election run. Not a sentiment that I support, but it goes a long towards showing just how important the stuff is to Bolivians.
Actually, I think the best way for Boliva to deal with this would be to sharpen their snark capabilities. Respond in an innocent, wide-eyed way, "What? Your people can't use this without destroying their lives? What a shame! It's never caused any problems for us!"
No, we boycott Cuba because their top export product (Cigars) competes with Bill Clinton.
And a reference to my favorite Onion article to boot...
Obviously we should get back at them via massive subsidies of domestic coca production.
Is Melissa Hughes, the only one embarrassed?
-Alan Shore, player
http://www.boston-legal.org/19-stickit/ep19-stickit.shtml
From the article: The latest affront, they say, is a recommendation this month from the UN’s drug enforcement watchdog
Damned Americans. Oh, wait, UN != US??? Who knew?
Gonna have to disagree with you there, Dave.
Clearly the two best Onion headlines are "Drugs Win The Drug War" and "Drugs Now Legal If User Is Employed"
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/drugs_now_legal_if_user_is
Al, American drug enforcement policy is responsible for UN drug enforcement policy. But you knew that.
Personally, I prefer "Drug Use Down Among Uncool Kids".
Al, American drug enforcement policy is responsible for UN drug enforcement policy. But you knew that.
Really? I didn't know that!
These people must be pissed!
TO: Megan
RE: So....
"Can I just reiterate how completely insane it is that an attempt to prevent Americans from consuming Bolivian Marching Powder has now become the single largest determinant of our foreign policy in Latin America and much of the Caribbean?" -- Megan McArdle
You got any evidence to support the idea that this is 'bad' policy?
Or are you concerned that your supply will be cut off in a 'free market' environment?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Opium is the key to the prison of personality. It leads to the prison yard.]
P.S. Would YOU allow someone on cocaine to operate some expensive piece of equipment, that if it failed, would result in the loss of hundreds, if not thousands, of lives lost and land unusable for hundreds, if not thousands, of years?
It's a funny think that we are not allowed to test for capabilities to perform duties before someone goes 'on duty' as an engineer at a nuclear power plant....or so I understand based on the arguments presented about 'privacy' vis-a-vis drugs, over the last 20 years.
TO: Megan McArdle
RE: Okay....
"It's as if we were boycotting Cuba in an effort to crack down on diabetes." -- Megan McArdle
...your 'credability' has just be totally blown.
We boycott Cuba in order to prevent the funding of outfits like FARC, babe.
You are, in my professional consideration, totally 'lost'.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[I want a new drug. -- Huey Lewis and the News]
P.S. What color of chalk are you snorting today, anyway?
Chuck, of course I wouldn't allow someone on cocaine to use heavy equipment or drive. But I wouldn't allow someone under the influence of alcohol to do so, either. If public safety is the justification for criminalizing cocaine, then we would be better-served by returning to the safe and sane days of Prohibition when no one drove drunk and because booze was illegal, urban crime declined dramatically.
Chuck, what does "test[ing] for capabilities" have to do with illegal drugs?
I grant you that I don't want nuclear plant operators (or truck drivers or airline pilots) to be high on the job, but alcohol, prescription drugs, and simply lack of sleep can be just as bad.
I also don't understand drug tests to be a bagger at the local supermarket.
There's also a big difference between showing up for work impaired (by whatever substance) and partying on a weekend, showing up for work completely sober, and getting fired because of a random drug test.
P.S. I'm not in favor of legalizing all drugs, but that argument is SUCH a red herring I had to say something.
Good on you, mrsizer; I wouldn't have been so nice.
And Ms McArdle didn't even get into the various constitutional issues the war on (certain) drugs has caused.
"Respond in an innocent, wide-eyed way, 'What? Your people can't use this without destroying their lives? What a shame! It's never caused any problems for us!'"
_____________________________
Perhaps a more appropriate snark would be:
"What? Do you mean you haven't caught on to the trick of keeping your indigenous and poor people downtrodden and politically impotent by encouraging the use of drugs? What a shame! It really works well for our ruling class!"
TO: mrsizer
RE: What's That?
"Chuck, what does "test[ing] for capabilities" have to do with illegal drugs?" -- mrsizer
So....
....do you want to live down-prevailing-wind from a nuclear power plant operated by a bunch of engineers on 'crack'?
Good luck, buckie....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. On a more 'contemporary' aspect....
...wanna go for a drive with a drunk-driver on I-25? In Denver? Late Saturday night?
If you answer 'Yes' to the preceeding....
