Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

DrugReporter

Changing the Drug War Debate

By Kelly Hearn, AlterNet. Posted January 26, 2006.


With a former coca farmer in charge of the country, Bolivia under Evo Morales has the power to dramatically change the U.S.-led 'War on Drugs.'
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

When Evo Morales took the office of president of Bolivia on Sunday, it was notable not only as the end of a "Bolivian-style apartheid" but also for making Morales the world's No. 1 spokesman for the coca plant.

Morales, himself a former coca farmer, preached a hard line against cocaine traffickers, but at the same time he announced his intention to resist Washington's $100 million compulsion to stamp out coca farming in his grindingly poor Andean nation.

For millennia, Bolivia's indigenous groups have chewed and brewed coca leaves as a mild stimulant and appetite suppressant. But the leaf's role as the central ingredient in cocaine has made it a primary enemy of America's war on drugs. The result: hundreds of millions of U.S. tax dollars, often in the form of helicopters and planes for aerial fumigation, which kills coca crops but also ravages Bolivians' health and environment.

Morales proposed to fight the cocaine traffickers, who send the drug to satisfy the North's desires, but also insisted that the coca leaf retake its rightful place in Bolivia's cultural life. "We say no to zero coca, but we are promoting zero cocaine," Morales was quoted by newswires last week. "We are going to try to interdict the narco-traffickers."

To grow legitimate markets, experts say Morales must shoot to change global attitudes that have long mingled the benign coca leaf with cocaine's devilish reputation. Drug policy experts say it could also mean taking on America's drug hysteria and revisiting the skewed science around which coca's prohibitionist regime was built some five decades ago. And Morales' plan also gives ammunition to U.S. critics who will use his coca policies to paint his socialist agenda in even more heretical hues.

The rise and fall of the global coca market

Ranking behind Colombia and Peru as the world's third-largest coca producer, Bolivia has some 65,500 acres under cultivation, according to U.S. estimates. In 2004, eradication programs, which began in the 1980s, were largely brought to a halt in one of Bolivia's two regions that can legally cultivate coca under national law. That deal was brokered in October 2004 between coca growers, led by Morales, and then-President Carlos Mesa. Now a European Union study is underway to mark how much coca is needed to meet traditional usage. In theory, the rest of the country's crop would be slated for eradication,

Besides ending eradication programs, Morales is widely expected to push for a revival of a global coca market.

"What Evo is proposing is very legitimate and credible from a scientific, historical and marketing perspective," said Ethan A. Nadelmann, executive director of the New York City-based Drug Policy Alliance. Nadelmann says Morales may help build an international market for coca-based products, similar to those that existed in the 19th century, when coca formed part of products such as tonics and wines, even Coca-Cola for a time. In December, an Indian tribe in Colombia began marketing a soft drink made from coca plants, and recent press reports from Bolivia suggests entrepreneurs are looking for early product niches, making it easy to see a future of coca-based medicines, gums or lozenges.

The case of coca is a fine example of just how well science can serve prejudice. Its production was criminalized by a 1961 international treaty that set a 25-year moratorium on legal coca consumption. That convention, stimulatingly entitled "The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961," prohibits coca cultivation, putting it currently at odds with Bolivia's national policy allowing a certain level of production. The convention, which also criminalizes cannabis, opium, morphine and heroin, is disliked by European countries pursuing heroin maintenance programs, and activists say Morales would do well to support any European efforts to amend that deal, as well as encourage other industrialized nations to do the same.

The Transnational Institute, a think tank based in the Netherlands, says a key scientific report that shaped coca's legal classification was flawed and needs updating to incorporate recent science. "The scientific basis for the classification of the coca leaf deserves a reevaluation by the institutions of the United Nations," states a TNI position paper. "Not only does the report not represent all the scientific studies relevant at the time, but in the half century since new evidence and knowledge has emerged in regard to traditional uses of coca, including beneficial." What's more, TNI analysts note that while an amendment to the international convention leaves room for countries to okay the traditional, licit use of coca, it prohibits licit cultivation. The underlying message is: You can take it if you've traditionally done so, but you can't grow it.

Science is on coca's side

Similar to the case of marijuana, there has long been scientific research to back claims of coca's health benefits. In 1981, Harvard-trained health guru Andrew Weil reported in the American Journal of Epidemiology that coca in leaf form does not produce toxicity or dependence and suggested its usefulness in treating gastrointestinal ailments and motion sickness. He reported that coca could aid weight-loss regimes and even act as a fast-acting antidepressant. And its power to regulate carbohydrate makes it a possible combatant for hypoglycemia and diabetes.

