Recently I have been reading and listening to discussions on the state of the coca plant in Bolivia. The Bolivian government decriminalized growing the plant in 2005-2006. Now many regions are growing the crop and it makes for decent money to be sold at legal auction and the crop can also be harvested about 5 times a year. The Bolivian government attempts to promote the usage of the leaf with treating diabetes, arthritis, among other ailments. Now, the middle class and elite of Bolivia and the US government are complaining and bitching about what is going on and that only about half of the plants are used for "legal" reasons. The rest of the crops are being used for cocaine production.
My problems are these...First off, the rural poor need continue to grow other fruits native to their land to prevent the soil from becoming complete crap. Otherwise, over time the soil will never get a rest and they will need to start using artificial fertilizers to grow the crop. In regards to the middle class and elite...these people may be pissed because the rural poor are actually gaining money. Really though, why should they be pissed? Most of the middle class and elites are the ones who either turn it into cocaine or actually use cocaine. Why is the US government worried about this? It is a Bolivian issue and if the Bolivians voted someone into office who supports these methods, then so be it. Let them have the freedom of choice. Also, why does the US insist on attacking the growing of cocaine? Why don't they actually address the problem of cocaine use and abuse? Or here is a novel idea. If someone wants to use coke, then let them.
Now I find out that the US has numerous authorities in Bolivia investigating and taking down crops and what not. Why the hell is the US blatantly involved in another countries domestic issue? It is just ridiculous. Oh well. It is starting to warm up here in Canada.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Hello. This post is likeable, and your blog is very interesting, congratulations :-). I will add in my blogroll =). If possible gives a last there on my blog, it is about the Telefone VoIP, I hope you enjoy. The address is http://telefone-voip.blogspot.com. A hug.
Oh dear... Engrish has infected the comments section of your blog Dane.
I agree that if people want to kill themselves with Cocaine they should be allowed to do so legally. Spend billions policing it, or make billions taxing it. Sounds like a tough decision.
A hug.
Mull, I also think that this post is likeable and your blog is very interesting, congratulations.
But what happens when that same someone who wanted to kill themselves with cocaine winds up in the hospital, and suddenly decides that they don't want to die after all. Of course, (s)he probably doesn't have any money or insurance to cover the medical bills, since it was all spent on cocaine.
Should the hosital deny care? Probably not. But who should pay for this person's expenses? You? Me? That sounds irritating.
I'm not implying that the "war on drugs" is the correct way to solve drug issues (obviously it is ineffective). I'm just saying that the issue is more complicated than the US government trying to play "nanny."
Ha, the above post is from me. I didn't notice that my girlfriend had last logged into google, and my computer was still logged in as her. Sorry.
People are still going to overdose and just scrape by. I haven't taken many law classes but i'd have to assume the courts also get involved with someone who clearly overdoses and is found possessing their drug of choice. Save the court's time by omitting the crime.
(i know the last line sounds awkward and omitting isn't the phrasing i wanted to use, but when i got halfway through it and noticed it was going to rhyme i simply couldn't bring myself to ruin the meter)
Rowe, I understand where you're going with your "I don't wanna pay for some coke addict's hospital treatment" argument, but right now you already pay for alcoholics, drunk-driving accident victims, cigarette users, people who eat too much fatty foods, etc. These are all lifestyle decisions people make that cost health insurance to go up (btw we should have universal health care, but that's an argument for another day) but you don't hear the fat cats in congress saying "ban McDonalds, cigarettes (tho a little more now), and the holiest of holies, alcohol (at least not since the 20s). It's all a money thing, no matter how many morals the government wants to affix to it. There's no inherent reason cocaine should be outlawed more than alcohol.
I see one of two scenarios
1.- Every drug legalized but without universal health care (you ruin your body, you pay the consecuences, not me)
2.- We have universal health care, but as the medical spending is the goverment problem, then the goverment should also tell you what you can or can't consume (eat drink or sniff) because it's on their best interest to safe resources in order to have health care to everyone.
But having an option (do whatever you want, if somethings happens I take care of you) it's paternalism.
Post a Comment