Coca Internationally Bottlenecked

D-Day for Bolivia’s coca chewing amendment
European divide deepens over lifting ban on coca chewing Hypocrisy rules in the arguments behind objections
Martin Jelsma
Monday, January 31, 2011

http://www.druglawreform.info/en/weblog/item/1124-d-day-for-bolivias-coca-chewing-amendment

Today is the deadline for countries to submit objections to Bolivia’s proposed amendment to remove the ban on coca leaf chewing in the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. As far as we know, six countries have formally notified the UN that they reject Bolivia’s amendment: the United States (January 19), Sweden (Jan 20), the United Kingdom (Jan 21), Canada (Jan 26), Denmark (Jan 28) and Germany (Jan 28). Some other European countries may add their objections today.

The U.S. government – anxious to avoid the impression they were the ones leading the opposition against the Bolivian proposal – initially convinced three other countries to object first so they could hide behind them. But the strategy failed when Egypt (last year), Macedonia (Jan 17) and finally Colombia (Jan 26) all withdrew their objections. The Non-Aligned Movement, Mercosur and UNASUR (Union of South American Nations) all expressed their support for the amendment. The Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the advisory body to the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), strongly recommended that governments support the amendment. Civil society organizations worldwide are calling on countries to abstain from submitting an objection.

EU divided

Meanwhile the U.S. turned to its allies in the European Union, where especially the UK tried to rally support for the US objection. But the European Union was unable to agree on a coordinated position, and the divide only deepened further last week. The controversy appeared on the agenda of many EU coordination meetings in Brussels, Vienna and New York. Spain had made clear from the beginning they were not going to object; to the contrary, they would strongly support Bolivia’s proposal. Most other EU countries – all under heavy U.S. pressure to object – were undecided, and for several months Spain remained isolated in its explicit support, in spite of broad sympathy for their position from many EU officials in the corridors.

With the deadline of January 31st approaching, last week several other EU countries (Portugal, the Czech Republic, Greece, Poland, Belgium, Austria and Finland) made clear that they would not be objecting either. Norway and Switzerland (non-EU members) also made clear they had no objection to the amendment. On the other hand, Germany, Denmark, France, Italy and a few others, said they still intended to submit an objection and made a final appeal to others to join them. Germany and Denmark indeed sent their notification on Friday. For the EU, aspiring to reach common positions on international issues, it was a painful process to see the divide deepening.

The Bolivian amendment only proposes deleting the reference in the Single Convention (in article 49) saying that “coca leaf chewing must be abolished.” The few objections submitted thus far make hardly any attempt to argue against what Bolivia has actually proposed. The U.S. objection merely states that the objective of the Single Convention is to limit the use of narcotic drugs exclusively to medical and scientific purposes and that Schedule I lists coca leaf as a narcotic drug. No further explanation is provided, but the implication is that because coca chewing is not a ‘medical or scientific purpose’ it needs to be abolished. The U.S. avoids to address the inconsistency with the 1988 Trafficking Convention saying that all measures “shall take due account of traditional licit uses, where there is historic evidence of such use” (article 14) or with the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, key arguments brought forward by Bolivia. The UK , Canada and Denmark more or less copied and pasted from the text of the U.S. objection, not adding any further explanation.

Sweden and Germany , however, argue their objection somewhat differently. Sweden says it understands the concerns of Bolivia about the conflict between the Convention and the traditional coca leaf chewing. However, Sweden maintains that “the Bolivian proposal poses the risk of creating a political precedent and might directly infringe on the international framework for the fight against drugs” that “would send a negative signal.”

Germany recognizes “that the proposal touches upon complex development and health policy issues, in addition to the intricate drugs issues” and is aware of the particular importance of coca chewing “as part of the cultural identity of the indigenous population, the majority of all Bolivians”. Based foremost on “fundamental drug policy consideration” Germany cannot accept the amendment but proposes further dialogue with Bolivia and “will give favourable consideration to the question of convening a conference of states to discuss the issue”. Convening such a conference is precisely what the other objectors hope to avoid.

Hypocrisy rules

Perhaps starting to feel embarrassed under pressure from the media and thousands of coca-chewing protestors gathering last week in front of their embassy in La Paz, the U.S. issued a clarifying statement last week. The U.S. “respects the culture of indigenous peoples and recognizes that coca chewing is a traditional custom in Bolivian culture” and the “position of the U.S. government to not support the proposed amendment is based on the importance to maintain the integrity of the 1961 Convention, which constitutes an important tool for the global fight against drug trafficking.”

