Decertify the U.S.

I may not agree with much of Bolivian President Evo Morales’ politics, but I really do enjoy his independence and spunk when it comes to the war on drugs.

Bolivia’s Morales asks bloc to condemn US on drugs

HAVANA—Bolivian President Evo Morales said Monday that a regional South American bloc should “decertify” the U.S. in its counternarcotics efforts, hitting back at Washington’s criticism of his South American nation on drugs.

Speaking in Cuba while receiving an honorary doctorate from the University of Havana, Morales accused the United States of being the root cause of the international drug trade as a leading consumer of cocaine.

“If the United States can certify or decertify, why can’t UNASUR (the Union of South American Nations) decertify the United States if the origin of drug trafficking is U.S. consumption of cocaine?” Morales said.

Why not, indeed. It would be merely symbolic, but why not send the message that the U.S. doesn’t own international drug policy.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Decertify the U.S.

  1. Not simply consuming cocaine, but rather its perversion.

    Morales should go after the US on arguments that the US is interfering with free markets for the sake of protecting its agricultural dread of Virginia Bright Leaf cigarettes that are adulterated-mislabeled regarding the additives.

    Morales should call for a tabulation of the health care costs of such Tobacco and its accompanying suppression of Coca- but so far does not appear to have even asked Venezuela nor Cuba to re-legalize Coca. I suspect he has been given poor advice with the purpose of making him look like an intrusive socialist rather than a free market capitalist.

      • darkcycle says:

        Douglas, The DPA has concentrated it’s efforts in those areas where there have been results. They’re concentrating on things they can actually approach a politician with. Besides, that’s gonna be a hard sell. We already have medicinal cocaine, and your (correct) assertion that the whole plant is safer and more therapeutic will not have the resonance of the MMJ debate. Yes we have marinol, but ONLY because the therapeutic benefits were denied for so long…we HAVE marinol because of the MMJ movement. Cocaine was never banned in quite the same way, medicinal access has never been completely restricted.
        I fully agree with you about the status and safety of Coca, but that article you linked is suggesting there are ulterior motives for the DPA’s approach. There are no motives beyond simply attempting what they believe is achieveable at this time. To do otherwise would be to waste their limited resources (from their perspective.

        • The DPF-DPA concentrates its efforts to be more redundant – excessively covering MJ when we have NORML and MPP, while foolishly ignoring the coca issue.

          Coca was banned largely over concerns of its popularity as a Tobacco Habit Cure, and Covington & Burling is perhaps the largest representative of pharmaceutical and tobacco interests.

          The DPA has absolutely NO excuse ignoring the coca and opium issues, and what you are saying is that its somehow better to fight with one arm tied behind one’s back, which is nonsensical. And having followed the conferences since 1989, there is definitely a hidden hand chocking the advancement of drug policy.

        • darkcycle says:

          Just gotta disagree. On a lot of levels. It’s pointing fingers and impugning motives. These are our efforts. If you don’t like it, go to the conference and push for what you believe. I’m gonna go if I can swing it.

        • Too much of this history is not well known:

          I’ll be at that conference, as I have been attending these since 1989.

    • Gart says:

      I do not always agree with your opinions, but in this case I concur with you that marijuana is not the only drug that should be legalised and regulated. As I said many times before, IT IS PROHIBITION ITSELF WHICH MUST BE ENDED. It should not be confined to a particular drug or to one side of the drug trade. It concerns not just marijuana, but all drugs; not just the legalisation and regulation of the demand but perhaps more importantly, the legalisation and regulation of the supply, too.

      Gart Valenc


        So true- your post flashes me back to the 1993 DPF conference where I found a newsletter of some other organization, with a front page article all in favor of legalizing Coca, but a back page article full of hysteria against some psychedelic flower from Columbia, with words to the effect that it contained a dangerous drug, dangerous when taken directly in massive doses.

        It was like- we need a drug to ban to create jobs for the police, etc.

