US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1971

The futility of Colombia’s two-decade air war on the cocaine trade was laid bare on Thursday when the government, following President Juan Manuel Santos’ recommendation, agreed to halt the aerial spraying of coca crops with the herbicide glyphosate — a pillar of Plan Colombia, the multibillion-dollar U.S. aid package to fight drug trafficking.

Drug war opponents and environmentalists have long panned the use of aerial spraying in Colombia. Ironically, though, it’s the U.S. government that recently shed light on the policy’s impotence. The U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy announced last week that the cultivation of coca, the main ingredient in cocaine, had spiked 39 percent in 2014 over the previous year — despite the U.S.-funded aerial spraying program that has fumigated 4 million acres of crops at a cost of nearly $2 billion since it began in 1994.

Despite the dismal eradication numbers, however, two other factors have contributed more to Colombia’s about-face.

Earlier this month the Colombian health ministry recommended the suspension of the government’s aerial fumigation efforts after the World Health Organization in March warned that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic.” The WHO pointed to evidence that herbicide produces cancer in lab animals.

“I am going to ask the government officials in the National Drug Council at their next meeting to suspend glyphosate spraying of illicit cultivations (of coca),” President Santos said last week. “The recommendations and studies reviewed by the Ministry of Health show clearly that yes, this risk exists.”

Ongoing peace talks between the Colombian government and FARC rebels — a more than two-year-long effort to end the civil war that has afflicted the country for five decades — likely also played a role in Thursday’s announcement. Aerial spraying has been widely used in the country’s south where there are swaths of rural land and a stronghold for the rebel group, which the government accuses of financing itself with drug money. During talks last May, Santos and FARC leaders agreed on a plan to tackle the drug trade. The plan rests largely on FARC demands to halt aerial spraying as part of any final peace process.

By most accounts, aerial spraying in Colombia has been costly and ineffective. In recent years violent protests by Colombian farmers, who have complained of skin irritations and genetic abnormalities that they say are linked to glyphosate, have temporarily halted aerial spraying in certain regions. And Colombian researchers have found higher rates of miscarriages in places exposed to the spraying.

On May 16 2015 06:50 ZasZ. wrote:
My main beef is that it seems the majority of people who are opposed to the death penalty are pro-choice. I don't see how you can reconcile those two positions honestly.

On May 16 2015 09:07 IgnE wrote:


Are you serious?

On May 16 2015 09:24 Nyxisto wrote:
Depends on why you oppose the death penalty, but if you do so for humanist reasons you definitely should have some trouble with abortions. (if the abortion isn't necessary to safe the mothers life or something along these lines)

On May 16 2015 09:31 Ghostcom wrote:


Uhh no. It depends entirely on at what point you give a fetus the same rights as a fully grown human being. If you do so at time of ability to react to outside physical stimuli that is around age 25 and even the most ardent pro-choice will agree that abortions at that stage are no longer a good idea.

On May 16 2015 09:40 Velr wrote:
No... stop

this is actually simple.

After about XX weeks a fetus is able to live (with some outside help) before that = no human being. Why you ask? Because totally incomplete and not able to live.

.

It is simple. As long as you don't put emotions in it it is really fucking simple.


And btw: in most western countries it is 18... in others even lower.

On May 16 2015 09:33 GreenHorizons wrote:


Well we don't give them the same rights as a fully grown human being until 21 really?

On May 16 2015 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote:



I just say 21 because of purchasing alcohol, 18's fine too. Point being the idea that kids get all the rights adults do is just silly, as voting/entering contracts is a basic right that we comfortably deny children up to 18. (you can get emancipated past the contracts but not voting[at least in the US])

On May 16 2015 10:09 Nyxisto wrote:
My point is mainly that the pro-Choice people don't hold a genuine moral conviction, they oppose the pro-life crowd because they are right-wingers and so they naturally have to take the opposite position of whatever it is they think. You can't seriously believe that eating a steak is immoral and that wearing sneakers made by some poor kid in China is a crime against humanity but then abort an unborn child because it isn't convenient for you. That is especially troubling because the hugely complex abortion discussion is often shut down on the assumption that the pro-choice faction is lead by reason why everybody else is just a crazy religious person or something.

On May 16 2015 10:09 Nyxisto wrote:
My point is mainly that the pro-Choice people don't hold a genuine moral conviction, they oppose the pro-life crowd because they are right-wingers and so they naturally have to take the opposite position of whatever it is they think. You can't seriously believe that eating a steak is immoral and that wearing sneakers made by some poor kid in China is a crime against humanity but then abort an unborn child because it isn't convenient for you. That is especially troubling because the hugely complex abortion discussion is often shut down on the assumption that the pro-choice faction is lead by reason why everybody else is just a crazy religious person or something.