There is a profoundly disturbing hypocrisy behind this line of reasoning that has now become the main argument for the objection for the U.S. government and its EU allies. Of course they fully respect indigenous rights, they have no problem with coca chewing, they simply want to defend the integrity of the drug control treaty system, and allowing this amendment to be adopted would open a Pandora’s box. The Single Convention is sacrosanct, cast in stone, and allowing any changes would jeopardize the integrity of the control system.

Apparently they forgot that in 1971, a decade after the adoption of the Single Convention, the U.S. itself propose numerous amendments. “The United States believes it is now time for the international community to build on the foundation of the Single Convention, since a decade has given a better perspective of its strengths and weaknesses”, they argued at the time . The UK was the first to support the U.S. call to improve the Convention and to convene a Conference of the Parties to discuss the proposals, adding some amendment proposals themselves, which led to the 1972 Protocol amending the 1961 Convention. At the time, the U.S. did not “regard its proposals as sacrosanct; it welcomed suggestions for new improvements; it hoped also that other countries would come forward with their own proposals, whether or not related to ones the United States had already made. It was pleased to see that the Swedish delegation had already begun that constructive process.” While the U.S. proposals were of course aiming to bolster the control regime and the role of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), Sweden used the opportunity to offer other proposals, including positive ones, like deleting references to “addicts” in the treaty and introducing possibilities of alternative sentences for drug-dependent offenders.

So, the three main objectors to the Bolivian amendment proposal now, US, UK and Sweden, arguing the need to protect the integrity of the treaty by not allowing any amendments, were precisely the ones who proposed the first amendments themselves, at which time they argued the need for the control system to develop and improve.

The other disturbing element underlying their objections to Bolivia’s proposal now is that they are essentially saying to Bolivia: “We don’t really have a problem with coca chewing, but we prefer that you keep violating the Convention rather than try to change it according to the established procedures.” A more ‘negative signal’ regarding the integrity of the treaty system is difficult to imagine, coming from countries ostensibly protecting it.

Hopefully, today no other countries will submit objections and align themselves with such unfounded and hypocritical arguments against the amendment. While the deadlines for objections ends today, the decision making process around it will continue the months to come. The ECOSOC will have to reach a decision on how to proceed, and the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) probably will be consulted about it during its annual session in March. Objecting countries will be challenged to present more substantive arguments to explain their position.

Given the embarrassing hypocrisy and flimsiness of their positions, the good news for the governments that have so far objected is that even though today marks the deadline to submit objections, governments can still withdraw their objections after today in the lead-up to the ECOSOC and CND discussions. That would be the only way to prevent further embarrassment about their disrespect for indigenous rights and for the integrity of UN treaties and about the hypocritical arguments most of them have used to try to justify their position.

Bolivia Demands WHO to Disseminate Study on Coca Leaf

http://www.insidecostarica.com/dailynews/2011/january/25/latinamerica11012502.htm

La Paz - Bolivia will demand the World Health Organization (WHO) to spread the results of the study on coca leaf in 1995, to give everyone a real insight into its properties

According to the research, coca leaf chewing is not harmful to human health and therefore the WHO recommended then further research to identify the properties of the coca leaf, said Foreign Minister David Choquehuanca.

During his appearance on the Sunday program "El Pueblo es Noticia ", the Bolivian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship regretted that the WHO has not published the research and attributed this attitude to possible pressure from some power.

Bolivia launched an international campaign for the UN to approve an amendment to the Convention adopted in 1961, banning the chewing of coca without considering that this is part of the ancestral culture of some Andean peoples and is in full force, because of the faith in its healing powers.

Choquehuanca said the Bolivian intention was communicated to the WHO by President Evo Morales through a letter, after which the approach went to the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), for procedural issues.

This UN dependence set an 18 month-term for members to express their position on the chewing of coca.

"This period ends on January 30. So far there is any official position of UN member countries, there is expressions of support that were released to Bolivia, although", said the Foreign Minister.

As part of the international campaign, Choquehuanca visited last week Spain, Belgium, France and Britain and verified the interest in knowing the reasons for coca leaf chewing.