Such findings mean little to the prohibitionist sensibilities of Washington, which has long used the principal of conditionality to push its drug regime and suppress scientific findings it dislikes. Case in point: In 1995, the United States threatened to pull funds from the World Health Organization if it published the results of the world's largest study on cocaine, a 22-country study that also studied coca. In effect, say a range of drug policy advocates, the study was suppressed.

"The report essentially said what everyone seems to know and agree [on] with few exceptions," says Craig Reinarman, a sociologist at the University of California at Santa Cruz who worked on the study but never saw a final copy. "The gist was that coca has been around for millennia and more or less used without abuse or problems by native people of Andes regions where it grows. And with respect to refined powdered cocaine, the study found that people mostly used it as a treat, with some abuse, with some people getting into trouble but most not."

TNI has managed to recoup parts of the suppressed study. Eric E. Sterling, president of the Maryland-based Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, said Morales could link with European discontent over the 1961 convention and press to change its provisions on coca. In addition to Bolivia, several countries are carving out exceptions to the convention. The Netherlands has refused to enforce some cannabis bans, and Germany and Switzerland both have established heroin-maintenance programs. But those countries have not formally passed laws that contradict the convention. With more political capital at stake, one theory goes, Morales could take the lead in forcing a change. Sterling suggested America's faltering image abroad could thin Washington's political ability to stop efforts at reconfiguring the convention. Reinarman agreed Washington's weight may be diminished but thought it unlikely the convention would be amended.

"These countries are making lots of little exceptions, but it is difficult to overthrow the convention because the U.S. is the power behind the throne, and they will throw their weight around," he said. In Bolivia's case, throwing weight could mean denying $150 million in annual U.S. foreign and anti-drug aid to Bolivia or the country's request for $598 million in additional U.S. development assistance. With that in mind, some think Morales will tone down his hard rhetoric and try to balance U.S. wants with his domestic political needs.

"Morales must make clear to the U.S. that while he advocates coca, he will do what it takes to stop cocaine from being manufactured in Bolivia," said Adam Isacson of the Center for International Policy in Washington. "Evo no doubt intends to curb coca eradication and to develop legal coca markets. But he should be able to keep the U.S. government happy by redoubling interdiction, taking down labs and kingpins, and improving control on roads, rivers and in the air."

Balancing those interests will be a tough line, and experts say Morales most surely will have to first satisfy his domestic constituents to survive politically. The first order of business may be keeping the the U.S. eradication program stopped in its tracks.

"I can't image him staying in power if he allows the U.S. to spray large swaths of that country with a poison that kills plants and to do so with no respect for public health," Reinarman said. "Imagine if the Bolivian air force were to spray large swaths of Kentucky and Virginia to eradicate tobacco, which has killed far more people than coca. We would respond with bombers."

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Kelly Hearn is a former UPI staff writer who divides his time between the United States and South America. A correspondent to The Christian Science Monitor, his work has appeared in The Nation, The American Prospect and other publications. He is a regular contributor to AlterNet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from DrugReporter! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The love of money
Posted by: mizipi on Jan 26, 2006 6:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maijuana and cocaine are esy to get - ask any second-grader. The DEA is a front for the drug lords of the world to smuggle drugs into Europe and the USA. If there are dealers in our public schools, some of them pre-teens, and these dealers cannot be caught (maybe for a reason), then how can anyone expect the major international dealers to be caught. I say we criminalize tobacco and alcohol, worldwide!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The love of money Posted by: jimidee
» RE: The love of money Posted by: Madam Hatter
» RE: The love of money Posted by: thecynic
Drug War Tyranny
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Jan 26, 2006 8:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This socalled 'Drug War' is nothing more than finding an enemy.We do it domestically so we can get budget increases for paramilitary police spying on citizens. Internationally it's to have the demon at the gate scare. We've always had drugs in society. But they used to only be the 'fun' for the Wealthy. There used to be no Socialite household that did'nt have Cocaine wine or it's sweeter cousin Coca Cola. At one point there were 1800 hashish smoking parlors in NYC. The Womwn's Temperancs League got many judges to order abusive alchoholic husbands onto hashish therapy because it was a pacifier.
The drug war,like the global war on terror, is a farce created to keep the people off balance, in fear,and controlled.
I say 'Good Job' to the poeple of Bolivia for taking back their country. The tyranny they used to live under was aided by the U.S. Govt for years. If they can kick the Tyrants,why can't we?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Drug War Tyranny Posted by: jimidee
» RE: Drug War Tyranny Posted by: TheJamea
Drugs in the U.S.
Posted by: rafey on Jan 26, 2006 11:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it hard to believe that there are people who still buy the "drug war" concept as if it were legitamate. Maybe now something radical and productive will get done, although at a cost to american piggys.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Re SCIENCE ON COCA'S SIDE
Posted by: picket on Jan 26, 2006 11:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like Cannabis, Coca leaf has been demonized by BIG BROTHER, stopping research, suppressing studies, putting doctors in JAIL for treating patients in PAIN.