...don't bother applying for any job where other human lives are at risk....for the moment.....
Chewing coca leaves versus cocaine can be compared to drinking coffee versus consuming a six pack of beer.
Growing coca leaves for processing into cocaine, another issue.
TO: Trash Hauler
RE: Indeed
"What? Do you mean you haven't caught on to the trick of keeping your indigenous and poor people downtrodden and politically impotent by encouraging the use of drugs? What a shame! It really works well for our ruling class!" -- Trash Hauler
You've been reading 'entirely' too much Jerry Pournelle; Co-Dominion Marines novels; that drug the government used to 'control' the 'masses'.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Don't bogart the joint....]
P.S. The 'drug of choice' is borloi.
In the United States, the drugs of choice are alcohol and nicotine. In Bolivia, it's coca. I understand that alcohol and nicotine cause tens of thousands of deaths a year. Have the Bolivians gotten around yet to condemning alcohol and tobacco use in the United States, and demanding that people in the United States simply give up these destructive drugs?
What Chuck Pelto said about interdicting funding sources for FARC and others.
Libertarians are inept when commenting on cooperative action beyond two persons.
Chuck writes:
You got any evidence to support the idea that this is 'bad' policy?
Uh, yeah. Our national drug policy has come at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars and the castration of the Fourth, and parts of the Fourteenth, Amendments. Meanwhile, Americans who want drugs still have no problems getting them.
Only to first-class retards is this state of affairs non-bad.
You are, in my professional consideration, totally 'lost'.
What "profession" is that, Chuck? Village idiot?
Okay, easy on the name-calling. It's time for the Legalizing Drugs Debate, which is prefab internet debate number.... four, if I recall correctly. Here's how it goes:
PRO: "Crime associated with drugs only arises because it's illegal. Legal drugs would be safer. People can do what they want with their bodies, prohibition didn't work"
CON: "Drugs are harmful. If drugs were legal, more people would do them and have their lives ruined. Don't tell me pot is harmless, my brother in law is a pothead and all he does is sit on the couch."
There. Now let's talk about something else.
Um, Chuck, you might educate yourself a bit on current laws for power plant operators, federal employees, public teachers, pilots, etc.
Some cases to google, if you're actually, you know, interested in not being ignorant of the current laws. In any case, routine testing is already applied to nuclear power plant operators, and I have a hard time believing that decriminalization would lead people to think that repealing these would be a good idea.
Basic underlying precedent: Shoemaker v. Handel (795 F. 2d 1136 [3rd Cir. 986])
Feds: McDonell v. Hunter, 809 F.2d 1302 [8th Cir. 987]
Nukular power: Rushton v. Nebraska Pub. Power Dist., 844 F. 2d 562 [8th Cir. 1988]
Teachers: Jones v. Jenkins, No. 86-5198, June 27, 1989
I'm sure I'm missing some.
The Third is still pretty safe. (The SWAT teams only kick in doors in the middle of the night; they don't sleep over.)
Nuclear power plant staff are subject to random drug testing, and this has been true since at least the mid 80's.
A museum in La Paz, Boliva has a beautiful, smooth well wrought Michelangelo like head statue in smooth black stone of an Indian in the 12th century with a bulge in his cheek, coca. Ccca guards against hunger and fatigue working at cold, high altitudes, the altiplano plateau is 14,000 feet. I had a companion who would have died without the availability of an Oxygen tank for his pulmonary edema in high altitude sickness. Yet the girls there play basketball. There are baskets of coca for sail in Bolivia like lettuce here. A Bolivian saying is, 'Coca is a gift of the gods; cocaine of the devil,' You have to do a 19th century transformation of coca to get cocaine.
Have the Bolivians gotten around yet to condemning alcohol and tobacco use in the United States, and demanding that people in the United States simply give up these destructive drugs?
I don't know what point you are trying to make.
Bolivians smoke tobacco and drink alcoholic beverages. Paceña Beer is to die for, and Bolivians consume it and chicha, a cider-like alcoholic beverage made from corn. Don't get drunk at high altitudes, unless you want the hangover of your life!
Sorry AK - as predictable as the debate may be with those like Chuck, this is just kind of interchange that needs to be made a common thing.
I wonder if Chuck in his heart of hearts (never spoken aloud for fear of ridicule) thinks the 18th amendment was a pretty good idea. Were he there and then, his thoughts might be: "without the cradling embrace of the 18th, we'll have drunk cops and bus drivers running wild in the streets, shooting and squashing. It'll be legal, after all, and no one can possibly resist the siren call of sweet, sweet booze - especially on the job."
