Morales ready to fight back

After U.S., Sweden, United Kingdom, Canada, Denmark and Germany objected to Bolivia’s amendment yesterday, President Morales is making it clear that he’s not going to sit back and give up.

Evo quiere presentar recurso para despenalizar el acullicu

Someone with a better knowledge of the language can perhaps help out with the nuances, but even Google’s mangled translation of the page shows a pretty clear intent…

President Evo Morales intends to submit an appeal (complaint) against the 1961 United Nations prohibits acullicu [ceremony of the coca] after at least six countries objected to the request Bolivian coca decriminalization of chewing.

The announcement was made yesterday by the Head of State at their annual meeting with the diplomatic corps in Palacio Quemado.

“The Government will continue to seek other mechanisms to take other courses of action to decriminalize consumption. If no objection is raised to chewing coca, will go to a conference (international) and we are also exploring another way is to denounce the 1961 Convention, “he said.

Morales said it is a right of all states to appeal to this type of mechanism to recognize the acullicu.

“I feel that some countries have been confused, we would be in the campaign to decriminalize the coca plant, we have established very clearly that the traditional consumption of coca leaf.”

He will appeal any effort that member countries make to oppose his amendment, and, failing that, he will consider withdrawing from the Single Convention. And it appears that he is suggesting that course of action to other countries as well.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Morales ready to fight back

  1. darkcycle says:


    • allan420 says:

      you beat me to it! I was just thinking that Evo is swinging his hammer again… si se puede!

      • Ben says:

        I’m terribly intrigued by the possibility that Bolivia would renounce the Single Convention on narcotics, because that seems like the direction this is moving in. The US isn’t bloody likely to compromise.

        Would they still maintain the illegality of cocaine in Bolivia if they withdraw from the treaty? As a sovereign nation, the US and friends could do nothing to stop that. If we won’t invade counties over nuclear weapons, I would hope we wouldn’t invade over drugs.

      • darkcycle says:

        I was writing a long-winded post restating the obvious when I read it back and thought: this is not necessary. Then I deleted it to start again, and the only thing that would come was a mental picture of Allan420 saying “bang, bang, chink, thud, thud”.

    • Duncan20903 says:

      Puhlease! WTF is the coca leaf on Schedule 1? Just because with the right lab you can process it into cocaine?

      Hey ho, the CSA has got to go. It doesn’t matter which side of the table you’re on.

      The cops want it easy and simple minded. Reefer ugg..illegal. Sorry boys justice is hard work. But wow, it does guarantee that overtime you’re so queer for. For the love of the Super Bowl, how is keeping aborigines living at 18000 feet from chewing coca leaf any kind of just or anything other than morally bankrupt?

  2. ray says:

    Morelas is on to something…the unraveling continues, makes one smile….thanks

  3. Paul says:

    The downside with Morales is he is kind of a commie, like his pal Chavez, but he isn’t as obnoxious. On the upside, it looks like he’s intent on irritating the drug war establishment without provoking them to the point of action, like with Noriega.

    I hope they pull out of the treaty, and get some other South American countries to join. Get a nice little rebellion against American power going that will work to constantly embarrass and annoy all the right people. Should be fun to watch!

  4. Common Science says:

    Wondering if he has already consorted with some nations already. Been waiting a long time for some chips to start falling from that American-led abomination.

    Listen for news reports of ghastly groans and wailing noises emitting from a New Jersey graveyard under a tombstone labelled ‘Anslinger.’

    • Duncan20903 says:

      Do we really know where he’s buried? Can you point the way? I need to take a leak.

      edit: heck I wasn’t even the first person to have that idea then to search the Google. I’m surprised it took me this long and a push from without to think of this. Anyway, I’m off to New Jersey. Cya!

  5. Common Science says:

    I know I wrote about it recently here but it bears another audience because Anslinger’s fingerprints are all over this treaty. This is the only moment in history that was ignobly implied: ‘the drugs for sale on Main Street – legal, all of these here NEVER EVER again legal, anywhere in the world.’ For the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, Anslinger snuck in the word ‘cannabis’ to be included with the restricted narcotics:

    “The sleeper in the treaty was that for the first time in an international control agreement, marijuana was included. One of the principal witnesses before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which held a brief hearing on the treaty last April 27, was Anslinger. He said one important reason for signing the treaty was that it could be used “to resist legalized use of marijuana.” Few Senators heard him, even though legal experts had warned repeatedly against the adoption of any international treaties which bound internal laws, and the Senate, without debate, voted 84-0 on May 8 to accede to the convention. The word “marijuana” is used nowhere in the treaty. Instead, the word “cannabis” is mentioned several times and is included in a list of drugs for which criminal penalties shall be imposed for possession.”