The FDA is supposed to protect us but the government LOVES BIG PHARMA so much so that millions of humans were put in extreme danger for the Big Vioxx profits. How many people died for that lie? Thousands!!!!!

When will the MADNESS END? Speaking of a person with a SPINE. New York Times columnist John Tierney yesterday,1/25/06, AGAIN wrote that it was unfair of the DEA to go after doctors who treat pain. Prosecutors LIED to win the case with NO REGRETS. The madness will end when people start to SEE the TRUTH. Forget about this group of Senators and Congressmen in WASHINGTON. No SPINES. Cowards!!! Sell us all "down the river" to win an election. The worst that would happen to them is that they would go back home to their regular million dollar jobs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

follow the money
Posted by: chrstof on Jan 26, 2006 1:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the reason there is a war on drugs, is because of 2 basic ideas.

1) by prohibiting them, you can look like a moral society, and maximise their economic value. coca and cannabis would cost less per pound than coffee if they were legal. so would heroin and cocaine.

2) all the drug laws in this country were initially enacted to control certain groups of people- the chinese, mexicans, blacks, anti-nixon hippies... all groups that made rich white men shake in their boots imagining the threats these various groups posed to public discourse, and their white women.

they have traditionally been so afraid that their 'pure' white wives and daughters would opt for, or be tricked into, having sex with members of these groups, they have done what they can to prevent it. if it wasn't a fear of theirs, they certainly instilled it into others for political gain. it also speaks to the racism of our leaders, still mostly rich, white men, and their condescending attitudes to people of other countries.

we'll never make progress on this issue until americans get their heads out of their a**es, and discuss this openly.

drug use is not drug abuse.

their are plenty of laws on the books already that deal with the behaviours associated with a drug user out of control. their are enough laws regarding actions that affect others civil rights. we don't need laws preventing the individual from harming theirself.

if we need more laws, they are in the area of corporations harming individuals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: follow the money Posted by: TheJamea
Let me make it short and to the point:
Posted by: Zamboni Driver on Jan 26, 2006 11:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Legalize cocaine. Why do we, the USA persist in this ridiculous, wasteful war on a drug which simply makes people feel happy and energized? We are a sick, fucked up nation when we have laws which prohibit drugs which induce happiness. Too few people have the guts to question the root assumptions of why a given substance has been made illegal by an oppressive and corrupt government. Let's face it: the USA has the drug laws it has because it DOES NOT want people to enjoy themselves via chemical release. God forbid! Don't forget even having alcohol in the USA was illegalized in the early 20th century. The USA is a fucked up place, and it's sad to see it postured as a 'self proclaimed world leader'. If the USA is a 'world leader' then the world is definitely barking up the wrong tree! Anyways, cocaine should be legalized--regardless of what the USA government wants or thinks should be done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

War on Black and Brown
Posted by: Isis-ra-el on Jan 28, 2006 9:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
War on drugs is the war on melinated people suffing from the symptoms of America's non-melinated society, who without the sufficient amount of melanin in their system see the world in a convoluted way (Yurugu). The melinated people are naturally trying to self-medicate as predicted by the providers. The providers of the dope are the providers of the jail cells also.

Uhuru

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

drugs
Posted by: chrismark on Jan 29, 2006 2:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Criminal offense for alcohol and tobacco, did we not already try this? I agree, but why not just legalize all if alcohol is legal. It is illogical to allow alcohol to be legal and other drugs to be illegal. Legalizing the whole would cause reform and more control. This would also decrease the desire to want something that you cant have, human nature. I say lets legalize everything and let the druggies have their own destructive picnic which probably won't happen; if anything this would cut down on crime and drug usage, especailly among teens.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

sounds good but lest you forget...
Posted by: doktordubbs on Feb 1, 2006 6:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i generally take a decriminalization approach as well, but while cocaine may "make people feel good and energized" or whatever one comment said, it also is used to make crack, the destructive aspects of which are hardly debatable. as a social worker in a very poor neighborhood in a small (250,000) urban setting, i often encounter the dark side of easily accessible cocaine.

i have no solution to this issue, but i simply wanted to remind everyone that sweeping decriminalization of drugs is not a symmetrical issue - there are many nuances that must be addressed. we obviously haven't handled alcohol and tobacco so well anyway...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ignorance and interdiction cost us a lot more than education would
Posted by: Raggedrose on Feb 5, 2006 3:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Humans have always altered their consciousness in one way or another, and we always will. Some ways, admittedly, are a lot safer than others. The problem, as I see it, is that in the US at the present time, using chemicals to do that is condemned as an unnecessary indulgence at best, as a moral failing or an actual danger at worst. Even the legal drugs are stigmatized to some degree.