You do realize the Bolivian govt; from it's educational system to much of its military, is a wholy owned subsidiary of the Chavez regime. Besides as an MBA holder you should know their previous major export was tin; but that was subject to too much price fluctuation.
And on the domestic front, tobacco use is a long-standing tradition in North America, which will not disappear even if prohibited by law. It would behoove the governing classes to back off on that tyrannical crusade as well.
"Obviously we should get back at them via massive subsidies of domestic coca production.
Posted by Njorl | March 27, 2008 1:21 PM"
I could go for that.
Is Megan trying to polish her left-wing credentials?
While we're at it, why don't we just ban all chemicals because people can huff them. And helium will be illegal also. Homer can't get high or drunk at the nuclear power plant if there isn't a plant because everything in it is illegal. And no electricity either. If you have lights, you will spend all day rolling joints. Besides, who can resist the temptation to put a penny in a socket and resist a nice, sweet jolt? And no car batteries either. We don't want people hooking them to their nipples.
"Chuck, of course I wouldn't allow someone on cocaine to use heavy equipment or drive. But I wouldn't allow someone under the influence of alcohol to do so, either. If public safety is the justification for criminalizing cocaine, then we would be better-served by returning to the safe and sane days of Prohibition when no one drove drunk and because booze was illegal, urban crime declined dramatically."
Then you should make a job requirement that they smoke (actually eat, to prevent lung cancer) pot, since pot users (and in fact cocaine users) operate machinery better than sober people. They are more paranoid (including about safety) in the first place, and more alert in the second, but alas Prohibition has outlawed slow release cocaine (I mean chewing on the leaves) and replace it by caffeine, which makes heavy machine operators jittery.
A 1998 study concluded: "The study analyzed 2,500 accidents, matching blood alcohol and drug levels of injured drivers with details from police reports. Researchers found that drug-free drivers caused the accidents in 53.5% of cases, while drivers with cannabis in their blood had a lower culpability rate of 50.6%. Injured drivers with a blood-alcohol concentration of more than 0.05% were culpable in almost 90% of accidents."
http://www.gibe.com/forum/messages.asp?topicid=2318&forumID=14
Over 40 percent of teenage deaths are auto accidents, and more than half of these accidents are alcohol related. May I remind people that for most teenagers, alcohol, having almost no black market except one involving fake IDs, is harder to get than cocaine or pot. Yet pot is SAVING teenage lives. Imagine if it was legal. A 46% decrease in their accident rate vs. drunk kids would save how many tens of thousands of teenage live a year?
Did you know that in Thailand, a mild opiate called Kratom is also chewed, or made into tea. It lets people concentrate better, and men who use it are more desired as husbands there. It's legal in the USA, and indeed, having tried it, besides making my pupils tiny, it indeed made it easier to concentrate on brain-torturous manual labor such as cleaning my art studio, or alphabetizing my files, but made socializing a bit, uh, awkward. I would highly recommend it over pot, as mandatory for heavy machinery users.
I wont even mention psychedelics and the inconvenient fact that so many Nobel Prize winners like Richard Feynman, Francis Crick and Kurry Mullis (PCR reaction) credited them for much of their creative edge, or that Steve Jobs has many times said in interviews that intensive meditation on mega-doses of LSD inspired him to invent the personal computer. There's a reason neither Apple, nor Google drug test, especially since one of Steve Jobs' questions for applicants for the Macintosh Computer project was: "How many times have you tried LSD?"
This is exactly analogous to outlawing coffee, for in leaf tea for, that is what cocaine leaves are.
"Chuck, of course I wouldn't allow someone on cocaine to use heavy equipment or drive. But I wouldn't allow someone under the influence of alcohol to do so, either. If public safety is the justification for criminalizing cocaine, then we would be better-served by returning to the safe and sane days of Prohibition when no one drove drunk and because booze was illegal, urban crime declined dramatically."
Then you should make a job requirement that they smoke (actually eat, to prevent lung cancer) pot, since pot users (and in fact cocaine users) operate machinery better than sober people. They are more paranoid (including about safety) in the first place, and more alert in the second, but alas Prohibition has outlawed slow release cocaine (I mean chewing on the leaves) and replace it by caffeine, which makes heavy machine operators jittery.
