Salon article on Feds and Anti-Drug Network Programming

[rjackson at mail.usyd.edu.au]

Saw two interesting programs on the Tube: a cooking show about Thailand
and a travel guide to Bolivia (both British shows I think).

In the first it seems that the King of Thailand (rich dude, benevolent
ruler) has reclaimed a whole section of the opium poppy plantations near
Chiang Mai (part of the Golden Triangle I guess) and started up an
extensive organic fruit, vegetable and herb growing project. No
pesticides or fungicides (yay). The veges grown aren't the same as those
grown by the local farmers, so he isn't operating in competition with
his subjects who grow for subsistence and domestic supply. The Royal
veges are produced for export and tourist purposes only. Apparently it's
a going concern financially.

As well, he brought in agricultural experts to teach the traditional
farmers more effective crop management schemes. Of course, previously
the hill people had eked out their meagre living by selling the opium
plants. They weren't getting rich mind you, it was whoever was buying
the stuff -- the manufacturers and exporters and importers -- that must
have been raking in the mucho dineros. Anyway, things like horizontal
terrace farming and grass banks to stop soil erosion and composting
technique are what are being taught to the farmers, and now they can get
four crops of traditional veges and stuff in a year instead of the one
crop of opium per year that they were able to get in previously with the
traditional vertical terracing system. And less erosion to boot (yay).
So the hill people haven't lost out either, are probably better off
(they might even be able to afford to buy cars, so the chef-presenter
said!)

Similar scenario in Bolivia with the coca plant, which grows wild
throughout the jungles and everywhere apparently. Anyway, the Bolivian
govt. a few years back introduced a law which banned any new planting of
the plant, and helicopter patrols now cruise the mountains and jungles
seeking out new plantations to destroy, and villains to detain. The
Bolivian farmers had previously made their meagre living from the sale
of the crop (while every one in Santa Cruz seems to own Mercedeses and
Gucci handbags). There seemed to be some resistance from the farmers
though, as citrus and other crops which they can grow aren't anywhere
near as profitable for them, so perhaps the govt there hasn't thought
through the compensation, rural subsidy aspects of it like the Thai king
has. 

The program also showed how the Bolivian gold miners kept a wad of the
leaves in their cheek as they worked, also for a pittance, in appalling
and dangerous conditions -- the issues of "personal use" and "grown in
the wild" are a grey area in all this I guess, certainly one which comes
up in *GR* with all that stuff about ergot and St Anthony's Fire and
whatnot. 

In Bhutan (another travelogue program) the marijuana grows wild, and
they feed it to the pigs (zoom in onto glassy pig's eye). They've
actually reforested a significant percentage of the countryside too
(great king there, great colourful place, expensive to visit, lotta
restrictions on visas -- good for them.)

Here, Datura grows wild by the sides of the railway track and there are
magic mushrooms all over the fields and meadows up north -- I guess it's
pretty much the same everywhere. The "evil" isn't in the drugs per se,
it's in the profit-mongering.  

So, someone explain to me again how the high and mighty Western govts
have been "tackling" this "drug problem"?

best


rr/st
> >Hi all--
> >
> >Check out today's Salon feature article on the Federal
> government's
> >involvement in network tv programming of shows with an anti-drug
> theme.
> >Who said Vineland isn't still relevant?
> >
> >www.salon.com
> >

> >
> Very interesting - I found a link to the November Coalition,
> where I found this quoted (disapprovingly) by a senior US Court
> of Appeal judge:
> 
> "The Congress finds that legalization of illegal drugs, on the
> Federal or state level, is an unconscionable surrender in a war
> in which, for the future of our country and the lives of our
> children, there can be no substitute for total victory."
> § 5011 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act.
> http://www.november.org
> 
> Scary as f**k.
> 
> This is not a play, not a film, not a Henry V-style speech on an
> ancient battlefield or in the trenches: this is the actual text
> of a US law as drafted by Congress.  Do I want to visit that
> country, however great I found Americans when I last went?
> This war fever is now spreading to Britain.  We now have our own
> "drug czar".  Where do I move?  back to my native Holland
> perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> seb