US continuing cigarette mercantilism 2011

this is a continuation of the policies enacted during the early 1900s over concerns about Coca displacing Tobacco - despite Coca's safety and Tobacco's then already known dangers -- for the sake of a mission of agrilcultural mercantilism

THE COCA LEAF

Storm in an Andean Teacup

A Battle Over Mastication

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v11/n043/a03.html?397

TOURISTS who visit Bolivia's capital, La Paz, or Cusco, Peru's former Inca seat, are routinely given welcome cups of coca tea to mitigate soroche (altitude sickness). For centuries, people who live in the high Andes have chewed coca leaves, whose alkaloids act as a mild stimulant and help to ward off cold and hunger. The Spanish conquistadors declared coca a tool of the devil, until they saw how it improved the work rate of the Indians they sent down the mines.

But refine the alkaloids in coca, and you get cocaine. In 1961 a United Nations convention on narcotics banned the leaves, giving countries 25 years to outlaw this ancestral practice. Half a century on, consuming coca remains legal in Bolivia, Peru, Argentina and some parts of Colombia, in defiance of the convention. In Bolivia and Peru, some cultivation is legal too. In 2009 Bolivia, where a new constitution protects coca as part of the country's cultural heritage, proposed an amendment to the convention that would remove the obligation to prohibit traditional uses of coca. Other South American countries agree.

The amendment would have passed if no objections were raised by the end of this month. But this week the United States spoke up, probably scuppering the change. The European Union (at Britain's behest) may follow. They argue that tolerating the use of coca harms efforts to suppress cocaine. Bolivia insists it would continue to fight cocaine and limit coca cultivation. But cultivation in Bolivia and Peru has long outstripped traditional use, and is rising sharply.

Yet this smacks of hypocrisy. The United States' State Department's website recommends coca tea for altitude sickness, and its La Paz embassy has been known to serve it to visitors. The UN's declaration on indigenous peoples, which the United States endorsed last month, guarantees the protection of "cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions".

"It's clear to me that some people there [in the State Department] realise it's senseless to continue the war on drugs," says Fernando Henrique Cardoso, a former president of Brazil who wants marijuana decriminalised and is chairing a commission on drug policy worldwide.

But the drug warriors in the American administration seem to have prevailed over the diplomats. Bolivia is considering pulling out of the convention if its modest proposal is struck down. The State Department has been trying to repair ties with Bolivia's socialist government since a spat in 2008 in which ambassadors were expelled.

But all too often American policy towards Latin America has been dominated
by drugs.

172nd anniversary birthdate of Angelo Francois Mariani

b. December 17, 1838 - d. April 1, 1914

Popularizer of Coca, inventer of Vin Mariani

http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/03/drug-warriors-ignore-history-of-coca.html

Top Anti Researcher 180

Here's what people as Pat Robertson/CBN and Edwin Meese/Heritage Foundation pretend does not exist

Top anti-drug researcher changes his mind – says legalize marijuana

http://patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/top-anti-drug-researcher-says-legalize-marijuana/

June 4th, 2009 § 11 Comments

Over and over again, all the bad things we’ve been told about marijuana are revealed to be not only false, but often the precise opposite of the truth. So the next time someone tells you that marijuana is worse for your lungs than cigarettes, you might want to mention that the world’s leading expert on that subject happens to be a supporter of legalization.
(Source) 6.03.09

For 30 years, Donald Tashkin has studied the effects of marijuana on lung function. His work has been funded by the vehemently anti-marijuana National Institute on Drug Abuse, which has long sought to demonstrate that marijuana causes lung cancer. After 3 decades of anti-drug research, here’s what Tashkin has to say about marijuana laws:

“Early on, when our research appeared as if there would be a negative impact on lung health, I was opposed to legalization because I thought it would lead to increased use and that would lead to increased health effects,” Tashkin says. “But at this point, I’d be in favor of legalization. I wouldn’t encourage anybody to smoke any substances. But I don’t think it should be stigmatized as an illegal substance. Tobacco smoking causes far more harm. And in terms of an intoxicant, alcohol causes far more harm.” [McClatchy]

We’ve been told a thousand times that marijuana destroys your lungs, that it’s 5 times worse than cigarettes, and on and on. Yet here is Donald Tashkin, literally the top expert in the world when it comes to marijuana and lung health, telling us it’s time to legalize marijuana. His views are shaped not by ideology, but rather by the 30 years he spent studying the issue. He didn’t expect the science to come out in favor of marijuana, but that’s what happened and he’s willing to admit it.

Here’s the study that really turned things around:

UCLA’s Tashkin studied heavy marijuana smokers to determine whether the use led to increased risk of lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD. He hypothesized that there would be a definitive link between cancer and marijuana smoking, but the results proved otherwise.

“What we found instead was no association and even a suggestion of some protective effect,” says Tashkin, whose research was the largest case-control study ever conducted.

Prejudice against marijuana and smoking in general runs so deep for many people that it just seems inconceivable that marijuana could actually reduce the risk of lung cancer. But that’s what the data shows and it not only demolishes a major tenet of popular anti-pot propaganda, but also points towards a potentially groundbreaking opportunity to develop cancer cures through marijuana research.

Over and over again, all the bad things we’ve been told about marijuana are revealed to be not only false, but often the precise opposite of the truth. So the next time someone tells you that marijuana is worse for your lungs than cigarettes, you might want to mention that the world’s leading expert on that subject happens to be a supporter of legalization.

Douglas Willinger on Time4Hemp Oct 12, 2010

With host Casper Leitch and co-host Kelley Christian

http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/Time_4_Hemp_10.html

Is mislabeled, with my name Douglas Willinger appearing at October 5 instead of October 12, 2010

I start about the iron law of prohibition- the shift of cocaine use from dilute to concentrated.

I then point out it the evil of this as done to protect the cigarette industry- with the USDA complaint about coca sold as a tobacco habit cure, considering the reletive effects of tobacco and coca, its way worse then drug policy reformists let on.

I point out that legalization is not anarchy. Prior to the early 1900s, but after the introduction of concentrated pharmaceutical derivitives such as cocaine hci and morphine, in chrystallyne form or liquid for hypodermic injection (a mistake with cocaine!) numerous jurisdictions enacted basic public safety laws of requiring warning 'POISON' labeling and even prescription requirments- hence providing the minimal police powers for safeguarding people's health. It was with the new drug control statutes of the early 1900s, in the U.S. culminating in the 'Harrison Narcotics Tax Act' of 1914 removing bulky dilute coca products from the market effectively giving a cocaine monopoly to the concentrated drug.

I note the time line, with the anti cocaine campaign in the United States of America popping up cir 1904-05 via USDA and AMA-'APhA's Harvey Washington Wiley, just after the 2nd time that Vin Mariani entrepeneur Angelo Francois Mariani recieved a gold papal medel declaring him a benefactor of humanity from the Vatican. I point out how the facts point to the Vatican, such as the USDA-AMA-APhA's Harvey Washington Wiley being a 'Knight'- a term applicable to a Vatican religous order such as the Knights of Malta to which his drug war collaborator William Randolph Hearst belonged. I then point out how the RCC involvement with the drug war dates back at least to the late 1400s with Pope Innocent VIII.

I note that we are talking about MAJOR agrilcultural commodities. Such as Coffee, and Tobacco.

I note the drug policy reform dynamics happen as slowly as possible, and that we have resources that could be better utilized.

I recommend my blog "Freedom of Medicine and Diet", particularly an article "Coca Comeback"

And I point out the basic absuridity of the reality of the exemption of alcoholic beverages, cosmetics and cigarettes from the basic product retail labeling requirments for INGREDIENTS- a most basic concept that the US Pure Foods and Drugs Act established an inconsistency by only requiring labeling of some drugs, e.g. cocaine but not caffeine or nicotine, and by exempting tobacco via its exclusion of authoruty of substances to only those within the US Pharmacopeia- from which tobacco was deleted in 1905!

---

http://americanfreedomradio.com/programs.html

Time 4 Hemp
Host: Casper Leitch
Website: www.time4hemp.com
Guest Schedule: T4H GUEST CALENDAR
Program Archives
Call-in Number:
(402) 237 - 2525
Time: Weeknights, 11:00 pm - Midnight Central

Casper Leitch got involved in the hemp movement in 1990 and launched the cable television series 'Time 4 Hemp' on January 5, 1991. It was the first television series in the history of broadcasting to focus strictly on the topic of cannabis, thus giving Casper the dubious honor of being known as 'The Father of Marijuana Television'. He was a participant in the United States Government Funded 'UCLA Smoked Marijuana Study' headed by Dr. Donald Tashkin and is the first person in the world have television filmed footage of themselves smoking legal marijuana in a Government funded lab.

