Tear Down that Wall, Mr. President (Updated w. White House Announcement)

This is clearly a relic of the cold war. The context of the late 50's/early 60's.... various crisis/USSR.... all gone, of another era. 

I cannot see a single reason to support the embargo. It just freezes things in place. What possible danger does Castro pose to us? It would seem to be that travel and trade would do more to open up the discussion within Cuba. 

Can you imagine the wonderful relations that Cuba and the US would naturally have today if this construct of the cold-war relic was sloughed off? 

I wish to visit Cuba. I wish to vacation there. Smoke a cuban cigar, drink their rum, tour their culturally rich country, enjoy her music. Whatever 'side' one might be one vis-a-vis ailing Castro vs. the older, ailing exiles in Miami; the point is today is a new day. End the embargo.

Even fairly conservative friends of mine, with whom I disagree on just about everything, have told me it is time to end our restrictions and the embargo on Cuba.  Quite honestly, in these economic times, having a potentially major buyer of American goods like Cuba out in the cold is just stupid.

Not that this would be the major reason.  Ever since the early 80's, it has been obvious that our policy toward Cuba has been counter-productive.  And our policy toward Cuba has had a lot to do with just about every other policy decision made in regard to Latin America.

I only hope that the aministration is not building up my hopes just to dash them like they have on some other things.  Yet at the sametime, the administration has also fulfilled some of my hopes, so maybe this will fall into that category.

so, i'm watching mclaughlin group, when buchanan says not only does he think the cuba embargo should be lifted, the embargo on iran should be lifted too!

what are the chances of congress lifting the cuba embargo?

Al, about equating the soldiers on isolated islands, fighting a war that no longer exists with the pundits railing against Castro's Cuba. 

I'd love to visit Cuba too -- but not as an invading tourist, staying in a foreign held hotel. I hope the Cuban people do not allow any more of this (as I understand, European investment has led to too much of this already). Can I visit without destroying the place I wish to see? I hope so!

I think it's only partially due to calcified vistigial cold war anti-Soviet feeling.  I think the "capitalist", "free marketeers" fear Americans becoming exposed to Cuba's "socialist" model, particularly at a time when faith in the "capitalist" model is rapidly declining.  America's health care, for example does not compare with Cuba (or most other countries) in measurements such as longevity and infant mortality rates.  The last stat I read is the U.S ranks an overall 37th in comparative health care.

Sorry, Al, this is off topic: I have read many posts of yours and other commentators advocating the legalization of Marijuana in the States and I hope you just make me understand the logic, economical, and political advantages behind such a position? A link maybe to an article you have written about it would be much appreciated or a brief answer.

Thank you for your time and your brilliant analysis on the current events.

Field Hands - Who wants to take a crack at bat answering Zena's question (I feel like I've done it already many times!)

The logic behind legalization of marijuana in the United States is actually pretty simple (and relates to legalization of other drugs like Cocaine):

1. Drug Criminalization has not only caused many Central and South American countries (as well as Mexico) to become battlegrounds between governments and cartels who (in many cases) are as well (or better) equipped than the governments who fight them; it has also bled into US border areas (Las Cruces, New Mexico, a college town near the US/Mexico border, is actually starting to become quite dangerous because of it). Legalizing all drugs (but particularly marijuana and cocaine) would probably be the end of most of the cartels in Mexico as well as Central and South America (and would lead to a huge decrease in violence in those areas)

2. Criminalization is overwhelming the judicial system, particularly the federal system (by far, the vast majority of cases the federal courts deal with are drug cases). This all costs the federal government a whole lot of money which could very easily be used for other things. Which leads us to...

3. By legalizing Marijuana (and other drugs) you can slap a sin tax on it (like they do for tobacco and alcohol) and, in addition to all the money you save on law enforcement, you can also collect additional revenue which, again, can be put to use for other (more productive) ends by the United States government.

4. Even if numbers two and three were completely untrue (they aren't) if the goal of criminalization is to stop people from doing drugs (we'll presume that proponents of criminalization are acting in good faith on this) then the policy has failed miserably. Right now, the studies show that among those over the age of 12, something like 44%-47% have tried some form of illicit drug in their lifetime (that number has been increasing, rather than decreasing because the group that is dragging it down are those 65 and older, and they'll be dying off soon). In next couple decades, that number will probably become a true majority.

5. As to the political (in this instance, electoral benefits) to legalization, right now there probably aren't any, but, useage and support for legalization of Marijuana tend to be extremely correlated (it's no accident that legalization right now is supported by roughly 45% of people). This is an issue where demographics are on the side of the pro-legalization group so while legalization isn't an electorally prudent position right now, it will be in time (and, depending on how pro-legalization groups play their cards, they can very easily move the discussion in a more legalization-friendly archtype). I've heard this comparison before and I think it deserves repeating, right now legalization has about the same support as criminalizing abortion does (which is a major party platform for the Republican party).