A 1998 study concluded: "The study analyzed 2,500 accidents, matching blood alcohol and drug levels of injured drivers with details from police reports. Researchers found that drug-free drivers caused the accidents in 53.5% of cases, while drivers with cannabis in their blood had a lower culpability rate of 50.6%. Injured drivers with a blood-alcohol concentration of more than 0.05% were culpable in almost 90% of accidents."
http://www.gibe.com/forum/messages.asp?topicid=2318&forumID=14
Over 40 percent of teenage deaths are auto accidents, and more than half of these accidents are alcohol related. May I remind people that for most teenagers, alcohol, having almost no black market except one involving fake IDs, is harder to get than cocaine or pot. Yet pot is SAVING teenage lives. Imagine if it was legal. A 46% decrease in their accident rate vs. drunk kids would save how many tens of thousands of teenage live a year?
Did you know that in Thailand, a mild opiate called Kratom is also chewed, or made into tea. It lets people concentrate better, and men who use it are more desired as husbands there. It's legal in the USA, and indeed, having tried it, besides making my pupils tiny, it indeed made it easier to concentrate on brain-torturous manual labor such as cleaning my art studio, or alphabetizing my files, but made socializing a bit, uh, awkward. I would highly recommend it over pot, as mandatory for heavy machinery users.
I wont even mention psychedelics and the inconvenient fact that so many Nobel Prize winners like Richard Feynman, Francis Crick and Kurry Mullis (PCR reaction) credited them for much of their creative edge to them, or that Steve Jobs has many times said in interviews that intensive meditation on mega-doses of LSD inspired him to invent the personal computer. There's a reason neither Apple, nor Google drug test, especially since one of Steve Jobs' questions for applicants for the Macintosh Computer project was: "How many times have you tried LSD?"
Now imagine that RECREATIONAL drugs were legal. Might, just might the drug companies come up with an alternative to the 40K death a year poison brain-scrambler known as alcohol, one that you could take, never pass out or black out on, yet turn it off with a sip of counter-acting agent akin to poisonous snake venom?
But sooner will come self-driving cars than that, due to the puritanical roots of our culture. Not even prostitution is legal in all but one state, which, if legal, would hurt nobody, and in fact less people, since it would no longer involve gun-toting pimps who brain-wash runaways to turn tricks and never have to carry STD-test ID cards like they do in Costa Rica.
"You got any evidence to support the idea that this is 'bad' policy?"
Err.. let me give you a market answer- cocaine is cheaper now than it was 20+ years ago with this drug war started. How much has been spent? How many people inprisoned? How many gangs emriched? How many cartels empowered?
Can you tell me ONE THING this idiotic prohibition has improved?
Here is how it works in America. The rich go to a doctor to get drugs with a certain effect. The poor buy from the gypsy drug store.
Class War
Our drug war is really a class war. The rich against the poor.
FWIW I'm a Republican. I know. It goes against the grain.
However, our drug war is unadulterated socialism. Price supports for criminals.
Another:
Treatment vs Recreation
And finally:
Round Pegs In Round Holes
What many posters here don't know about brain chemistry could fill - well it could fill their brains. With actual facts vs drug war propaganda.
Schizophrenia and Tobacco
Tobacco is an anti-depressant and a favorite of schizophrenics.
Addiction to tobacco is not too different than the addiction of some to injected insulin.
i.e. is it really an addiction if you need it?
"Our drug war is really a class war. The rich against the poor.
FWIW I'm a Republican. I know. It goes against the grain.
However, our drug war is unadulterated socialism. Price supports for criminals."
Posted by M. Simon
Most people would not call a program of class warfare enacted by the rich against the poor socialism.
It all boils down not to whether the "Drug War" is insane, because it undeniably is, but exactly how it is to be forcefully abolished and replaced with a sane and humane medical regime for treatment of a medical problem.
That's the million dollar question.
My dear friends,
The root cause of this debate is indeed the freedom that we have in America to buy alcohol, cocaine, cigarettes or whatever we please, legally or illegally.
How about Bolivians? Do they have access to food stamps, welfare, or any other benefits that we take for granted?? NO they DO NOT.
Although some of you may be thinking what the heck is this idiot trying to say, well simply put for those of you who cannot see beyond the tips of your noses....
We have no right to tell others to stop doing anything, if we cannot tell our own people to stop using it!.
We do not have any authority over our own people to tell them what to consume and what not to consume, therefore we should have less authority to tell another country what to plant, or not plant, or sell or not sell.
We are completely wrong to think that our problem is Bolivia for producing coca leaves that others transform into cocaine, that end up in zip lock baggies in our children's pockets...We are the problem for not having enough time to spend at home teaching our kids that cocaine is simply not something fun or cool to do,or to sell for that matter, but a fatally addictive drug that will affect their lives and others' as well...
Wake up America!!!!!!