The War on Drugs and Ham Sandwiches
Posted by Charlie Hardy - October 4, 2005 at 9:38 pm
Not too long ago I was about to leave Caracas for the U.S. I knew that Delta Airlines wasn’t going to give me anything to eat between Atlanta and Denver and so before running out of my house, I made me a ham sandwich. It was confiscated by customs in Atlanta.
I wanted to eat the sandwich but the customs agent told me that I should have eaten it while I was still onboard the plane. However, after stepping on U.S. soil, I would have been breaking the law in doing so. He threw the sandwich into a box.
I have no problem with the United States not letting me enter with my sandwich. I suppose that the government has to protect the financial interests of Subway, McDonald’s or maybe even Halliburton: concerns that certainly override my stomach’s desire to eat on an airplane without paying the airline more than the $950.00 that one has to pay for an “economy” ticket from here to Denver. I just don’t like contributing more to the salaries of their executives as they lead their companies in bankruptcy proceedings.
But my question today is: should Venezuela be obliged to check passengers before leaving the country to see what kind of sandwiches they are carrying with them? Or, in other words, does Venezuela have an obligation to join the U.S.’s “war on ham sandwiches?”
I can imagine the signs in the Caracas airport: “WARNING: Carrying ham sandwiches into the territory of the United States of America is prohibited by laws of the USA.” That could be coupled with a photo of a person stepping out of a plane in Miami, sandwich still in mouth and being led off handcuffed by an U.S. immigration official. Another photo of President Bush with his everlasting smile looking at the person and pointing a finger at the criminal would also be threatening to anyone thinking of committing such a crime.
Recently President Bush complained that Venezuela was not doing enough in the “war on drugs.” What else does he want Venezuela to do? In the newspapers here I read daily about the drugs that have been confiscated: tons of them. The airports are full of posters warning passengers not to carry drugs and of military personnel checking to see that none are in any suitcases.
I believe that Venezuela is doing too much. It is time for the world to say to the U.S. that if they don’t want drugs coming into the country, then they should keep them out and stop blaming others for the failure of drug policies in the U.S.
I think Venezuela should do all it can to keep drugs from entering Venezuela and should educate the population so that drugs don’t become as great a problem here as they are in the United States and Europe. I don’t feel it has any obligation to keep them from going out.
After President Bush complained, the Associated Press published the following: “A White House ‘statement of explanation’ about Venezuela said 165 tons of cocaine moved through the country last years along with increasing quantities of heroin.”
Now where did that figure of “165 tons” come from? I see at least two possibilities. 1) It doesn’t really matter if there are no facts to back up the statement; it makes for good propaganda against the Venezuelan government. Or, 2) The U.S. is in cahoots with those who are exporting the drugs and they have accurate information about what is going out. One might also ask, “Where are those 160 tons today?” If it is this second possibility, I only wish Gary Webb were still alive to uncover another “Dark Alliance.”
In either case, it is the U.S. government that is acting despicably and not Venezuela.
Myanmar (which President Bush continues to call “Burma”) was the only other country mentioned as not satisfying the U.S.’s demands. China and Vietnam are now not even considered as major drug-transit or major illicit drug-producing countries.
Having put Venezuela in the same category as Myanmar should have meant that the U.S. was going to cut off all aid to Venezuela, but not so. Saint George W. made an exception because according to the White House press release, he was “determined to maintain U.S. programs that aid Venezuela’s democratic institutions, establish selected community development projects, and strengthen Venezuela’s political party system.” Translated into ordinary English, that means he wants to keep sending money to groups trying to topple the Chávez government.
And yet, while wanting to keep money flowing to the opposition here, the U.S. does not contribute one cent to the “war on drugs” that the Venezuela government wages for the United States.
Which brings us to what people are saying here about the significance of this move: 1) Expect to see a continued attempt to try to discredit Venezuela by linking it with drug activity; 2) Keep your eye on a possible Panama or Grenada scenario—an invasion might not be far off; and, 3) Don’t scoff off the rumors that an attempt to assassinate Chávez is in the works.
Finally, I feel I must add a few more words to Charlie’s Naïve Dictionary for anyone who is interested in the collection. Here they are:
“War on Drugs:” a lie perpetrated by the U.S. government to justify intervention in other countries. Synonym: “War on Terrorism.” See also: “Hidden weapons of mass destruction.”
“Hidden weapons of mass destruction:” 1) anything that can’t be seen, can’t be found, can’t be verified; 2) a useful phrase for scaring people and for justifying invasions. See also: “War on Drugs.”
(You may contact Charlie Hardy through his personal blog, cowboyincaracas.com ).
I wanted to eat the sandwich but the customs agent told me that I should have eaten it while I was still onboard the plane. However, after stepping on U.S. soil, I would have been breaking the law in doing so. He threw the sandwich into a box.
I have no problem with the United States not letting me enter with my sandwich. I suppose that the government has to protect the financial interests of Subway, McDonald’s or maybe even Halliburton: concerns that certainly override my stomach’s desire to eat on an airplane without paying the airline more than the $950.00 that one has to pay for an “economy” ticket from here to Denver. I just don’t like contributing more to the salaries of their executives as they lead their companies in bankruptcy proceedings.
But my question today is: should Venezuela be obliged to check passengers before leaving the country to see what kind of sandwiches they are carrying with them? Or, in other words, does Venezuela have an obligation to join the U.S.’s “war on ham sandwiches?”
I can imagine the signs in the Caracas airport: “WARNING: Carrying ham sandwiches into the territory of the United States of America is prohibited by laws of the USA.” That could be coupled with a photo of a person stepping out of a plane in Miami, sandwich still in mouth and being led off handcuffed by an U.S. immigration official. Another photo of President Bush with his everlasting smile looking at the person and pointing a finger at the criminal would also be threatening to anyone thinking of committing such a crime.
Recently President Bush complained that Venezuela was not doing enough in the “war on drugs.” What else does he want Venezuela to do? In the newspapers here I read daily about the drugs that have been confiscated: tons of them. The airports are full of posters warning passengers not to carry drugs and of military personnel checking to see that none are in any suitcases.
I believe that Venezuela is doing too much. It is time for the world to say to the U.S. that if they don’t want drugs coming into the country, then they should keep them out and stop blaming others for the failure of drug policies in the U.S.
I think Venezuela should do all it can to keep drugs from entering Venezuela and should educate the population so that drugs don’t become as great a problem here as they are in the United States and Europe. I don’t feel it has any obligation to keep them from going out.
After President Bush complained, the Associated Press published the following: “A White House ‘statement of explanation’ about Venezuela said 165 tons of cocaine moved through the country last years along with increasing quantities of heroin.”
Now where did that figure of “165 tons” come from? I see at least two possibilities. 1) It doesn’t really matter if there are no facts to back up the statement; it makes for good propaganda against the Venezuelan government. Or, 2) The U.S. is in cahoots with those who are exporting the drugs and they have accurate information about what is going out. One might also ask, “Where are those 160 tons today?” If it is this second possibility, I only wish Gary Webb were still alive to uncover another “Dark Alliance.”
In either case, it is the U.S. government that is acting despicably and not Venezuela.
Myanmar (which President Bush continues to call “Burma”) was the only other country mentioned as not satisfying the U.S.’s demands. China and Vietnam are now not even considered as major drug-transit or major illicit drug-producing countries.
Having put Venezuela in the same category as Myanmar should have meant that the U.S. was going to cut off all aid to Venezuela, but not so. Saint George W. made an exception because according to the White House press release, he was “determined to maintain U.S. programs that aid Venezuela’s democratic institutions, establish selected community development projects, and strengthen Venezuela’s political party system.” Translated into ordinary English, that means he wants to keep sending money to groups trying to topple the Chávez government.
And yet, while wanting to keep money flowing to the opposition here, the U.S. does not contribute one cent to the “war on drugs” that the Venezuela government wages for the United States.
Which brings us to what people are saying here about the significance of this move: 1) Expect to see a continued attempt to try to discredit Venezuela by linking it with drug activity; 2) Keep your eye on a possible Panama or Grenada scenario—an invasion might not be far off; and, 3) Don’t scoff off the rumors that an attempt to assassinate Chávez is in the works.
Finally, I feel I must add a few more words to Charlie’s Naïve Dictionary for anyone who is interested in the collection. Here they are:
“War on Drugs:” a lie perpetrated by the U.S. government to justify intervention in other countries. Synonym: “War on Terrorism.” See also: “Hidden weapons of mass destruction.”
“Hidden weapons of mass destruction:” 1) anything that can’t be seen, can’t be found, can’t be verified; 2) a useful phrase for scaring people and for justifying invasions. See also: “War on Drugs.”
(You may contact Charlie Hardy through his personal blog, cowboyincaracas.com ).
Email this page
Comments