  2. Pingback: US: Decertify the U.S. -

  3. muggles says:

    No wonder President Morales is recieving an honorary doctorate. The man is brilliant.

  4. claygooding says:

    It will help our image in the UN for sure.

    US: Marijuana Arrests Driving the Drug War

    and we wonder why Kerli can’t spell legalization,,,he can’t afford too.

  5. Servetus says:

    President Evo Morales is currently the only national president directly confronting the insanity of the drug war. Even if he were to do little else, his opposition to prohibition will be recognized as a triumphantly correct political move for its time.

    In situations where a powerful nation like the United States is engaged in hysterical behavior, it is the duty of other nations to try to right that behavior. This is precisely how the inquisitions were halted. It is also likely to be partly how prohibition will end.

    By now, it should be obvious to all national leaders that persecutory drug control functions as little more than a deadly façade for dodging international laws of sovereignty, as well as domestic laws pertaining to civil rights. This fact is certainly no secret to drug law reformers who have successfully broadcast this message to millions.

    Leaders should be aware that it is time to choose sides. The moral and practical choice should be obvious, given that tyranny never lasts.

    Be on the winning side. End prohibition.

  6. DdC says:

    Why not, indeed. It would be merely symbolic,
    but why not send the message that the U.S.
    doesn’t own international drug policy.

    Because the U.S. does own international drug policy. Many countries have franchises with the Drug War Company Inc. But the U.S. holds the patents. It is primarily a U.S. invention. Packaging and Distribution is primarily U.S. The U.S. provides the School of Assassins training and subsidizes materials from their overstocked Agent Orange concentrate warehouses. Diluting it to spray on Colombian and Afghani kids. It’s the U.S. “advisors” and the U.S. intimidation as we’ve seen on Canada, Mexico, and again on politically incorrect Central and South American countries. What would the Kentuckians or Carolinian’s do if Colombian Copters started spraying their counties tobacco fields with agent green round up x5. Keeping Hemp products out of the “free trade” markets. That’s anti-capitalism. War Brokers and their profits make we the people chumps. Police Actions from the cold war to the drug war have no stipulations on profiteering. The incentive disregards human life. Terrorizing sick people or healthy productive Americans, is still terrorism. The receiving end feels the same pain as if it were Al Qaeda or Cartels or plain ole everyday Thugs. Living under stressful conditions of simply not knowing if the law is legal. Daily threats and morbid pundents sneering or snickering. Be assured of miss-reporting, mislabeling and misdirecting. Creating criminals to fill Koch’s $72k/yr tax paid private prisons. Could be growing Hemp. Producing more jobs. Now they see their kids go hungry and either sell dope and get busted or rob somebody and get busted and the yax money goes in the vault on top of the pile of money just sitting there. Or trickling down to slave labor in the private for profit cages. Or China, Thailand or other “favorite drug war allies nation status” countries sweatshops and micro-minimum wages. Plus it gives a foot in the door to exploit resources or when an X-CIA operative like Sadamn, bin Laden or Noreaga goes rouge. To establish order and all that jazz. Or creative financing Contra groups. So the U.S. does own international drug policy. The Drug War Company Inc., with offices in…

    Belize, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Mexico, Canada, Panama, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras, Paraguay, Colombia, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Venezuela, Bolivia,, Peru, Ecuador, Chile, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Vincent & the Grenadines, St. Lucia, Aruba, Netherlands Antilles, Suriname, Jamaica, The Bahamas, Turks & Caicos Islands, Haiti, Guyana, Trinidad & Tobago, Suriname, Dominican Republic, Cambodia, Thailand, Mongolia, Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, French Polynesia, New Caldeonia, New Zealand, Niue, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Wallis & Futuna, Western Samoa, Vietnam, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, Malaysia, Kiribati, Nauru, Philippines, Burma, South Korea, Brunei, East Timor, Indonesia, Singapore, Japan, Laos, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Greece, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Romania, Bahrain, Chad, Dijibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kuwait, Libya, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Oman, Pakistan, United Arab Emirates, Afghanistan, Russia, Bangladesh, India, Maldives, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden, Czech Republic, Germany, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo, Western Sahara, Channel Islands, Ireland, Isle of Man, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom, Azores, Balearic Islands, Canary Islands, Cape Verde, Gibraltar, Portugal, Principality of Andorra, Spain, Spanish Enclaves (Ceuta & Melilla), Algeria, France, Monaco, Morocco, Tunisia, Angola, Botswana, Burundi, Central African Republic, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Albania, Bosnia, Croatia, Italy, Malta, Montenegro, San Marino, Serbia, Slovenia, Netherlands, Poland, Austria, Belarus, Hungary, Moldova, Slovak Republic, Ukraine.
    Compiled by pg/dwr

    Plan Colombia: A Closer Look

    The Hypocrisy of the Peace Process By Garry Leech · March 4, 2002

    • Gart says:

      What I find so painful and overwhelming is that the War on Drugs reads as a great conspiracy theory. Unfortunately,in the eyes of many uninformed people, it is nothing but a great conspiracy theory, and therefore, dismissed as not worthy an issue. As you rightly points out, «…the US does own international drug policy…» and there lies the tragedy. It is drug imperialism…pure and simple.

    • Gart says:

      For those with an economics disposition I recommend reading this paper on the Plan Colombia, here

  7. Gart says:

    In a different context, other than the War on Drugs, Evo Morales’ proposal would be considered typical children’s playground behaviour. However, its “childishness” is what makes it so poignant, for it shows how hypocritical, cynical and self-serving US drug policies are. Unfortunately, it also shows how ineffective, isolated and submissive the position of drug producing countries has been throughout the many decades the Prohibition regime and the so-called War on Drugs policies have been in place.

    Leaving Morales’ proposal aside, what is urgent for Bolivia and other Latin American countries is to unite with both drug producing and drug distributing countries all over the world to put an end to Prohibition and the War on Drugs — unquestionably UNASUR is a good starting point. They should reject, or at least denounce, “en masse” the current international conventions on drugs. In order to counterbalance the US opposition to such a stance, producing and distributing countries should DEMAND that net drug consuming countries that have “legalised” the demand (via harm reduction policies, depenalisation or decriminalisation) talk the talk and walk the walk: they have the MORAL OBLIGATION to introduce, support and promote changes in national and international laws seeking the decriminalisation or depenalisation of the supply, too.

    I find it rather cynical the way some net consuming countries have decided to concentrate exclusively on their side of the fence, the consumption, and completely ignore what is happening on the other side, the production. Never mind the havoc our demand for drugs is creating in drug producing countries, we have decided that what matters is what is happening at home.

    I do not have any doubts that harm reduction policies, decriminalisation or depenalisation of the demand for drugs are sensible and necessary policies; but if we were serious about tackling the so-called ‘drug problem’, we should be accompanying those same policies with equally sensible policies towards the supply of drugs; we should also be promoting the legalisation of the supply; we should be the ones making all the noises calling for a change in the national and international legislation on drugs. In a nutshell, we should be spearheading the movement seeking to legalise the production and distribution of all drugs.

    That’s why, as I say above, countries that have decriminalised or depenalised the demand, the likes of Germany, Holland, Portugal, Spain, etc., have the MORAL OBLIGATION to seek, by whatever means possible, the Legalisation & Regulation of the supply, too. Not to do so is hypocritical, cynical and frankly speaking, criminal.

    Gart Valenc

  8. TINMA says:

    The US isnt the end all of everything. Others can…and will….defy the power in washington. They dont own the world…yet.

  9. Ed Dunkle says:

    The U.S. has 900 military bases in 136 countries. If you don’t do as we say, there will be consequences. President Morales is displaying extraordinary courage in standing up to the U.S.

Comments are closed.