Over the past decade Bolivians have witnessed polarizing coca plant policies that affect coca farmers, anti-drug organizations, politicians in the nation as well as the global community. The plant that the indigenous Bolivian population, especially rural farmers, have considered a commonplace aspect of their religious practices has come under international scrutiny. Underlying the traditional uses of the coca plant such as teas and pastes is the much darker international cocaine trade that has taken precedence in the world's view of this plant. While many, including coca farmers known as cocaleros, along with the incumbent president Evo Morales, agree that it is the right of the indigenous population to grow the plant for traditional uses, the international community and the UN think otherwise. There exists a controversial mixture of freedoms, economic incentives and as a byproduct, international political conflicts involved in this issue that have inspired a closer look into Bolivia's coca production. Sources for this episode of Country Files come from the BBC news site as well as Freedom House and the Economist Intelligence Unit.
Bolivia is a land-locked nation in South America with a rich cultural heritage founded on a diverse indigenous population. With a population of close to 10 million (EIU), Bolivia has one of the largest indigenous populations in South America. Bolivia suffers from both poverty and corruption which adds a strong dose of controversy to the production of the coca plant. Beginning in 1961, the UN classified the coca leaf as a Schedule I drug with no medicinal benefits yet Evo Morales has consistently fought to repeal this standing. He argues that the coca leaf, not cocaine, helps alleviate fatigue and is okay to use in teas or as an herb. Prior to Morales' presidency, in the years of the Banzer administration, coca production was decreased with the aid of the United States. The successes in coca leaf eradication was short lived as production shifted to other parts of the nation. During the years of strong eradication efforts against coca production came strong opposition from the indigenous majority that eventually elected Evo Morales into power. His stance has been reported to be anti-cocaine yet pro-coca leaf. While this stance holds justification in the rights of these indigenous farmers and their religious practices, the Economist Intelligence Unit as well as reporters on this issue note that cocaine production has increased with the relaxing of coca leaf laws. The Bolivian government has utilized inconsistent strategies to try and limit coca leaf production. In 2008, Evo Morales suspended the U.S. anti-drug organizations based in Bolivia and has consistently argued that the drug war is fueled by North America's attempt at controlling Latin America. However, Morales has also passed laws that limit the amounts of legal coca production yet these laws have little effect. The past month has even seen strong protests from the cocaleros as they work hard to maintain their crop. Knowing that the coca leaf is much more lucrative to grow than other crops such as bananas and rice, Evo Morales has been working to establish economic incentives for the poor farmers. Yet since 2000, the EIU has noted that when the economy of Bolivia is facing a downtrend, the poor farmers begin producing more coca leaf for illegal drug smugglers (please see EIU reports for 2003). Despite the increase in cocaine production stemming from Bolivia, Evo Morales hopes to change the image of the coca leaf. In 2007, the Morales Administration was able to pass a proposal that would not allow companies to use the word "coca" in their products. Recently, a new product has come out of Bolivia known as "Coca Colla" which is an energy drink that uses the coca leaf as a main ingredient. Even in the face of laws meant to lower production, we see companies such as Red Bull Cola and Coca Cola continuing to use the coca leaf in their products. What is remarkable is how despite promoting the new Coca Colla drink, Evo Morales has had to switch aid in the drug war from the U.S. to Russia and Brazil. Not only is the cocaine trade growing in Bolivia, it is quoted as the only sector experiencing strong growth. Drug raiders are also seeing more sophisticated methods of conversion from the coca leaf to cocaine. Among the growing business surrounding cocaine production, is increasing violence from drug gangs. Reporters warn that the drug wars that happened in Colombia and are happening in Mexico could soon hit Bolivia. While Evo Morales is a voice for the indigenous population that are trying to maintain their cultural traditions, it is time that the administration focuses its view of the coca leaf.
Taken from BBC News Site
A strong question is whether or not the Bolivian farmers have a right to grow the coca leaf. Bolivia is a strikingly poor nation and it is almost inevitable that farmers will pass the surplus coca plants not used in religious practices and for drinks, over to the drug dealers. In 2001, it is important to note that Bolivian farmers rejected an offer of $900 each a year to grow other products instead of the coca leaf. Bolivian farmers must recognize that once drug smugglers begin invading their nation, it is like a virus. They may outwardly argue that the plant has been theirs for centuries, yet we still see large amounts of cocaine being exported from Bolivia. Estimates of coca production state that farmers consistently produce more than the legal amounts and it is time that Evo Morales holds himself accountable for these crimes. While he also states that his attempts at improving the image of the coca leaf are meant to allow farmers to begin legally selling coca based products. Once farmers can sell these herbs and medicines on the market, Morales believes that cocaine production will decrease. Logically, this is simply not true.
Taken from BBC News Site
More coca leaf means more cocaine. More inconsistent views of the plant means more drug smugglers and the potential for more crime and violence. It is not realistic to consider cocaine a drug that should be legalized and it is therefore logical that cocaine production stop at the source. Yet the proposal of this blogger is that instead of investing money towards anti-drug efforts, money should be invested in helping Bolivian farmers out of poverty. There should be stronger incentives established for growing food crops and this should be a responsibility of the international community since cocaine usage is a global problem not restricted to Bolivian borders. Instead of just criticizing the nation from abroad, the UN should work to end the need for farmers to maintain surplus coca leaf for drug dealers. The potential for violence in Bolivia is strong and cocaine has always had an infamous history. This potential problem must be addressed because of its ability to be prevented. The UN should not address issues once they have escalated to violence and Bolivia and Bolivian indigenous farmers deserve to recognize this immediately.
Prohibition of marijuana is unjustified in a nation that values democratic freedoms. Inconsistent substance policies along with the existence of significant doubt regarding marijuana’s health hazards underlines the need to revert marijuana’s public image from an illegal drug to a product Americans have the right to purchase legally. The negative views of marijuana legalization are hypocritical from a policy standpoint and represent the enforcement of a temporal ideology rather than an expression of democratic values. Illegality is the federal government’s interference with our right to private property and the pursuit of individual happiness. American citizens should not be degraded to criminals resorting to black market activities that present high costs for the American economy and society. California’s medicinal marijuana industry is a microcosm of the potential benefits that legalization will provide.
The United States democracy should be based strongly on the will of the public. California’s upcoming election over the legalization of marijuana is an expression of democracy based on the concerns that prohibition presents significant costs with less benefits to the state of California. Legalization proponents argue that the benefits of marijuana medicinally, personally, and economically are ignored by the federal government’s classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act.[i] On October 13th, the U.S. Attorney General asserted that despite the upcoming ballot for marijuana legalization in California, the federal government will continue to enforce marijuana restrictions and laws regardless.[ii] This is a clear demonstration of the federal government’s inconsistency with essential democratic values where the will of the people takes precedence.[iii] The government is a servant to the people and the Attorney General is misunderstanding his role as a public official.
The changing opinion of the American public reflects the realization that most arguments against the use of marijuana are surprisingly weak. In his book, “Drugs and Rights”, Douglas N. Husak[iv] makes the strong point that there exists a culture subconsciously against supporting practices for hedonistic purposes. He states, “For reasons that are deep and mysterious, many persons become apologetic and defensive about arguing in favor of a right to engage in an activity simply because it is pleasurable.” This stigma associated with pleasure seeking activities cannot justify the prohibition of any substance and neither democracy nor the constitution express an explicit prohibition of hedonism. The mind-altering attributes of a substance do not warrant its prohibition. Moreover, the inconsistent research on the medical effects of marijuana is enough to deter health-based arguments against marijuana use.[v]
A political approach, as well as a democratic approach, alleviates the stalemate brought on by an insecure understanding of marijuana’s effect on the body and mind. Almost all arguments in favor of marijuana legalization rightfully cite the health hazards of tobacco and alcohol. This inconsistency in American drug policy holds the underlying truth behind the American views on substances considered “drugs”. Since alcohol and tobacco are legal despite the consistent evidence of their negative effects on the body,[vi] both sides of the marijuana debate must understand that substance policy in a democracy is the byproduct of a culture.[vii] When the mentality of a culture shifts over time it is a democratic government’s duty to reflect these shifts.
One can even argue that the source of negative marijuana views is a result of government propaganda that younger generations are now able to avoid with the advent of the Internet and the spread of knowledge without the government’s perspective. An example of this is the Marijuana Policy Project which posts videos on the website Youtube in order to gather attention to the issue of detrimental marijuana laws.[viii] Instead of understanding marijuana through messages filtered with government intentions, Americans can now become involved themselves in open discussions regarding the effects of marijuana and marijuana prohibition. These discussions allow people to freely express their views on marijuana and the growth of the Internet’s popularity as a source of information is an important determinant of American culture and its values. Popular sites like Facebook have even donated thousands to the cause of legality and deny advertisements on their website featuring arguments in favor of prohibition.[ix] While this denial is a dubious way to gain support for a cause, it is nevertheless a very important example of the government losing its ability to push an agenda. Once the government loses its force in molding our views, the public can reengage in a fulfilling democracy where the government is subject to the perspectives of its citizens.
Illegality is undermined on the strong basis that as humans we have a right to our own property. When the government invades homes and robs marijuana growers of their product, they are directly encroaching upon our rights to engage in business activity of our own choosing along with our right to purchase and sell goods. This is blatantly undemocratic because the prevalence of marijuana growing and usage demonstrates that opinions on marijuana are not constant. An honest democratic government needs to be supportive of the pursuit of financial gains and capitalist behavior. The mere existence of a portion of the population that dislikes marijuana usage does not garner this level of interference with an individual’s pursuit of happiness.
The potential economic gains of marijuana legalization are numerous and demonstrate that in a just republic the government must realize the ills associated with illegality. California’s medicinal marijuana economy is a clear example of how a substance that once had such a negative image can be transformed for the better for both the economy and society. In his dissertation titled, “Marijuanomy: The Overlooked Side of L.A.’s Marijuana Economy”,[x] Jason Ma engages in an economic analysis of how the medicinal marijuana economy of Los Angeles works despite federal illegality. He conducts interviews with various actors in this economy such as shop owners, chefs who make and sell food with marijuana, and doctors who may bend the rules of medicinal marijuana laws yet benefit greatly from the industry. His dissertation shows how marijuana, despite being painted as an erratic and dangerous drug by government fueled propaganda,[xi] acts in much the same way as any other good in the market.
As the demand for medicinal marijuana increased with the loophole that allowed many marijuana shops to open across the city, we see that an economy grew around the substance that provided numerous financial benefits to many individuals and the city of Los Angeles. Jobs were created to establish distribution routes from farms to shops, along with different paraphernalia, food and entertainment that are geared toward marijuana users and growers. Yet these groups experienced scrutiny from the city and conservative culture and were inclined to remain anonymous in their interviews. As a society that supports the improvement in the implementation of democracy, it is hypocritical that these citizens must be marginalized due to differing cultural views. The main obstacles they faced were from state and local government’s themselves that maintained their harsh view on marijuana and the industry despite the strong and stable demand for the good.
Despite the taxes gained from allowing medicinal marijuana shops and users to engage in safe economic transactions, many states across the U.S. lack this privilege. Marijuana users, growers, and dealers must engage in criminal black market activities. Instead of being allowed to safely enter a store, purchase your good at your own discretion and privacy, most users across the nation must face the potentially violent and highly suspicious business practices of street drug dealers and gangs. Husak demonstrates that business disputes in the black market are settled by violence and states that “the sale of illicit drugs [is] the source of more than half of all organized crime revenues”. Along with the high prices consumers must accept due to illegality, it is unjust for citizens to face these levels of government-induced distortion. The ease of California’s medicinal marijuana industry, for consumers at least, is a demonstration that the status quo needs to change.
The last main issue that needs to be addressed when considering the democratic legitimacy of marijuana prohibition is the level of incarcerations. The U.S. leads the world in prison rates,[xii] and it is even debated that the U.S. has more laws than any other country. A high number of laws and punishments add a heavy toll on the health of society and productivity in a capitalist economy. The cost of maintaining such a high number of bodies in prison rather than in regular society is undemocratic because it impedes our right to a healthy economy. It is also undemocratic because it demonstrates a gross misinterpretation of the purpose of the justice and prison system. Entering the prison system as a violator of a marijuana offense groups criminals of many different backgrounds and is not conducive to the improvement of a person on an individual basis. Marijuana laws and punishments do not deter usage and there is no clear evidence that usage has been bad for the health of our society. Prisons are meant to keep violent criminals away from the general public and they are also meant to establish changes in behavior that the public believes causes significant damage to the well being of America. Marijuana does not induce violence and its prevalence is enough of an example that it is accepted by our society to a certain degree. The effects of smoking the plant do not warrant illegality of the substance nor do so many citizens deserve to be jailed when usage has been seen throughout all levels of society.[xiii]
Democracy calls for communication and negotiation between all aspects of the public and the government. It calls for equality and a degree of fairness that each citizen deserves. When it comes to personal choices a democratic government must consistently reflect the ever changing populous and must be the enforcer of what people feel is best for society. The United States government has no right in interfering with the usage of marijuana because the public has demonstrated that its usage is not only minimally negative if not strongly beneficial,[xiv] but that its usage alone exemplifies American actions and the character of many American citizens. Marijuana usage does not deserve to be marginalized by a government wishing to maintain their control over society and individual choices. In no way can the government justly implement laws because they think they know better than taxpayers and voters.
Appendix I
[i] See: http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/21C13.txt. This act places marijuana in the same schedule as heroin and LSD. The description of Schedule I is: “The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” which is false and subjective.
[ii] Wohlsen, Marcus . "US opposes California Prop to legalize marijuana." http://Msnbc.msn.com. 16 Oct. 2010. 16 Oct. <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39689330>.
[iii] While the current administration is supportive of medicinal uses of marijuana, violations of the rights of Americans under the previous administration were prevalent. See: Gerber, Rudolph J. Legalizing Marijuana:Drug Policy Reform and Prohibition Politics. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2004. Page 131.
[iv] Husak, Douglas N.. Drugs and Rights. New York, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
[v] See the government’s site for its description of marijuana: NIDA InfoFacts: Marijuana." National Institute on Drug Abuse. 9 Jul. 2010. 14 Oct. 2010. <http://drugabuse.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html>. and their citation of: Tashkin DP. Smoked marijuana as a cause of lung injury. Monaldi Arch Chest Dis 63(2):92–100, 2005. This contradicts new findings discussed in this article: Kaufman, Mark "Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection." The Washington Post 26 May. 2006. 14 Oct. 2010 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html>.
[vi] "Alcohol, tobacco make top 10 list of risky drugs." Msnbc.msn.com. 24 Mar. 2007. 16 Oct.< http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17760130/ >.
[vii] On page 45, Husak describes the usage of drugs in religious ceremonies and this demonstrates that views on substances are entirely subjective.
[ix] "Facebook co-founder Sean Parker donates $100,000 to marijuana legalization measure in California." NYdailynews.com. 10 Oct. 2010. 14 Oct. 2010. <http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2010/10/10/2010-10-10_facebook_cofounder_sean_parker_donates_100000_to_marijuana_legalization_measure_.html>.
[x] Ma, Jason. "Marijuanomy: The Overlooked Side of L.A.’s Marijuana Economy. Diss. University of Southern California, 2010.
[xi] See Appendix image. This image associates marijuana with intravenous injections that is a false example of how it is consumed. In his manifesto, Ginsberg Allen discusses the controversial actions of the US Treas. Department Narcotics Bureau and their depictions of marijuana. Ginsberg, Allen "The Great Marijuana Hoax." The Atlantic Monthly Nov. 1966, Number 6 ed., sec. Volume 218: 104-112. <http://www.cannatrade.com/pdfdocuments/new/TheGreatMarijuanaHoax.pdf>. The image depicted is one of many examples of marijuana propaganda from the past.
[xii] See Freedom House Country Report: "United States Country Report." Freedom House. 16 Oct. 2010. <http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2010&country=7944>.
[xiii] See the introduction in “Legalizing Marijuana: Drug Policy and Prohibition Politics” where Gerber outlines numerous politicians and professors admitting to using marijuana
[xiv] On page 131 of his text, Gerber describes the malicious act of the federal government raiding marijuana shops where the majority of the customers were AIDS patients.
This post describes two styles of dancing known as Salsa and Perreo. Underneath Salsa, there exists a style of Salsa dancing known as "Salsa Caleña" named for the city in Colombia from which it originates.
The next video shows a style of perreo dancing known as "El Choque" named for the way the two partners' bodies "crash" or "shock" each other.
We see a big difference between what is considered the music and dance of yesterday versus the music of today's youth. A phenomenon I have noticed is that as Latin Americans get older, they begin to accept and welcome "classier" styles of music and dance such as Salsa or Bachata and in the process let go of more vulgar dances that have come up since the 1990s known under the umbrella term "perreo". Nevertheless, there is a large disparity in the style of these dances. Both of these dances (the left silhouette being a salsa move and the lower right perreo), existed in their original forms in Puerto Rico only later to be transformed by Colombians. Here we have two forms of dance known in the first video as "Salsa Cali Style" and in the second as "el Choque". The first style of dance took the Puerto Rican form of Salsa dancing (arguably also Cuban) and added much more footwork, speed and intricacy to the leg movements. There is a distinct beat that both partners dancing Cali-Style must understand, and it is not the same rhythm that is followed when one is dancing to Salsa on the more traditional side. Then we have the controversial baile Choque (or shock dance, baile choke etc). This form of perreo took the infamy of Puerto Rican perreo (pardon the sound quality and vulgarity) and added a more aggressive pelvic thrust. The idea to make perreo even more controversial in the eyes of adults is apparent and we also see less intricacy in the new dance. The beat of the shock dance is much easier to follow and the female does not lead either. There is more movement and footwork in el Choque as opposed to Puerto Rican perreo, but this does not match the level of footwork in Cali Style Salsa and the main objective of these newer dances seems to be vulgarity and rebellion. What is important to note, however, is that Salsa and Bachata (in their early stages) were once in a similar position as perreo and el Choque. People of higher socioeconomic status viewed these dances as corruptions of traditional (more European or simply older) forms of dancing more in line with Tango (the silhouette on the left depicts another example of a stance in Salsa or Bachata dancing). Bachata was confined to the lower classes until, like many forms of music, upper class (or) mainstream society realized it was more enjoyable. While I disagree that el Choque is more enjoyable, more intricate, or even a level up from perreo dancing, I can understand what the students in Colombia who created the dance were seeking, mainly, excitement. El Choque dance was even able to make the news multiple times and garnered enough attention to be worthy of a discussion.
Some youtube videos and comments point out that the new Choque dance is degrading for women and should not exist as a respectable dance. Relative to other popular dances across South America such as Bachata, Salsa and Merengue, I agree that this is true. However, vulgarity in Latin American dances is nothing foreign. In Brazil another dance known as "Surra De Bunda" has recently gained viral popularity and demonstrates that the limits of acceptable dance can always be pushed farther. While I think Surra de Bunda should be confined to strip clubs, what about the parents who must watch youtube videos where females doing el Choque are told to stick out their tongues? Well, those parents lose voice when there are an equal amount of youtube videos where parents are actually teaching their kids how to do the dance!
While I agree that el Choque is not a respectable dance, I think it is meant to be for fun. I feel as though people jump to many conclusions when they see these dances and they think instantly that sex is what happens afterwards. Dances, especially on youtube, are just dances. It is up to the influence of parents and the individual to teach the right decisions at the right age and there is no need for the level of negative comments the girls in these videos are receiving. People comment that these dances have long lasting negative effects on society and this I must also debate. I think that el Choque demonstrates that the inappropriateness of these dances is entirely relative. When perreo came to my attention in the late 90s, my parents believed that it would lead to rape and unprotected sex. Yet, I must admit, nothing changed. We danced to it, enjoyed it, yet at the end of the night decisions were up to the individual. Just reading the comments on youtube where people consider perreo better or less degrading then el Choque are merely proving my point that the views on these dance styles are all relative. If the purpose of these dances was to rebel and gain attention, then I think these inventors got what they were seeking.
When considering the political economic position of many Latin American nations, especially the nations with politicians who bend the rules of democracy if not the rules of righteous governance, as a relatively new scholar on the subject I ask what circumstances led these nations to this point. Even prior to Spanish conquest, Latin American civilizations faced many of the similar ills in their political spheres as the rest of humanity. South Americans dealt with powerful, violent, and tyrannical leaders that Carlos Fuentes, in his book The Buried Mirror goes as far as to compare Incan society to a "big brother" society from the book 1984 by George Orwell. Another example is the strongly theocratic Mayan society where the prisoners of newly conquered tribes were sacrificed to provoke fear across Latin America. Nevertheless, the violence, slavery, and economic subjugation stemming from the Spanish conquest leaves a deep scar on Latin American history. Although my Latin American history from this point (roughly 1800s and onwards) begins to blur, it is my understanding that from the time of the revolutions against Spanish rule, Latin America faced problems in many stages of development. Politically, some Latin American nations did not get the foothold that the United States obtained after their break from Britain. Combined with a pre-existing economic structure that left many Latin American nations in deep poverty, this led to continued political instability and violence. Switching viewpoints to the current period where these problems are still very relevant, the difference between the political economic conditions in the U.S. begs my curiosity (please see the extreme differences in World Governance Indicators as well as World Bank GDP per capita rates).
This post was inspired by the recent news that Hugo Chavez and his supporters have lost the two-thirds majority in parliament preventing the president from passing many laws that extend his power as well as his economic control over the nation. Prior to this news Chavez was described as a salesman in one news article discussing his planned economic reforms such as "good-life" credit cards and household merchandise offered at discount rates. The good-life cards are also compared to rationing cards given out in Cuba during a period of high inflation. The author describes these cards as a way for the government to exert further control over the people when the (government managed) supply side of the economy cannot satisfy the population's hunger. Chavez has even recently passed an election law giving greater weight to votes in rural areas, which demonstrates his ability to pass illiberal laws. Despite these political moves that to a North American (myself) appear undemocratic and suspicious, Chavez retains the support of roughly 50% of the population. However, this is not entirely surprising since ex-president Fujimori from Peru was supported by the population despite being exposed for human rights abuses. Leaders and ex-leaders of today that are somewhat demonized by United States culture such as Fidel Castro came to power through strong popular support.
Where does this support come from? My knowledge on this issue has me believing that from the time of the Spanish conquest, Latin Americans have had to deal with instability. This has created a society that favors radical changes because that is what the public desires. Many Latin Americans, though undoubtedly not all, view the United States with admiration and view the relative difference in economic stability and success as something they wish could exist at home. When leaders promise a public dealing with varying levels of violence and corruption large changes to the system, supporters get butterflies of hope. What many North Americans may not know is that the condition of Latin America has at times been exacerbated by the United States. This trajectory of Latin American political economic history should be something any American desiring to understand the rich history of our two beautiful continents should appreciate. What became news to me only recently was that Hugo Chavez, a man who I must now view slightly differently, felt the exact same way. Last April, Chavez handed a book to our president Obama titled Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent, which describes the perpetual exploitation of Latin America throughout its history. Like a BBC news article points out, for Chavez, as well as this blogger, this was a big deal. The increase in popularity of the book has me hopeful that many Americans who superficially judge the economic and political conditions of our neighbors as a problem of their own will change their views.
Bolivia is a land-locked nation in South America with a rich cultural heritage founded on a diverse indigenous population. With a population of close to 10 million (EIU), Bolivia has one of the largest indigenous populations in South America. Bolivia suffers from both poverty and corruption which adds a strong dose of controversy to the production of the coca plant. Beginning in 1961, the UN classified the coca leaf as a Schedule I drug with no medicinal benefits yet Evo Morales has consistently fought to repeal this standing. He argues that the coca leaf, not cocaine, helps alleviate fatigue and is okay to use in teas or as an herb. Prior to Morales' presidency, in the years of the Banzer administration, coca production was decreased with the aid of the United States. The successes in coca leaf eradication was short lived as production shifted to other parts of the nation. During the years of strong eradication efforts against coca production came strong opposition from the indigenous majority that eventually elected Evo Morales into power. His stance has been reported to be anti-cocaine yet pro-coca leaf. While this stance holds justification in the rights of these indigenous farmers and their religious practices, the Economist Intelligence Unit as well as reporters on this issue note that cocaine production has increased with the relaxing of coca leaf laws.
The Bolivian government has utilized inconsistent strategies to try and limit coca leaf production. In 2008, Evo Morales suspended the U.S. anti-drug organizations based in Bolivia and has consistently argued that the drug war is fueled by North America's attempt at controlling Latin America. However, Morales has also passed laws that limit the amounts of legal coca production yet these laws have little effect. The past month has even seen strong protests from the cocaleros as they work hard to maintain their crop. Knowing that the coca leaf is much more lucrative to grow than other crops such as bananas and rice, Evo Morales has been working to establish economic incentives for the poor farmers. Yet since 2000, the EIU has noted that when the economy of Bolivia is facing a downtrend, the poor farmers begin producing more coca leaf for illegal drug smugglers (please see EIU reports for 2003). Despite the increase in cocaine production stemming from Bolivia, Evo Morales hopes to change the image of the coca leaf. In 2007, the Morales Administration was able to pass a proposal that would not allow companies to use the word "coca" in their products. Recently, a new product has come out of Bolivia known as "Coca Colla" which is an energy drink that uses the coca leaf as a main ingredient. Even in the face of laws meant to lower production, we see companies such as Red Bull Cola and Coca Cola continuing to use the coca leaf in their products. What is remarkable is how despite promoting the new Coca Colla drink, Evo Morales has had to switch aid in the drug war from the U.S. to Russia and Brazil. Not only is the cocaine trade growing in Bolivia, it is quoted as the only sector experiencing strong growth. Drug raiders are also seeing more sophisticated methods of conversion from the coca leaf to cocaine. Among the growing business surrounding cocaine production, is increasing violence from drug gangs. Reporters warn that the drug wars that happened in Colombia and are happening in Mexico could soon hit Bolivia. While Evo Morales is a voice for the indigenous population that are trying to maintain their cultural traditions, it is time that the administration focuses its view of the coca leaf.