    -James Sterba, ESQUIRE Magazine, August 1968

  6. Just Legalize It says:

    in my personal opinion… if it was my country, i would not give 2 shits about what any other country thought… all i would care about is what my citizens thought.

    many countries have different opinions on different topics. american may not like using cats for food whereas other countries see it as common culture. this is where global culture education comes into play. america severely lacks on global culture education(both citizens and politicians alike) and its opinion should not be considered

  7. Common Science says:

    The U.S.A. has been at loggerheads with the U.N. on a number of issues, the preeminent one being the illegal invasion of Iraq. But since 1961, they are never in consensus more than when drug ‘control’ rears it’s ugly head.

    ‘At that time Anslinger had been a prime mover behind the convention; however, a last-minute move to dilute the strength of some of the prohibitions had left a bad taste in the Commissioner’s mouth, and the Bureau had recommentded that the United States not be a signatory to the treaty.’
    -1979 Reefer Madness, by Larry Sloman (page 226)

    How’s that for a Poker opponent!

  8. Common Science says:

    As a young Canadian the 1970’s, I was fortunate to be able to visit often with my cousin in Greenwich Village. She was an astrologer and her husband was a jazz / session musician who’s phone was always ringing with gig offers. Those were good times for artists in Soho, the days of rent control and no cover charges at clubs (if you drank at the bar). One evening during the summer of 1976, I bought a t-shirt at a head shop. It was a beautiful design of a Hindu deity riding a tiger, advertising the Eden Hashish Centre in Kathmandu. In 1973, Nepal was the last country to outlaw cannabis, submitting to the draconian terms of the 1961 Single Narcotics Treaty over US threats to withdraw millions in aid to the impovershed nation. The last nation under the UN umbrella to finally swallow the Anslinger/Nixon sandwich.

    I got an opportunity to stay with another cousin in southern Georgia that summer when her truck driving husband picked me up. I met Leroy heading back south through New Jersey after his latest delivery in Montreal. Just before the trip I got my shoulder-length hair shorn and wore my new t-shirt. Leroy talked more into the CB radio except when the subject of US history came up on that trip, sparked by crossing paths with the Bicentenial train. We were travelling through Tennesse when Leroy said we would stay the night at his brother’s, and get a fresh start the next morning.

    We arrived at about 2 am, greeted at the door by Leroy’s sister-in-law. Her gaze at my t-shirt’s slogan solicited a sour look. Within a half-hour I was asleep on the family couch. What seemed like a couple of hours later I felt heavy footsteps in the living room. I was so bagged, I pretended to be asleep when I heard the footsteps stop right in front of me. I resisted covering my chilled arms with the thin blanket that had travelled down under my elbows. As the footsteps started going away, I looked out at knee-high black boots over black pants with yellow vertical stripes walking out the front door. Leroy’s brother was the Sheriff of Chatanooga. I think the short haircut did me in good stead, but when I heard Leroy at the breakfast table calling people from Atlanta ‘Yankees’, I decided to put that shirt at the bottom of my backpack til the end of summer, when I returned back north to Canada.

    Here’s a different design, but they all had the same advertising footer:

    Anyone remember those Florida license plates stamped; ‘Arrive Stoned’?

  9. Noah says:

    well i just found an interesting story its a qouple of weeks old.I have not seen it on here or STDW, aperentally the drug war helps keeps children safe from drugs and thats why we need to keep fighting though why can a 3rd grader,hit it hard alot as he puts it getting busted smoking it in school

  10. pfroehlich2004 says:

    This is off-topic but should be an inspiration to all of you out there writing LTEs and blowing up the comments sections.

    It’s a series of four columns in the Orlando Sun-Sentinel on the subject of marijuana legalization. The first piece was some weak prohibitionist boiler by an “addiction specialist” trying to blame medical mj laws for the recent rise in teen pot use. This was followed by a slightly less atrocious piece, admitting that pot is safer than tobacco or alcohol but saying we don’t need to “legalize ANOTHER drug.”