Over the years, 'Time 4 Hemp' has remained on the cutting edge of the Marijuana Movement by opening the Time4Hemp.com website in 1999 and being one of the first sites to offer free audio and video downloads. On July 4, 2007, the first segment of the 'Time 4 Hemp - TODAY PotCast' was released and six months later, the 'Time 4 Hemp - MUSIC PotCast' made its debut. Both now rank in the number one and number two spots when the word 'hemp' is typed into the iTunes search engine.

Past guests on the series include Dr. Tim Leary; Willie Nelson; Congressman Barney Frank; Keith Stroup (founder of NORML); David Boaz (Co-founder of the CATO Institute); Kevin Zeese (Co-founder of the Drug Policy Foundation); Ethan Nadelmann (Founder of the Drug Policy Alliance); Judge James Gray; Marc Emery (founder of Cannabis Culture Magazine); Ed Rosenthal (Co-founder of High Times Magazine); Steve Hager (editor of High Times Magazine); and Eddy Lepp (Hero of the Marijuana Movement).

Continuing Delusion: CBN- Virginia Masonic Dope

Pat Robertson's Continuing Devotion to the Pro Cigarette-Pharm Mercantilism
A prime example of societal elite* (*masonic-fraternal order) rot



Everytime I've heard Pat Robertson mention Marijaunna, it's in a derogatory manner as if the government position was correct, and reflects throughout his 'Christian Briadcasting Network'. Some examples:

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2010/November/Ex-Addict-Joins-Fight-against-Califs-Prop-19/

"It gives people the personal freedom they deserve," said one proponent of legalizing marijuana. "It also stimulates the economy which I really feel we could use in America right now, especially in California."

If the initiative passes, it would allow the drug to be sold in store and taxed, just like cigarettes.

But some officials say the revenue projections are overstated.

"The supporters of Prop 19, of course, advance some wildly over-inflated tax estimates," California Assemblyman Chuck DeVore said. "What they seem to forget is that cannabus grows naturally in North America. If it gets too high - (people) will just grow their own and the state won't get any tax money to speak of."

At the Richard Nixon Library in Yorba Linda, Calif., supporters of family values joined Advocates for Faith and Freedom during a fundraising event to push back the liberal agenda on marijuana.

"I've got four kids. I'm really concerned about what this is going to mean to our future generations believing that marijuana is just like another cigarette," said Robert Tyler, general counsel for the group.

Meanwhile, people like Lambert are hoping and praying California won't learn the hard way like the state of Alaska, who legalized marijuana in the 1980s. The Last Frontier State reversed its decision in 1990 when pot use among teens doubled. "I'm passionate about it because I used it for several years," Lambert said. "I would be like the rest of these people who are strung out on pot for so many years."

And stuff as this:

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2010/May/Marijuana-Use-the-New-Cool-on-TV/

We're seeing very casual treatments of that on shows that are very popular with young viewers including "Family Guy, The Cleveland Show, American Dad," Melissa Henson, a PTC spokesperson said. "All of which are animated programs and some of the highest rated programs among viewers as young as two to 11 and also very popular with teenagers 12-17 who are extremely impressionable at that age."

Historically we've seen marijuana use on TV portrayed negatively, such as in the context of an arrest or a precursor to another crime. But not anymore.

"If teens see attractive characters using pot recreationally with no consequences they come to view that as not only okay behavior, but even normal, acceptable, mainstream behavior," Henson said.

While pot smoking on TV is on the rise, cigarette smoking has decreased, purportedly because of the health risks of kids imitating what they see on TV.

CBN acts as if its oblivious to the reality that cigarettes have killed some 100 million people during the last century and is estimated to take some 1 billion this century (WHO figures), while MJ which is one of the least toxic sustances known is something to be feared as an alternative to cigarettes or alcohol.

Such is a strange attitude for a 'Christian',

King James Version- Genesis 1:29

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Yet it's par for the course for a political status quo of fraternal order minions.

Marijuana Versus Virginia Bright Leaf Adulterated Cigarettes
http://ideas-canada.ca/medmj/medmjkills.htm

Marijuana Versus Alcohol Beverages
http://www.saferchoice.org/content/view/24/53/