The fact is people like me just aren't old enough to be afraid of the “commies” anymore. We barely have memories of Reagan, the Berlin Wall, or the Soviet Union dissolving. When conservatives harp on “socialism” and “teh evil gubment” it's more of a funny joke than anything else, culling memories of black and white sitcoms from the 1950s when the “good ol' days” meant bomb shelters, bennies and Red paranoia. This is especially true when one considers how government has provided integral services to many of us throughout our lives, whether it be food stamps, transportation, parks, or financial assistance for college. Simply put, their kind is dying off and will continue to do so. No amount of “tea-bagging” is going to change that.

Here is the most recent Al comment dealing with the question you ask and then some:

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/drug-policy-dance-ask-stupid-question

I found it easily using the search feature at the bottom of the page.  

Hope this helped.

Lorie

Al, would you say the ball is in Cuba's court?  And if so, what do you think their response would/should be?  I hope they say more than, "we're willing to talk to the US," or "we want to help Obama," which is what Castro supposedly told the few members of the CBC when they visited a few weeks ago.

Thank you for your responses. Thank you Eliot for that concise yet clear answers.

I guess my next question is more on personal usage and on moral grounds--in that if they legalize drugs, what then happens to drug addicts, drug users? Does it not infact promote usage of drugs or is that more a misconception?

Meaning if people are doing it anyway when it is illlegal, they will continue to do so when it is legal yet with less consequences that Eliot pointed out as facts?

I just have one other area to add to the excellent suggestions of others and that's the impact of the "drug war" on skyrocketing U.S. rates of incarcerating mothers.  It's broken the Child Welfare System.  Los Angeles County alone has an incredible 50,000 + children in court monitored foster care.  There are any number of excellent studies and cost analysis on this subject. Here's one.  Mothers in Prison; Children in Crisis.  

http://www.ket.org/tvschedules/episode.php?nola=MPCC++000000&

Zena - During alcohol prohibition, many Americans died from what was called "rotgut" poisoning... from drinking prohibited booze that was not inspected or regulated or subject to any consumer laws or controls. Others were maimed by it.

And that's what is happening now. What the media calls "heroin overdoses" aren't in fact overdoses (the term suggests that the deceased got too high a concentration of the opiate). What they are is deaths caused by impurities in the drug, either chemical additives used by unregulated dealers to "cut" or dilute the expensive part of it, or diseases that spread from the unsanitary processing of the illicit drug. Almost nobody, by comparison, dies from "overdoses" of legally prescribed opiates.

The same is true of other illicit drug deaths: cocaine "cut" with amphetamines and other chemicals, etc.

A regulated market - in place of a prohibited one - would remove the punishment and prosecution an addict risks by even seeking help to kick it. Like the legal regulation of alcohol and tobacco, there would still be problems, but on a smaller scale, with less overall harm to the addict, user, or those around him and her.

Finally, as Holland has demonstrated with its legalized marijuana, it has the lowest teenaged pot smoking use among all industrialized countries. Remove the "forbidden" label from the fruit, and it loses a lot of false luster...

See also the Portugal experiment in drug legalization, e.g.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/08/portugal/

Al - My understanding is that because the embargo is currently based on an Act of Congress, it would require Congress to lift it. What do you think the prospects for this are? For instance, I noticed that during the debate over the 2009 omnibus spending bill, Senator Menendez of New Jersey was opposed to even minor changes in policy towards Cuba. For every Democratic Senator that defects, it becomes that much harder to pass anything. It seems like this is yet another issue where the hardest part isn't getting the American people behind change, it is getting Congress (including Democratic members of Congress) behind it. In this light, a strategy of gradual change seems like the most effective course.

Al, I'm not sure what qualifies as "almost noone", but I wouldn't think this is it (from KUTV):

"Prescription drug overdoses cause more deaths in Utah than do automobile accidents. The death toll continues to rise every year and now the Department of Health wants to launch a new campaign to prevent more deaths. In 2006, 307 people died from prescription drug overdoses while 285 people died from automobile accidents. Only three other states have more deaths from prescription drug overdoses than Utah, according to the Center of Disease Control."

OK, so that's just Utah, you say.  But here's Science Daily saying that Rx drugs caused more deaths in the US than heroin and cocaine. Rural areas are particularly hard hit, according to Daily Yonder:

"The CDC further reported that most of the increase in deaths resulted from overdoses of prescription drugs  particularly opioid analgesics (e.g., oxycodone) and sedatives, not illicit substances like heroin and methamphetamine."

Illegal drugs are stigmatized in the righteous rural and Western US, and (except for meth) are hard to come by in rural areas.  But doctors in less sophisticated settings are all too happy to get rid of a patient by writing a big fat scrip for Oxy, and pretty soon your Auntie is unconscious on the bathroom floor.

Until we stop distinguishing between "good" drugs (Rx's and alcohol) and illegal ones, and start understanding the difference between users and addicts, we won't get to the root of the problem behind addiction and abuse.  We can debate whether use of any mild-altering substance is OK until the cows come home, but with these statistics it's obvious that a war against illicit drugs won't cure us.  I think a war against ignorance might be a better way to start.