    After a sustained letter/comment-writing campaign by anti-prohibitionist readers, the writer of this column published two guest-pieces from our side which were well-written and clearly refuted the arguments made in the first two.





    Clearly, we can and do influence journalists to provide more evidence-based coverage of drug policy issues. Keep it up media warriors!

  11. Jake says:

    If the US had just let this harmless amendment go in the first place the first nation to pull out of the convention wouldn’t be on the cards, but then the US officials would have had to overcome their innate racism and employ some pragmatism… impossible I know.

    One way or another this looks good for our side, lets just hope that Mr. Morales doesn’t now go on InterPols list for sexually assaulting a couple of Swedish women.. as these are the type of tactics I imagine will be enacted against him personally, along with withdrawal of aid to his country. I hope he can maintain the strength to take on the US and realise that long-term, US aid has more disadvantages than advantages…

  12. Gart says:

    @ Pete,

    I am fully in favour of legalising the consumption of drugs (all drugs!). But not only that, I also want to see the legalisation of the production and distribution of drugs. The whole discussion about Bolivia’s attempt to legalise the “mambeo” (chewing) of coca leaves is just symptomatic of the stupidity surrounding the War on Drugs policies. It is just laughable that current international drug legislation (1968 UN Convention, for instance) gives countries the option to decriminalise or depenalise the demand for drugs for personal consumption, but utterly preclude the same option to decriminalise or depenalise the supply of drugs for non-medical purposes. I can think of several adjectives (some of them better not to be spelt) to describe the imbalance in the approach to the so-called “drug problem”, but hypocritical and self-serving will do!

    Gart Valenc

  13. kaptinemo says:

    “If no objection is raised to chewing coca, will go to a conference (international) and we are also exploring another way is to denounce the 1961 Convention…”

    There it is. ‘Denounce’. The exact word used in the Treaty to describe the process of pulling out of it. Presidente Morales’s legal people have been exploring that course of action well in advance of the latest maneuverings.

    A prediction: Bolivia will announce that is leaving the SCT before this year is out. (A signatory nation must supply 6 months notice prior to exiting the SCT.) Presidente Morales is gearing up to do just that. And when Bolivia does, expect Peru to be right behind them, and that will trigger a mass exodus of South American nations from the SCT. Then Asian and African nations will begin to split away for their own reasons. Then it won’t be ‘Chink’ and ‘THUD!, it will be ‘ROOOAAAR!’, as in flood waters rushing past.

    Part of the reason this is happening is not only a lessening of US influence in the area, but the BRIC economic pact between Brazil, Russia, India and China which is creating a new economic ‘pole’ in the world that can offset any US attempts at economic arm-twisting.

    SA nations just don’t need Uncle anymore; they have other markets (BRIC) for their industries…whereas we have almost no industries left worthy of the name, save the ‘defense’ industry.

    Uncle will be left impotently fuming should Bolivia lead the charge out of the SCT. Hate to say it, but Uncle deserves the ignominy of it…

  14. claygooding says:

    Uncle deserves more scorn and shunning than he will ever get,,,maybe,as more countries are considering changing from US dollar as there reserve cash over too yuen.
    How long do we have if we lose 10 or 15 countries too Chinese money? Come on financial peeples,give us an estimate!

  15. JohnC says:

    I don’t think it is necessary for Bolivia to with draw from the treaty if all they want to do is grow and use coca. In 1990, when they ratified the “United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances,
    Vienna, 20 December 1988” they added this condition:

    “Reserved the Reservation made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification: The Republic of Bolivia places on record its express reservation to article 3, paragraph 2, and declares the inapplicability to Bolivia of those provisions of that paragraph which could be interpreted as establishing as a criminal offence the use, consumption, possession, purchase or cultivation of the coca leaf for personal consumption….. more at:

  16. BruceM says:

    The US would not let the UN boss it around, why should any other country take shit from the UN? Screw that pointless waste of a bureacracy and stand up to it. Tell the UN to fuck off.

    The US would not sign the anti-landmine treaty without making a perfectly reasonable exception for the landmines in the DMZ between North and South Korea. Bolivia should take a similar position.

  17. zorrillo1 says:

    This is getting ugly.

    Check this video of a shooting

Comments are closed.