Over the past few years the failed War on Drugs has eradicated thousands of acres of American asparagus.
And, love it or hate it, asparagus isn’t even an illegal drug.
One of the misguided policies pursued by the White House over the years is to encourage South American coca-producing countries to grow other plants instead. And they have. Not that it’s done anything to cut down coca production.
The Andean Trade Preferences and Drugs Eradication Act, passed in 1990, provides that products from Peru and Colombia, such as asparagus, can be imported free of tariff. Somebody actually had the bright idea that this would convince farmers to switch from coca, which also can be imported free of tariff. Many did, of course. But there’s still lots of money in coca, so many others did not.
The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy Web site currently notes that the Peruvian coca acreage, mostly in the highlands, is the highest it has been in eight years.
Meanwhile, the small country has become a powerhouse in asparagus production along its Pacific Coast lowlands. Peruvian asparagus production has multiplied 18-fold. The industry has developed a vigorous market and attracted sizable capital investment.
Meanwhile, the Washington industry is a shadow of its former self. Acreage has been cut by 71 percent to just 9,000 acres. In 2005, Seneca closed the world’s largest cannery in Dayton, Columbia County, and shipped its state-of-the-art equipment to — no surprise — Peru. So did Del Monte, when it closed its Toppenish plant. — Seattle Times
Now I’m all for getting rid of tariffs — for the right reasons. Trying to encourage the production of one plant over another is not a right reason, especially when there is no good reason for one of them to be outlawed.
This is what we’re trying to tell you about the U.S. war on drugs. The people running this thing will screw over American farmers while pretending to protect our nation’s interests.
If they didn’t anticipate this outcome, they are incompetent and should be permanently enjoined from drafting economic policy. And if they did anticipate this inevitable outcome, and took no action to mitigate it, they should be jailed for treasonous malfeasance and fed forever on the bitter canned fruits and vegetables of their hypocrisy. — Stop the Drug War
Hypocrisy and politics go hand in hand. You can’t get elected to high office if you aren’t a hypocrite.
The trade preferences act, which has driven American asparagus out of the country, is up for renewal this year. It’s time to stop renewing it, end this utterly lost war on some drugs, and bring our asparagus home.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Karl Marx would love the popular moves among politicians in various state governments and the federal government to ban so-called "junk" food in schools, and to "put healthy food in" convenience stores and on the tables of those they define as poor. It's a very elitist and arrogant mindset that promotes this ideology, and it needs to be addressed.
Ultimately, the war supporters in Congress prevailed in the vote on the resolution. Still, the vote was significant because it places every member of Congress on the record as supporting or not supporting the unconstitutional, costly, violent occupation of a country that never attacked us. This vote should serve as an important reminder to the American people of where their representatives really stand when it comes to policing the world, empire building, and war.
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
Q
Jan 11, 2007
interesting policy, maybe it can be applicable in other areas as well. for example, we should destroy the worlds supply of crude oil, to encourage the harvesting of natural renewable resources, like vegetable oils, and hydrogen powered cars… hmmm
Richard Braakman
Jan 11, 2007
It doesn’t sound like acres of asparagus were “eradicated”. This happened over the course of many years. The asparagus were probably just harvested and sold, and then something more profitable was planted on those fields. No harm done. And we all get cheaper asparagus.
Kris Overstreet
Jan 11, 2007
Excuse me…
… but the asparagus planters are being driven out because of a zero-tariff policy… in other words, UNILATERAL FREE TRADE.
You’re calling for an enactment of trade barriers to protect American asparagus, aren’t you?
Brock
Jan 13, 2007
“…in other words, UNILATERAL FREE TRADE.”
Not true. But, neither is Mike’s “driven out” statement. As long as the US enacts protectionist tariffs on any goods, it is impossible to say that the production did or didn’t belong in Washington. The land may well be better used as a Christmas tree farm – that’s for the farmer to decide.
The land where the asparagus was being grown in Washington has not ceased production, it has been put to uses where the farmers enjoy a comparative advantage (possibly protected crops, but certainly a different aggregate mix than free trade). Unilateral free trade would eliminate the protection on all goods from all sources, thereby allowing the farmers to choose the crop that best suits their land, equipment, and expertise.
While true free trade is best for everybody, unilateral free trade benefits the US most. Even allowing a year lag to switch our agricultural product mix, farmers working individually are far more nimble than any protectionist tariff system in other countries, giving us a comparative advantage in no specific goods, but an overall comparative advantage in all goods.
Kris Overstreet
Jan 13, 2007
Brock, -no- crops are protected from Columbia- that’s more or less the point.
The canning plants Michael mentions don’t ONLY can asparagus- they can ALL vegetables.
That land IS out of production entirely, because it’s less UNprofitable to leave it fallow than to try to grow ANY crop in competition with Columbian goods.
My point is, Michael’s acting the hypocrite for complaining about this when this is a natural consequence of unilateral free trade- a viewpoint he advocates.
Brock
Jan 13, 2007
Kris, your capitals notwithstanding, there is no evidence of unprotected crops, any advantage or disadvantage for farmers or canneries abroad, land out of production, or any overall or specific advantage for crops grown in Columbia. There is, however, incontrovertible evidence of government meddling (no doubt spurred by agriculture and manufacturing influence) in a market that is wholly capable of determining production on its own. Finding unintended consequences in such a situation is not just unremarkable, but expected.
Having purchased the bulk of the hay necessary to feed my horses from the black market of “fallow” ground supposedly leased to the Dept. of Agriculture to prevent its overproduction, I can confidently say that neither you nor anyone else other than the landowner has the first damn clue as to the production of the land. Furthermore, while I admit that Mike’s article could have been more clear, neither you nor anyone else can determine from this bit of prose that Mike is advocating for an enaction of protectionist tariff rather than repeal of all tariffs. Given his past writing, however, the latter is the more plausible reading.
Michael Hampton
Jan 14, 2007
The presence or absence of a tariff on asparagus itself isn’t the issue. The issue is that the government is abusing its power to levy tariffs to implement drug war policy in other countries.
Kris Overstreet
Jan 14, 2007
Um, no, Michael. Your post here spends most of its length, including quotations, whining about how terrible it is that American agriculture is suffering because of a ZERO TARIFF policy. If the government had instituted the zero tariffs for any other reason- for example as a trade-off for Columbian military aid in Afghanistan- the canneries would still have moved and the farmers would still have gone bust.
For whatever reason, the government has taken a step in the direction you advocate- unilateral free trade- and, as a result, American agriculture has suffered. So far as Washington state asparagus growers are concerned, the drug war is irrelevant. All they know is that produce from Columbia and Peru is so cheap that they cannot compete… so they don’t. Instead they either find crops that Columbia and Peru don’t grow, or- more frequently, according to your quotations- they just quit business.
Failure of uncompetitive business is a natural consequence of free trade. If you don’t like the idea of American farmers going out of business, maybe you should rethink your unilateral trade policy… but you most certainly shouldn’t blame it on drug policy.
And if you stick to your guns on unilateral free trade, then quit whining about how it puts Americans out of work.
Michael Hampton
Jan 15, 2007
Kris, I’m sorry you’re still confused.
So I’ll try to make this even simpler.
I don’t like tariffs on principle. But this “elimination” of a tariff wasn’t done to right a wrong, the imposition of the tariff in the first place. Indeed, it only applies to Peru and Colombia! It was done to foster a drug war policy of coca eradication in South America.
If they had eliminated the tariff on asparagus for every country, then I could hardly complain.
I’m not saying the farmers who have stopped growing asparagus or gone out of business should have been protected by tariffs, and if you somehow got that mistaken impression, I’m sorry.
I’m saying that the government should not grant special treatment to Peru and Colombia in order to facilitate its War on Drugs. Indeed, it should abandon the failed policy entirely.
Kris Overstreet
Jan 15, 2007
It doesn’t matter why the tariffs came down- what matters is that they DID come down.
Otherwise, what you’re saying is, “You did what I wanted you to, but not for the right reasons, so I want you to stop doing it!”
If you support unilateral free trade, I repeat, quit whining about how American asparagus farmers are losing their jobs… or, if you still think Americans should grow their own crops and make a living at it, abandon unilateral free trade as a position.
Michael Hampton
Jan 15, 2007
Kris, you continue to miss the point, and I suspect at this point it’s intentional. I’ve made my position perfectly clear, and your attempts to twist my words aren’t fooling anybody.
Come back when you’re ready and willing to have a reasonable discussion.
Steve Savage
Jan 20, 2007
There never really was anything dangerous about coca in the first place. It was the western idea to grind the stuff up, run it through a bunch of chemicals and make an innocuous plant into a deadly drug that creates addicts.
Of course, isn’t that what America’s about….getting a public addicted to your “product” and enjoying the profits from it?
Feb 03, 2007
Scoop’s Views » Blog Archive » War on Drugs targeting … asparagus?
Hugh Martin
Feb 08, 2007
As the lawmakers hoist a glass of alcohol to their lips and condemn the man with a joint in his lips; who is the hypocrite here? As the lawmaker pulls his gun and shoots a drug user to death, it’s obvious those guns kill a lot harder than those drugs. As the lawmaker spreads his poison herbicide on foreign lands, the poison finds it’s way into the ocean and fish and back into the mouth of the lawmaker, who is the idiot here? God, please rid the world of the lawmaker hypocrites.