Of course drugs can be dangerous, and I think they should be used with judgment and a full knowledge of their effects. However, if most drugs are illegal, and drug education is more about indoctrination and social control than it is about the actual risks and pleasures of the substances, most people will not educate themselves before using them.

By making a substance illegal, we don't stop its use, all we do is put such use beyond society's control. People have few if any models of positive drug use, and when coupled with the lack of education, the potential for abuse is much greater. When using a substance automatically makes the user a criminal, there are no lines left to cross, save the line of public exposure. Thus all users of illegal drugs are in a closet. This hardly promotes healthy patterns of use, or draws any distinction between substances and their relative dangers. All drugs, from marijuana to opiates, are seen as similar, one slippery slope to destruction. No use is safe or healthy.

The problem is, people do realize when they're being lied to. Once the first lie is uncovered, there's a tendency to throw all the other official information on drug use out as well. This does no one any good, and the mistrust and disinformation has only served to alienate and imprison a segment of the population who could be productive, healthy members of society, using drugs in ways that do no harm to anyone.

Of course, there will always be people who lose control. This fact is not limited to drug use. It is possible to overdo it in mny aspects of life. Why is messing oneself up on meth considered so much more of a moral failing than the person who spends all of their time in the office and none at home? The person who carries a sign on a streetcorner and harangues people about religion?

Then there are the industries that have sprung up around prevention of all drug use, and the high cost we all bear to catch and imprison drug users. There's the easy money that real criminals will always have access to as long as there are huge profits to be made by supplying illegal drugs to users and abusers alike. I find these aspects of drug interdiction to be far more damaging than the actual costs of drug use.

I'd rather see my taxes spent on education and treatment, all things being equal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

1 Dime Bag + Sugar + Strychnine = 2 Dime Bags
Posted by: gar on Feb 13, 2006 11:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a drug addict and an alcoholic; a non-using drug addict and a non-drinking alcoholic. I used both for thirty years. I have used neither for almost thirteen years now. That is my authority for making the following statements.

Despite the laws, it as easy to get drugs as it is to get alcohol - usually. Sometimes, some politician will want to make a big show of busting drug dealers and the word will go out on the street. Those with connections close up shop. The little guys without connections who sell dime bags get busted. When that happens, users have to switch to alcohol for a while. The "smart" ones just keep a stash for such emergencies. Anyway, politically induced dry spells never last long. Anyone who has ever taken Economics 101 and Political Science can put two and two together and tell you why.

The thing is though, if a person buys a bottle of booze, no matter how cheap, it is labeled with its alcohol content and you can be reasonably sure its not going to make you permanently blind or kill you outright - at least not immediately. And to get that bottle, one has to present an ID proving they are of legal age to buy it. In addition, part of the purchase goes to support the state and federal governments in their many beneficial endeavors.

Now with drugs, that just ain't true. First of all, anybody with money can buy cocaine, pot, herion, or whatever; a six year old could do it. In fact, six year olds probably are doing it. Second, you can never be sure exactly whats in the bag even if you're dealing with someone you know. He may not know. He could be selling something someone handed him on spec and told him it was cocaine.

(Lots of cocaine, even the good stuff, is at least part strychnine. Strychnine will give the customer a kick similar to cocaine, so you mix a little strychnine and a little powdered sugar with your dime bag of cocaine and you get two dime bags of cocaine. Its a great little magic trick - except of course if your dealer is high and he forgets which is strychnine and which is powdered sugar. When that happens, he is going to have to find some new customers because the old ones are going to be dead or very, very sick.)

The jist of this is: legalize the sh*t. Prohibition has never, in all of history - been known to work. It just creates a criminal element who profits from an underground market and it corrupts a certain type of public official who feels as if their job is worth more than they are getting paid. In addition, it encourages private citizens to regard all public officials with a certain distain and it gives these citizens a "smorgasboard" attitude towards the laws of the land. And, if all that were not bad enough, it corrupts our children by allowing them to come in contact, not just with the drugs, but with the whole underbelly of society that deals them.

"But wait!" you say. "What about the poor addict that can't help himself? Won't he just do drugs until he is completely comatose or maybe dead?"

Yeah, maybe he will. So what's your point?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What Use is the Drug War?
Posted by: sisterbluerose on Mar 3, 2006 12:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The CIA can get a higher price for it's drugs. The government can pass laws violating the constitution.
The people can learn to love Big Brother.
If you are asking what the use is for ordinary people..
98% of drug traffic is grass, which is less dangerous than asperin. Moreover, hemp has aome legimate usese that once made it illegal not to grow it. In George Washington's time. For the little people the drug war is at least a nusanse, mostly a danger. To our lives, our liberty, and our sacred honor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

asdasd
Posted by: corpse on Aug 7, 2006 9:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement