“Strange Fruit”, the song that Rebecca Ferguson wants to sing at the Trump ceremony
- English
- Español
“Strange Fruit”, the song that Rebecca Ferguson wants to sing at the Trump ceremony
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
Singing “Strange Fruit” was Rebecca Ferguson’s condition for performing at the inauguration ceremony of Donald Trump, attended by six religious leaders including a Catholic cardinal, a rabbi, a Hispanic clergyman and a woman.
The artist wrote in her Twitter account that she would only accept the invitation of the president-elect “if you allow me to sing” Strange Fruit “a song that has an enormous historical importance, a song that was blacklist of the United States for being too controversial.
A song that speaks to all the black people despised and trampled in the United States. “
This theme was originally performed by Billie Holiday, but the lyrics are a poem by Abel Meeropol inspired by the historical photograph showing the lynching of two African Americans, Thomas Shipp and Abram Smith, in 1930 in downtown Marion, Indiana.
Thomas Shipp and Abram Smith, in 1930 in downtown Marion, Indiana.
Abel Meeropol was a Jewish professor of Russian origin affiliated to the Communist Party of the United States. He saw this photo of the lynchings that, according to his testimony, followed him all day and did not let him sleep. Then he wrote the poem Bitter Fruit, which he published under the pseudonym Lewis Allan in the New York Teacher and the New Masses. Later he wrote music the poem in the song Strange Fruit. Meeropol is also known for having adopted the children of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, after they were executed in the United States.
The song became famous in the voice of legendary jazz music Billie Holiday in 1939, and then was sung by Nina Simone. Holiday once said that when he first sang “Strange Fruit” at a New York café, she surprised the audience.
“There was not even a clap when I finished,” he wrote later in his autobiography. “Then a lonely person began to applaud nervously. Suddenly everyone applauded.”
Andrea Bocelli, Elton John, Céline Dion, country singer Garth Brooks are among the artists who have turned down the invitation to participate in the January 20 inauguration event. Even Kanye West, who has publicly supported the president-elect, has said no.
In contrast, Beyoncé sang the American anthem four years ago at the reelection ceremony of Barack Obama, Kelly Clarkson and James Taylor acted after the oath. Alicia Keys, Marc Anthony and Brad Paisley were at the official celebration in Washington.
Rebecca Ferguson ends her response to Trump reminding him that “Strange Fruit” is a song that recalls how love is the only thing that will conquer all hatred in this world, so I will gladly accept your invitation and see you in Washington.
The lyrics of Strange fruit has only three deep and mournful stanzas:
Strange Fruit
Southern trees bear a strange fruit,
Blood on the leaves and blood at the root,
Black bodies swinging in the southern breeze,
Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees.
Pastoral scene of the gallant south,
The bulging eyes and the twisted mouth,
Scent of magnolias, sweet and fresh,
Then the sudden smell of burning flesh.
Here is fruit for the crows to pluck,
For the rain to gather, for the wind to suck,
For the sun to rot, for the trees to drop,
Here is a strange and bitter crop.
Listen to Nina Simone performing “Strange Fruit” with Spanish subtitles
“Fruta extraña”, la canción que quiere cantar Rebecca Ferguson en la ceremonia de Trump
Rebecca Ferguson. Cantar “Strange Fruit” fue la condición de Rebecca Ferguson para actuar en la ceremonia de investidura de Donald Trump, a la que asistirán seis líderes religiosos incluidos un cardenal católico, un rabino, un clérigo hispano y una mujer. La artista escribió en su cuenta de Twitter que solo aceptaría la invitación del presidente electo “si me permites cantar “Strange Fruit” una canción que tiene una enorme importancia histórica, una canción que estuvo en la lista negra de Estados Unidos por ser demasiado polémica. Una canción que habla a todas las personas negras despreciadas y pisoteadas en Estados Unidos”.
https://twitter.com/julianbovis/status/816212016981491712/photo/1
Este tema fue originalmente interpretado por Billie Holiday, pero la letra es un poema de Abel Meeropol inspirado en la histórica fotografía que muestra el linchamiento de dos afroamericanos, Thomas Shipp y Abram Smith, en 1930 en el centro de Marion, Indiana.
Abel Meeropol era un profesor judío de origen ruso afiliado al Partido Comunista de los Estados Unidos. Vio esta foto de los linchamientos que según su testimonio le persiguió durante todo el día y no le dejó dormir. Entonces escribió el poema Bitter Fruit, que publicó bajo el seudónimo de Lewis Allan en la revista New York Teacher y en el diario New Masses. Más tarde musicalizó el poema en la canción Strange Fruit. Meeropol es conocido también por haber sido quien adoptó a los hijos de Ethel y Julius Rosenberg, tras se ejecutados en Estados Unidos.
La canción se hizo famosa en la voz de la legendaria música de jazz Billie Holiday en 1939, y luego cantada por Nina Simone. Holiday dijo una vez que cuando cantó por primera vez “Strange Fruit” en un café de Nueva York, sorprendió al público. “No había ni siquiera un aplauso cuando terminé”, escribió más tarde en su autobiografía. “Entonces una persona solitaria comenzó a aplaudir nerviosamente. De repente todos aplaudieron”. Andrea Bocelli, Elton John, Céline Dion, el cantante country Garth Brooks son algunos de los artistas que han rechazado la invitación de participar en el evento de posesión del próximo 20 de enero. Hasta Kaney West, quien ha apoyado públicamente al presidente electo, dijo que no.
En contraste, Beyoncé cantó el himno de Estados Unidos hace cuatro años en la ceremonia de reelección de Barack Obama, Kelly Clarkson y James Taylor actuaron después del juramento. Alicia Keys, Marc Anthony y Brad Paisley estuvieron durante la celebración oficial en Washington.
Rebecca Ferguson finaliza su respuesta a Trump recordando que “Stranger fruit” “es una canción que recuerda cómo el amor es la única cosa que conquistará todo el odio en este mundo, entonces aceptaré de buena gana su invitación y lo veré en Washington”.
La letra de Strange fruit tiene solo tres estrofas, profundas, dolientes:“De los árboles del sur cuelga una fruta extraña. /Sangre en las hojas, y sangre en la raíz. /Cuerpos negros balanceándose en la brisa sureña. / Extraña fruta cuelga de los álamos./Escena pastoral del valiente sur. / Los ojos saltones y la boca retorcida. / Aroma de las magnolias, dulce y fresco. / Y el repentino olor a carne quemada. Aquí está la fruta para que la arranquen los cuervos. / Para que la lluvia la tome, para que el viento la aspire, para que el sol la pudra, para que los árboles lo dejen caer./ Esta es una extraña y amarga cosecha”.
La letra original en inglés es la siguiente:
Strange Fruit
Southern trees bear a strange fruit,
Blood on the leaves and blood at the root,
Black bodies swinging in the southern breeze,
Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees.
Pastoral scene of the gallant south,
The bulging eyes and the twisted mouth,
Scent of magnolias, sweet and fresh,
Then the sudden smell of burning flesh.
Here is fruit for the crows to pluck,
For the rain to gather,
for the wind to suck,
For the sun to rot,
for the trees to drop,
Here is a strange and bitter crop.
Time Does Not Devour Redeemers
- English
- Español
Time Does Not Devour Redeemers
Living statue of the strongest metal,
The monsters of gold and silt who could not
Kill you with bullet and poison,
Want time to condemn you to death.
They count your hours, are encouraged by seeing
your beard gone white on your Greek profile;
And on the high summit of serene thinking
The outbreak of your gray hair amuses them.
The peoples, however, give you roses,
poems and songs; more for the dreams
you made come true than for your birthdays.
Because the age of the heroes and geniuses
is not measured by days or years,
But for long centuries and millennia.
Jesús Orta Ruiz, “El Indio Naborí”
(Written in 1996, for Fidel’s 70th Birthday)
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
El tiempo no devora redentores
Estatua viva del metal más fuerte,
no pudiendo los monstruos de oro y cieno
matarte con la bala y el veneno,
quieren que el tiempo te condene a muerte.
Cuentan tus horas, les anima verte
blanca la barba de perfil heleno;
y en la alta cumbre del pensar sereno
el brote de tus canas les divierte.
Los pueblos, sin embargo, te dan rosas,
poemas y canciones más por cosas
de cumplesueños que de cumpleaños,
pues la edad de los héroes y los genios
no se mide por días ni por años
sino por largos siglos y milenios.
Jesús Orta Ruiz, “El Indio Naborí”
(Escrito en 1996, con motivo de
los 70 años de Fidel)
¨Why I Believe Trump Will Lift the Blockade¨
- English
- Español
Why I Believe Trump Will Lift the Blockade
By Dr. Néstor García Iturbe
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
November 16, 2016.
A few persons have contacted me regarding the interview that I offered to VOCES DEL MUNDO where I said that, in my view, Donald Trump will lift the commercial, economic and financial blockade that the United States has maintained against Cuba for more than fifty years.
The reasons I put forward for saying this were explained in the interview, but because of a problem, seemingly a time limit in the radio program, they only broadcasted the claim, but not the reasoning behind it, which has created a logical question among all those who read the interview.
CubaNews, edited by Walter Lippmann, was interested in the subject and that is why I write this article. After it is published by CubaNews, I will also publish it in El Heraldo and send it to other recipients, because Walter showed interested in the subject and I consider he should have priority in spreading what I think.
The commercial, economic and financial blockade was imposed hoping it would stifle the Cuban Revolution and at a certain point the Cubans would have to apologize to the United States so they would lift it and we could survive.
None of this has happened; the Cuban Revolution, with difficulties, has continued to live and advance expanding its trade relations with other countries, while the United States has been absent and has therefore lost many commercial and economic opportunities. Had the blockade not existed, they would have participation and now it is other countries that benefit from those opportunities.
The outgoing President Barack Obama has repeatedly raised the futility of the blockade at this point in time and, in addition, has expressed his opinion that it should be lifted. I believe that Obama’s opinion is the reflection of companies and corporations eager to start having commercial relations with Cuba and make profits that the blockade prevents them from obtaining.
In statements made by Obama and the instructions he gave after December 17, 2014 in order to create the best possible conditions for the reestablishment of diplomatic relations with Cuba, he told his team that they should initiate talks with Congress aimed at lifting the blockade on Cuba. Something was done, but with no results.
In recent years, a small number of bills have been presented in the United States Congress aimed at releasing some aspects related to the blockade.
The HR 664 bill, named Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act of 2015, was introduced by representatives Mark Sanford (R-SC 1st.) And James Mc Govern (D-MA 2nd). The bill established the possibility for American citizens to travel freely to Cuba.
This project had 127 co-sponsors: 109 Democrats and 18 Republicans.
The HR 3238 bill, called The Cuba Trade Act of 2015, introduced by representatives Tom Emmer (R-MN 6th) and Cathy Castor (D-Fl 14th), would allow private businesses to trade unrestrictedly with Cuba. This project had 22 co-sponsors: 12 Democrats and 10 Republicans.
Bill HR 3687, titled Cuba Agricultural Export Act, introduced by Representative Eric A. Crawford (R-AR 1st), would allow the use of credits for US agricultural exports to Cuba and also to make investments in private agriculture in Cuba. This project had 38 co-sponsors: 15 Democrats and 23 Republicans.
The interesting thing about these projects was precisely that a number of Democrats and Republicans associated themselves with them, which showed there was a bipartisan interest, although really limited. Notwithstanding all that, it can be said that there are precedents of interest by certain congressmen in the matter.
Now let’s go to Trump. He is a businessman and like many businessmen he recognizes how useful it would be to have the financial, economic and commercial constraints between the two countries disappear, so that all businessmen may establish relationships that will provide profits to their companies. The important thing is not exactly what happened, but what is going to happen.
In his latest statements, he mentioned that he could reverse everything Obama did, because to do so Obama had invoked the powers that the Presidential Order offered him, which now he, as president, has the possibility to overturn. However, Trump also stated that the future of relations between the two countries would be determined by what Raúl Castro and he could agree upon. Perhaps he is planing to travel to Cuba, or to invite Raul to travel to Washington.
I remember my interview several years ago with the president of the American Leaf Tobbaco Company, owner of the Partagas patent in the United States. The Cuban Revolution had nationalized the lands where they planted tobacco, the warehouses and the factory.
This man’s proposal was as follows. Cuba would give them the exclusive distribution of the Partagas cigars in the United States for five years and they would not make any claim for the nationalized goods. At the end of the five years, the patent became the property of Cuba. If Cuba considered it convenient, they would continue to distribute Partagas in the United States, or Cuba would take charge of the matter.
According to the executive, in those five years they would earn far more money than the worth of what had been nationalized, and they would also recover a good part of the losses caused by all the time that, because of the blockade, they had not been able to sell a single Partagas cigar in the U.S.
That’s the way a business man thinks. Something similar was offered to me by other companies that had been nationalized in Cuba, whose interest was to start trading as soon as possible and stop losing profits, or seeing how opportunities were taken up by different countries such as Russia, China, France, Spain and others. “Time is Money” and if they continued to waste time, they would continue to lose money.
There are companies that are really eager to be able to trade with Cuba and the blockade is the only thing that prevents it.
The trade of cigars of different brands could reach about 900 million dollars.
The Havana Club Rum trade could represent about 500 million dollars.
Tourism would also be an important source of business. One million Americans could travel to Cuba annually. They would spend an average of 400 dollars in air fares, according to the place of provenance; that would mean 400 million dollars for the transport companies. If each traveller stays one week in Cuba, they would have to pay a tourist package of approximately 550 dollars, which would represent 550 million dollars for the US tourist agencies.
On the aspect of golf courses, as we know, Trump companies had been exploring possibilities. Since the companies are now operated by his sons, it would come as no surprise that among some of the groups of businessmen who quite frequently visit Cuba, an executive of his sons’ companies might be present.
The trade of medicines and vaccines can also be an important area to consider. The price fixed for medicines in Cuba is relatively low, especially lower than the ones set for the same drugs when produced in the United States, where labor is much more expensive. The treatments in the United States are exorbitant, and the difference between the purchase price in Cuba and what the patient has to pay in the United States for using those medicines can represent an income of hundreds of millions of dollars for US clinics and laboratories.
Cuban nickel, important for US industry, is being traded in the month of November at $ 11,000 a ton. If out of our production, quite committed to other countries that are standard buyers, we would be kind enough to sell 1,000 tons to the United States, this operation would total 11 million dollars.
The lifting of the blockade could lead to joint exploration and exploitation between US and Cuban companies in the maritime economic zone of Cuba, where there are oil deposits and where the US presence could guarantee the application of techniques that allow exploitation with high standards of security. How many millions of dollars would this operation involve? It is a little risky to calculate, but it would run in the hundreds.
The free zone of the port of Mariel could also be of great interest for American companies. This port is conveniently located for ships departing from Florida, Louisiana, Texas and other cities with coasts to the Gulf of Mexico. It is a modern port, equipped for the reception of containers and ample facilities, in whose free zone, besides having the possibility to establish industries, the American companies could count on warehouses whose operation and maintenance would be much cheaper than what they could get in their country. These warehouses would not only serve to supply to Cuba the articles that it needs to buy, but also to distribute from those warehouses to clients in Central America and the Caribbean.
There are other products that American companies have shown interest in; as there are many products made in the United States that Cuba is interested in, including agricultural products and equipment, medicines, equipment of different types, tools and machine tools, maritime, land and air transport equipment, supplies for the tourism industry, computer systems and software and others.
The commercial exchange between the two countries can reach a high level, benefitting from the proximity between both. It does not require high costs of transportation or storage in large quantities, since the source of supply is only a few hours by plane and two or three days by sea, if the warehouses are not placed in Cuba.
The US economic situation, with a high commercial and financial deficit, the 94 million people that are outside the labor force and the official –under calculated–unemployment rate of 4.9 percent, Trump’s alleged policy of canceling Free Trade Agreements, and the return to the United States of jobs that were sent to other countries requires liberalized trade and a market that will help to improve to some extent the internal situation in the US. Trade, economic and financial relations with Cuba could be of assistance in that regard.
Some have tried to argue that Donald Trump is indebted to the Cuban community for having won Florida. Those who say that have not bothered to analyze how the Cuban American vote went in those elections. There Hillary Clinton received the majority of the votes of that community, so there is no debt whatsoever, and Trump can feel free to make the decisions on Cuba that he deems more convenient. Besides that, according to surveys, about 65 percent of Cubans living in Florida favor an improvement of relations with Cuba.
The lifting of the blockade will favor the international image of the United States, show the world that a more rational policy is being developed and also eliminate the possibility that next year, at the United Nations General Assembly, Cuba will again submit the resolution on the blockade. Trump could even argue that this action responds to compliance with a resolution taken at the last meeting of the body. In addition, the action would benefit US relations with Latin America and other countries, which feel limited in some way to carry out operations with Cuba for fear of being fined by OFAC.
This action on the part of the United States requires not only the wishes of Trump, but also that Congress approves what he proposes. A Congress such as the one that will work with Trump, where both chambers will have a Republican majority, offers very favorable conditions for an agreement on the lifting of the blockade against Cuba, regardless of some opposing voices that will be heard in the congressional floor.
The lifting of the blockade may be one more among the surprises that Trump has already given us.
CUBA – EU
PORQUÉ CONSIDERO QUE TRUMP LEVANTARÁ EL BLOQUEO
Por Dr. Néstor García Iturbe
CUBA.- EU.- PORQUÉ CONSIDERO QUE TRUMP LEVANTARÁ EL BLOQUEO.
GRUPO EL HERALDO sarahnes@cubarte.cult.cu
“LA SENSACIÓN DE CUMPLIR CON EL MÁS SAGRADO DE LOS DEBERES,
LUCHAR CONTRA EL IMPERIALISMO DONDEQUIERA QUE ESTÉ”
CHE
Dr. Néstor García Iturbe
16 de noviembre de 2016.
Algunas personas se han comunicado conmigo por la entrevista que ofrecía a VOCES DEL MUNDO donde expresé, que de acuerdo con mi criterio. Donald Trump levantará el Bloqueo comercial, económico y financiero que Estados Unidos hace más de cincuenta años mantiene contra Cuba.
Las razones que yo expuse para decir esto se explicaron en la entrevista, pero por un problema, al parecer de tiempo en el programa de radio, solamente difundieron la afirmación, pero no el razonamiento para hacerla, lo cual ha creado una lógica interrogante entre todos los que leyeron la entrevista.
CubaNews, editado por Walter Lippman, se interesó en el asunto y es por eso que hago este artículo, el cual después de ser publicado en CubaNews, lo publicaré en El Heraldo y lo enviaré a otros destinatarios, pues Walter se interesó por el asunto y considero debe tener prioridad en divulgar lo que pienso.
El Bloqueo comercial, económico y financiero fue impuesto con la esperanza de que el mismo ahogara la Revolución Cubana y en un momento determinado los cubanos tuvieran que pedir perdón a Estados Unidos para que lo quitaran y pudiéramos subsistir.
Nada de eso ha sucedido , la Revolución Cubana, con dificultades, ha continuado avanzando y viviendo, ampliando sus relaciones comerciales con otros países, en las que Estados Unidos ha estado ausente y por lo tanto, ha perdido muchas oportunidades comerciales y económicas, que de no existir el bloqueo, tendrían participación en las mismas y ahora son otros países los que sacan provecho de estas.
En repetidas oportunidades, el presidente saliente, Barack Obama ha planteado lo inútil que en estos momento resulta el bloqueo, además de expresar que en su opinión, el mismo debía levantarse. Considero que esta opinión de Obama es el reflejo de empresas y corporaciones deseosas de comenzar a tener relaciones comerciales con Cuba y recibir utilidades que el bloqueo le impide obtener.
En las declaraciones realizadas por Obama y las instrucciones que impartió después del 17 de diciembre del 2014 con el fin de crear las mejores condiciones posibles para el restablecimiento de relaciones diplomáticas con Cuba, planteó a su equipo, que debía iniciar conversaciones con el Congreso encaminadas al levantamiento del bloqueo a Cuba. Algo se hizo, pero sin resultados.
En los últimos años, se han presentado en el Congreso de Estados Unidos un reducido número de proyectos de ley encaminados a liberar algunos aspectos relacionados con el bloqueo.
El proyecto de ley HR 664, nombrado Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act of 2015, fue introducido por los representantes Mark Sanford (R-SC 1st.) y James Mc Govern (D-MA 2nd). El mismo establecía la posibilidad de que los ciudadanos estadounidenses pudieran viajar libremente a Cuba.
Este proyecto tenía 127 co-patrocinadores, 109 demócratas y 18 republicanos.
El proyecto de ley HR 3238, denominado The Cuba Trade Act of 2015, introducido por los representantes Tom Emmer (R-MN 6th) y el representante Cathy Castor (D-Fl 14th), permitiría a los negocios privados comerciar sin restricciones con Cuba. Este proyecto tenía 22 co-patrocinadores, 12 demócratas y 10 republicanos.
El proyecto de ley HR 3687, titulado Cuba Agricultural Export Act, introducido por el representante Eric A. Crawford (R-AR 1st), permitiría el utilizar créditos en las exportaciones agrícolas de Estados Unidos a Cuba y además el realizar inversiones en la agricultura privada en Cuba. Este proyecto tenía 38 co-patrocinadores, de ellos 15 demócratas y 23 republicanos.
Lo interesante de estos proyectos, era precisamente, que un número de demócratas y republicanos se vincularon a los mismos, por lo que existió un interés bipartidista en ellos, aunque realmente limitado. No obstante todo eso, puede decirse que existen antecedentes de interés de ciertos congresistas por el asunto.
Ahora vamos a Trump. El es un hombre de negocio y como muchos hombres de negocio reconoce el beneficio de que las limitaciones financieras, económicas y comerciales entre los dos países desaparezcan, para que todos los negociantes puedan establecer relaciones que le brinde utilidades a sus empresas. Lo importante no es exactamente lo que sucedió, sino lo que va a suceder.
En sus últimas declaraciones hizo referencia a que podría revertir todo lo realizado por Obama, pues este, para hacerlo, se había amparado en las potestades que le ofrecía la Orden Presidencial, lo cual él, como presidente, tiene la posibilidad de anular. Sin embargo, planteó también que el futuro de las relaciones entre ambos países estaría determinado en que Raúl Castro y él pudiera ponerse de acuerdo. Quizás es que piensa viajar a Cuba, o invitar a Raúl para que viaje a Washington.
Recuerdo mi entrevista, hace varios años, con el presidente de la American Leaf Tobbaco Company, propietaria de la patente Partagas en Estados Unidos. La Revolución Cubana le había nacionalizado las tierras donde sembraban el tabaco, los almacenes y la fábrica.
La propuesta de este señor era la siguiente. Cuba le daba la exclusiva de la distribución de los puros Partagas en Estados Unidos por cinco años y ellos no harían reclamación alguna por los bienes nacionalizados. Al final de los cinco años, la patente pasaba a ser propiedad de Cuba. Si Cuba lo consideraba conveniente ellos continuaban distribuyendo Partagas en Estados Unidos o Cuba se hacía cargo del asunto.
Según el ejecutivo , en esos cinco años ganarían mucho más dinero que lo que valía lo nacionalizado y además, recuperaría una buena parte de las pérdidas, que les había representado, todo el tiempo que debido al bloqueo no habían podido vender ni un puro Partagas en Estados Unidos.
Esa es la forma de pensar de un hombre de negocio. Algo parecido me fue ofrecido por otras empresas que habían sido nacionalizadas en Cuba, cuyo interés era iniciar cuanto antes el intercambio comercial y no continuar perdiendo utilidades, ni que las oportunidades fueran aprovechadas por distintos países, como los rusos, chinos, francés, españoles y otros. “Time is Money” y si continuaban perdiendo tiempo, iban a seguir perdiendo dinero.
Existen empresas que están realmente deseosas de poder comerciar con Cuba y el bloqueo es lo único que se lo impide.
El comercio de puros, de distintas marcas, pudiera llegar a cerca de 900 millones de dólares.
El comercio del Ron Havana Club pudiera representar cerca de 500 millones de dólares.
El turismo sería también una fuente importante de negocio. Pudieran viajar a Cuba anualmente 1 millón de estadounidenses, que gastarían en pasaje internacional un promedio de 400 dólares, según el lugar de procedencia, eso serían 400 millones de dólares para las empresas transportadoras. Si cada uno de ellos realiza una estancia de una semana en Cuba, tendrían que pagar un paquete turístico de aproximadamente 550 dólares, lo cual importa 550 millones de dólares que recibirán las agencias turísticas estadounidenses.
Sobre este aspecto y según conocemos, relacionado con los campos de Golf, ya las empresas de Trump estuvieron explorando posibilidades. Como ahora las empresas las operan sus hijos, no debe sorprendernos que en algún grupo de hombres de negocio que visite Cuba, de los que viajan con bastante frecuencia, se incluya un ejecutivo de las empresas de sus hijos.
El comercio de medicinas y vacunas puede ser también un aspecto importante a considerar. El precio que se le fija a la medicina en Cuba es relativamente bajo, sobre todo más bajo que el que se obtiene cuando se produce el mismo medicamento en Estados Unidos, donde la mano de obra es mucho más cara. Los tratamientos que se realizan en Estados Unidos tienen precios exorbitantes y la diferencia entre el precio de compra en Cuba y lo que tenga que pagar el paciente en Estados Unidos por la utilización de estas medicinas, puede representar un ingreso de cientos de millones de dólares para las clínicas y laboratorios estadounidenses.
El níquel cubano, importante para la industria estadounidense, se está cotizando en el mes de noviembre a 11,000 dólares la tonelada. Si de nuestra producción, bastante comprometida con otros países que son compradores habituales, hiciéramos el favor de vender a Estados Unidos 1,000 toneladas, serían 11 millones de dólares.
El levantamiento del bloqueo pudiera originar la exploración y explotación conjunta entre empresas estadounidenses y empresas cubanas de la zona económica marítima de Cuba, donde se plantea existen yacimientos de petróleo y donde la presencia estadounidense pudiera garantizar la aplicación de técnicas que permitan la explotación con altas medidas de seguridad. ¿Cuántos millones de dólares implicaría esta operación? Es un poco aventurado calcularlo, pero serían cientos.
La zona franca del puerto de Mariel pudiera ser también de gran interés para empresas estadounidense. Este puerto esta convenientemente situado para barcos que salgan de la Florida, Luisiana, Texas y otras ciudades cuyas costas se encuentran en el Gofo de México. Es un puerto moderno, habilitado para la recepción de contenedores y de amplias facilidades, en cuya zona franca, además de tener la posibilidad de establecer industrias, las empresas estadounidenses pudieran contar con almacenes cuya operación y mantenimiento sería mucho más barata que los que pudieran tener en su país. Estos almacenes no solo servirían para suministrar a Cuba los artículos que requiera comprar, sino también para desde esos almacenes distribuir hacia clientes de Centro América y el Caribe.
Existen otros productos sobre los que empresas estadounidenses han mostrado interés, al igual que existen infinidad de productos fabricados en Estados Unidos sobre los que Cuba está interesada, dentro de ellos productos y equipos agrícolas, medicinas, equipos de distintos tipos, herramientas y máquinas herramientas, equipos de transporte marítimo, terrestre y aéreo, suministros para la industria turística, sistemas y programas de computación y otros.
El intercambio comercial entre los dos países puede alcanzar un alto nivel, beneficiado por la cercanía existente entre ambos, que no requiere altos costos de transportación ni almacenaje en grandes cantidades, pues la fuente de suministro se encuentra a pocas horas en avión y dos o tres días en barco, si es que los almacenes no se sitúan en Cuba.
La situación económica de Estados Unidos, con un alto déficit Comercial y Financiero, los 94 millones de personas que se encuentran fuera de la fuerza laboral y por lo que oficialmente se dice que el desempleo es de un 4.9 por ciento, lo cual no es cierto, la política planteada por Trump de cancelar los Acuerdos de Libre Comercio y el regreso a Estados Unidos de puestos de trabajo que se enviaron a otros países, requiere un comercio liberado y un mercado que ayude en cierta medida al mejoramiento de la situación interna de Estados Unidos. Las relaciones comerciales, económicas y financieras con Cuba pudieran ayudar en algo a ese propósito.
Algunos han tratado de plantear que Donald Trump está en deuda con la comunidad cubana por haber ganado La Florida. Los que dicen eso no se han molestado en analizar cómo se manifestó el voto cubano americano en dichas elecciones, donde Hillary Clinton recibió la mayoría de los votos de dicha comunidad, por lo que no hay deuda alguna y Trump puede sentirse libre de tomar las decisiones sobre Cuba que considere más conveniente, además de que, según encuestas realizada, cerca del 65 por ciento de los cubanos residentes en La Florida favorecen un mejoramiento de las relaciones con Cuba.
El levantamiento del bloqueo favorecerá la imagen internacional de Estados Unidos, mostrará al mundo que se está desarrollando una política más racional y además eliminará las posibilidades de que el próximo año, en la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas, Cuba presente nuevamente la resolución sobre el bloqueo. Pudiera Trump inclusive plantear que esa acción responde al cumplimiento de una resolución tomada en la última asamblea del organismo. Además de eso, la acción beneficiaria las relaciones de Estados Unidos con América Latina y otro países, que se sienten limitados en cierta manera para realizar operaciones con Cuba por temor a ser multados por la OFAC.
Esta acción , por parte de Estados Unidos, requiere no solamente el deseo de Trump, sino además que el Congreso apruebe lo que el mismo proponga. Un Congreso como el que trabajará con Trump, donde ambas cámaras tendrán mayoría republicana, presenta condiciones muy favorables para acordar el levantamiento del bloqueo a Cuba, independientemente de que algunas voces de oponentes se escuchen en el emiciclo congresional.
El levantamiento del bloqueo, puede ser otra, dentro de las sorpresas que nos ha dado Trump.
“With Trump there will be no reversal in the relationship between the US and Cuba”
- English
- Español
Opinion: “With Trump there will be no reversal in the relationship between the US and Cuba”
By Telma Luzzani
Sputnik Mundo
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
Cuban academic Néstor García Iturbe assured us of this based on the campaign promises of the president-elect, but also because he believes that it is in the interest of both countries to keep what has been achieved and to advance further. With optimism, he believes that now that Congress is in Republican hands one of the first steps Trump will take will be to lift the blockade.
The diplomat who holds a PhD in History from the University of Havana is confident that Donald Trump and President Raul Castro will find common ground for agreement.
“I believe that the policies of the Republican President will be not only more beneficial for the United States but also for Cuba. He promised measures that would limit US interference in other countries,” recalled García Iturbe.
He also thinks that Trump will lift the economic blockade against the island because: “there are many American companies eager to do business.”
Anyway, the Cuban government scheduled military exercises as a kind of message to the White House. “The periods of transition between two US administrations are often dangerous: if there is aggression or military action by the US, neither the outgoing nor the incoming president is really in charge; one, because he is leaving office and the other because he has not taken office yet.” García Iturbe calls this period the “limbo of power”. Our message is: If there is a problem we are ready to take action. However, I believe that Venezuela and Syria are in greater danger. “In this “limbo”, there could be a new attempt to overthrow President Nicolás Maduro,” he said.
On the other hand, Mexican journalist Cecilia González looked at some of the hundreds of referenda which were voted on Tuesday in different US states: legalization of marijuana, the death penalty, solar energy and slavery. “In many cases, the results were surprising,” she said. González also referred to the “infinite sadness” that Mexicans feel outside and within the United States because the Republican candidate´s discourse exacerbating rejection of Mexicans, “promoting a culture of contempt and hatred.”
Comparative media analysis discussed the coverage by the Los Angeles Times, the only newspaper to publish a poll which projected Donald Trump a winner, although the paper, as most, supported Hillary Clinton and The Washington Post where media expert Margaret Sullivan criticized the press (including the newspaper where she works) under the title “The Media Did Not Want to Believe that Trump Could Win and Therefore Looked the Other Way.” Journalists with university degrees, urban dwellers, and mostly progressive, usually live and work in New York and Washington DC or on the West Coast. And although they would cover other cities in the country, and talk to miners and the unemployed, they did not take them enough into account.
The program also reported on the suicide bombing against a German consulate in the Afghan city of Mazar i Sharif, which left at least four people dead and hundreds wounded; it also reported on the statement of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights that denounced the case of the missing students of Ayotzinapa (Mexico) which still has more than 200 loose ends due to failures of the official research.
Opinión: “Con Trump no va a haber marcha atrás en la relación entre EEUU y Cuba”
Por Telma Luzzani
Sputnik Mundo
Opinión: “Con Trump no va a haber marcha atrás en la relación entre EEUU y Cuba”
Voces del Mundo
15:14 11.11.2016(actualizada a las 15:17 11.11.2016) URL corto
Lo aseguró el académico cubano Néstor García Iturbe basado en las promesas de campaña del presidente electo pero también porque considera que interesa a ambos países mantener lo logrado y avanzar más. Con optimismo, cree que ahora que el Congreso está en manos republicanas una de las primeras medidas que tomará Trump será levantar el bloqueo.
El diplomático y Doctor en Historia por la Universidad de La Habana confía en que Donald Trump y el presidente Raúl Castro se van a poner de acuerdo.
“Creo que las políticas del republicano van a ser no sólo más beneficiosas para Estados Unidos sino también para Cuba. Él prometió medidas que limiten la injerencia norteamericana en otros países”, recordó García Iturbe.
También piensa que va a levantar el bloqueo económico contra la isla ya que “hay muchas empresas norteamericanas deseosas de hacer negocios”.
De todas formas, el gobierno cubano programó ejercicios militares como una forma de mensaje a la Casa Blanca. “Los períodos de transición entre dos gobiernos norteamericanos suelen ser peligrosos: si hay una agresión o una acción militar por parte de EEUU el presidente saliente no se hace cargo porque se está yendo y el entrante tampoco porque cree que todavía no le corresponde.” García Iturbe llama esto el “limbo de poder”. “Nuestro mensaje es: si hay algún problema nosotros estamos listos para intervenir. Aunque en este momento yo creo que los que están en más peligro son Venezuela y Siria. En este “limbo”, podría haber algún nuevo intento de derrocar al presidente Nicolás Maduro”, aseguró.
Por otra parte, la periodista mexicana Cecilia González analizó algunos de las centenas de referéndum que se votaron el martes en distintos estados norteamericanos: legalización de marihuana, la pena de muerte, energía solar y esclavitud. “En muchos casos los resultados fueron sorprendentes”, afirmó. González relató además la “tristeza infinita” que sienten los mexicanos fuera y dentro de Estados Unidos porque el discurso del republicano exacerbó el rechazo hacia ellos, “instalando una cultura del desprecio y del odio”.
En comparación de medios se analizó la cobertura de Los Angeles Times, el único diario que publicó una encuesta que daba ganador a Donald Trump aunque como la mayoría apoyó a Hillary Clinton, y The Washington Post donde la experta en medios, Margaret Sullivan, criticó a la prensa (incluyendo el diario donde trabaja) con el título de “Los medios no querían creer que Trump podía ganar y entonces miraron para otro lado”. Los periodistas con títulos universitarios, urbanos y en su mayoría progres generalmente viven y trabajan en Nueva York y Washington DC o en la costa oeste. Y aunque vayan a cubrir por unos días otras ciudades del país y hablen con mineros y desocupados, no los toman en cuenta lo suficiente.
En este programa se informó, además, sobre el atentado suicida contra un consulado alemán en la ciudad afgana de Mazar i Sharif que dejó al menos cuatro muertos y centenares de heridos y sobre la declaración de la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos que denunció que en el caso de los estudiantes desaparecidos de Ayotzinapa (México) hay aún más de 200 cabos sueltos debido a las fallas de investigación oficial.
What Trump´s Victory Means
- English
- Español
What Trump´s Victory Means
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Esclusive for Mexican daily POR ESTO!
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
At the onset of the 2016 presidential elections, the elites of the Democratic and Republican parties did not think the issue would be anything but business as usual. The next president of the nation would inevitably have the surname of one of the families who had ruled before: Bush or Clinton; and life in the superpower would continue to be neoliberal capitalist, without changes, as in the last three decades.
But it did not work out that way. It has been consistently shown that, despite the fact that all other elements of power remained the same, the population of the country did not want more of the same. They wanted something new and different in the nation that presumes itself to be a model of democracy for the planet.
Since the previous stage of the process, it became clear that “the oven was not ready for baking” when, within each of the traditional parties, differences were highlighted by unexpected dissent. That made it clear that the phenomenon was not a matter of cosmetic adjustments but of deep surgery. According to the US political qualification patterns, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders were identified respectively as “the right of the Right” and “the left of the Left”. They had the support of the Republican and Democrat majorities.
Bernie Sanders’ campaign fell victim to the Democratic party machinery. Insensitive to the expressed tendency, it insisted on the figure of Hillary Clinton who later lost in a fight where she represented the discontented past. The alternative was the billionaire, populist and demagogue Donald Trump. He lacked the determined support of the Republican establishment. Togher with many of the main figures of that machine against him, he was elected despite his proven status as racist, sexist, abusive and systematic target of media mockery.
Although in appearance the bipartisan system of Democrats and Republicans survives, Trump’s victory represents a disaster for the system. The direct and populist style of the now President-elect, appealing to the lowest instincts of certain sectors of society –very different from the usual tone of US politicians– gave him a touch of authenticity in the eyes of the most disaffected sector of the right-wing electorate.
The Republican candidate was able to identify the presence of what can be called a “grassroots rebellion” and the growing gap between the political, economic, intellectual and media elites, on the one side, and the foundation of the conservative electorate, on the other. His rhetoric against Washington and Wall Street captivated the less-educated white voters and sectors impoverished by the effects of economic globalization, which benefited the corporations.
Trump went as far as to say that he was not competing against Hillary but against the dishonest media. This confrontation with media power antagonized the journalistic sector but rallied the support of voters exhausted by corporate media outrages.
Better than anyone else, Trump saw the widening gap between the political, economic, intellectual and media elites, and the base of the conservative electorate.
Trump is not a conventional right-winger. He defines himself as “a conservative with common sense”. He does not oppose the political model, but the politicians who have been running it. His speech is emotional and spontaneous; it appeals to people´s instincts, not to their brains or reason. He speaks for that part of the American people where discouragement and discontent have taken root. He addressed people tired of traditional politics and promised to bring honesty to the system and renew names and attitudes.
The media have given a lot of publicity to his most extreme statements and proposals, such as that he would prohibit Muslims from entering the country, expel the 11 million Latin American undocumented immigrants, and build a three thousand kilometer (1864 miles) border wall –whose $20 billion cost would be borne by the government of Mexico– to prevent the entry of Latin American immigrants.
Criticizing the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the constitutional right to same-sex marriage, Trump stated that the marriage of a man and a woman is “the basis of a free society”. He supported so-called “religious freedom¨ laws promoted in several states to deny services to LGBT persons. He said that climate change is a concept “created by and for the Chinese, to make the US manufacturing sector lose competitiveness “.
In truth, it could be said that Trump did not win; instead that it was Hillary Clinton and the Democrats who lost.
November 14, 2016.
EL TRIUNFO DE TRUMP
Por Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Exclusivo para el diario POR ESTO! de Mérida, México.
En el preámbulo de las elecciones presidenciales 2016, las élites de los partidos demócrata y republicano no pensaban que el asunto sería algo más que el negocio acostumbrado. El próximo presidente de la nación exhibiría, inevitablemente, el apellido de una de las familias que han gobernado antes, Bush o Clinton, y la vida en la superpotencia de América seguiría siendo capitalista neoliberal, sin grandes cambios, como en las últimas tres décadas.
Pero no resultó así. Quedó fehacientemente demostrado que pese a que todos los demás factores del poder se mantenían iguales, la población del país no quiere más de lo mismo. La gente quería algo nuevo y diferente en la nación que presume de ser modelo de democracia para el planeta.
Ya en la etapa previa del proceso se puso de manifiesto que “el horno no estaba para galleticas” cuando en cada uno de los partidos tradicionales se destacaron disidencias inesperadas que hicieron evidente que el fenómeno no era cosa de ajustes cosméticos sino de cirugía profunda. Donald Trump y Bernie Sanders, identificados respectivamente como “la derecha de la derecha” y “la izquierda de la izquierda”, según los patrones de calificación política
estadounidenses, acapararon el apoyo de las mayorías republicanas y demócratas.
La campaña de Bernie Sanders cayó víctima de la maquinaria del partido demócrata que, insensible a la tendencia manifiesta insistió en la figura de Hillary Clinton que más tarde cayó en una pelea en la que ella representaba precisamente el sufrido pasado. La alternativa era el multimillonario, populista y demagogo Donald Trump quien, sin un resuelto apoyo del establishment republicano y con buena parte de las principales figuras de esa formación política en su contra, y resultó electo pese a su demostrada condición de racista, sexista, abusador y blanco sistemático de burlas en los medios.
Aunque en apariencias sobrevive el sistema bipartidista de demócratas y republicanos, la victoria de Trump ha constituido para éste una verdadera hecatombe. El estilo directo y populachero del ahora Presidente electo, apelando a los bajos instintos de ciertos sectores de la sociedad, muy distinto del tono habitual de los políticos estadounidenses, le ha dado un carácter de autenticidad a los ojos del sector más decepcionado del electorado de derecha.
El candidato republicano supo identificar la presencia de lo que puede llamarse una “rebelión de las bases” y la ruptura cada vez mayor entre las élites políticas, económicas, intelectuales y mediáticas, de una parte, y la base del electorado conservador, de la otra. Su discurso contra Washington y Wall Street cautivó a los electores blancos menos cultos y a los sectores empobrecidos por los efectos de la
globalización económica, beneficiosa para las corporaciones. Trump llegó a decir que él no estaba compitiendo contra Hillary sino contra los deshonestos medios de prensa. Este enfrentamiento al poder mediático le enajenó simpatías en el sector periodístico pero de atrajo apoyo de votantes exhaustos de los desmanes de los medios corporativos de comunicación.
Mejor que nadie, Trump percibió la fractura cada vez más amplia entre las élites políticas, económicas, intelectuales y mediáticas, respecto a la base del electorado conservador.
Trump no es un ultraderechista convencional. Él mismo se define como un “conservador con sentido común”. No censura el modelo político en sí, sino a los políticos que lo han estado orientando. Su discurso es emocional y espontáneo. Apela a los instintos, no al cerebro, ni a la razón. Habla para esa parte del pueblo estadounidense en la que ha cundido el desánimo y el descontento. Se dirige a la gente cansada de la política tradicional y promete traer honestidad al sistema y renovar nombres y actitudes.
Los medios han dado mucha difusión a sus declaraciones y propuestas más extremas, como la de que prohibiría la entrada al país de musulmanes y expulsaría a los 11 millones de inmigrantes ilegales latinos y construiría un muro fronterizo de más de tres mil kilómetros para impedir la entrada de inmigrantes latinoamericanos cuyo costo de unos veinte mil millones de dólares correría a cargo del gobierno de México.
Trump ha declarado que el matrimonio de un hombre y una mujer es “la base de una sociedad libre” al criticar la decisión del Tribunal Supremo que considera un derecho constitucional el matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo; ha apoyado las “leyes de libertad religiosa” impulsadas en varios Estados para denegar servicios a las personas LGTB; ha dicho que el cambio climático es un concepto “creado por y para los chinos, para hacer que el sector manufacturero estadounidense pierda competitividad”.
En verdad, podría decirse que Trump no ganó sino que quienes perdieron fueron Hillary Clinton y los demócratas.
Noviembre 14 de 2016.
Mariana Hernandez interview 1971
Mariana Hernandez interview
THE RAG, Austin, Texas, 1971
Mariana Hernandez
1971
MARIANA HERNANDEZ, interviewed by THE RAG, Austin, Texas,
Mariana Hernandez is the Socialist Party’s candidate for Travis LaRue’s job- mayor of Austin.
By printing this interview, The Rag does not mean to take sides in the upcoming election. But we would like to point out that almost any change would be an improvement.
The interview was taped on the spur of the moment at the Abortion Conference, where the Socialist candidates were promising to work for free abortions on demand if elected. The candidate’s willingness to speak into a somewhat hostile reporter’s tape recorder without advance notice was remarkable in the context of Texas politics.
RAGT: How do you propose to change the abortion laws from the City Council?
MH: Well, what we intend to do first of all is help build the Women’s Liberation movement. We will involve ourselves in all the building aspects of it and in that way involve a larger number of people. What we will do at the City| Council is also have it at a time when more women are able to come to meetings and express their views as to what the City Council ought to be| doing. That is, we won’t have them at 9 o’clock in the morning when most people can’t come. There are working women who can’t present their views because they’re working… RAG: Wouldn’t you say that most men can’t participate at that time either, so it’s a bit unfair to all citizens?
MH: That’s true. So we would have it at a time when all citizens could participate.
RAG: How do you see. your chances for winning?
MH: Well, what we see is that if we get the publicity, if we get out and are able to take our demands to the people, they’re going to support us. That’s our chances.
Many women support free abortion on demand, which is one of our positions. Large numbers of people support our anti-war position. But there are areas of the city that just have not had the opportunity to hear us.
RAG: How has the response to you been from the straight media?
MH: All of the press except for the Daily T ex an -were at our press conference. Even the Dallas Morning News was there! And, in fact, they didn’t seem to be that hostile just amazed that Socialists would run. Their major question was: “Is it serious?” The way this was answered over and over again by all the candidates was yes, we are serious, we are the only group of people running today who are serious, who are even talking about the major issues that affect people. The others are avoiding them.
RAG: Speaking of talking about the major issues, would you consider a debate with the incumbents?
MH: Yes, I would. Of course. I would certainly like to debate the mayor, Travis LaRue. We’d discuss things like pollution around laundries. We’d discuss his position on Women’s Liberation, although there’s supposed to be a Mayor’s Commission on Women. We would debate the question of the right of a citizen to march down the street and assemble.
We would discuss many issues. Like, for instance, the fact that he gives the key to the city to all sorts of people people who sell Budweiser on TV, and things like that but he would never consider the idea of inviting representatives from East Austin, say, to be mayor for a day. Not only mayor for a day, but just come in
RAG: Do you agree with what seems to be a wide-spread sentiment in East Austin that the apathy of City Government has emasculated the Human Rights Commission?
MH: I would agree with that. The reason that it was actually started in the first place was, basically, to make people believe that the City Council was going to do something.
A real, concrete example of what they haven’t done that they could have done is in the recent demands being made by the Booker T. Washington Project people. They are saying that there has been brutality, that the police come in as outsiders, they push us. around, they have guns on us, and we don’t appreciate this. The people were trying to get something done about the situation.
Of course, there have been promises of investigations. It doesn’t take more than 30 minutes to go out there and investigate that situation.
If the police—“the protectors and defenders of the people of East Austin”—were from East Austin, if they were under the control of the East Austin residents so that the East Austin residents could remove them, then we wouldn’t have police brutality, because the police would be defending the people’s rights in Austin. You wouldn’t see policemen protecting the privileges of certain people out here who go into East Austin.
RAG: Do you believe that even if you lose, your candidacy may push whoever does win towards solving these problems?
MH: Yes, there will be pressure put on them. It’s pretty much like what happened in Colorado, when La Kaza Unida candidates ran. Although there had never been any chicanos elected even within the Democratic Party, this began to happen. All of a sudden, they were pressured into getting chicanos to run, they were pressured into beginning to talk about the lettuce strike publicly, they were pressured into talking about the Coor’s beer boycott.
* In this way, we will pressure them to talk and make their stand known to the people. And this is where the media has to come in and support us. That’s our basic fight at this point letting people know what we stand for.
links
TeleSUR live: http://www.telesurtv.net/el-canal/senal-en-vivo
wl d cn fb pt e m w wh g g-tr npv t x hc laht rt cdb cdb-e wp
* / https://goo.gl/ </strong></strong>
www.rhc.cu/en/ Wall Street Journal http://www.laht.com/
https://news.google.com/news/section?hl=en&edition=us&q=Cuba
Fidel Castro’s Reflections
Raul’s speeches and interviews
Fidel’s Speeches starting 1959 mm
http://www.cuba.cu/gobierno/documentos/
Granma Diario Granma-en GI old
Granma pdf Juventud Rebelde
http://plenglish.com/ http://www.plenglish.com/ http://www.plenglish.com/index.php
PL Spanish
http://www.bc.gob.cu/anteriores/Iconos/2014
http://prensacubana.e-datalink.net/hoy/
The High Cost of Roller-Skating!
The High Cost of Roller-Skating
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
The total can reach three digits in CUCs (1 cuc = 1 U.S. dollar), and there are those who say that it takes a minimal investment of 200 CUCs.)
The sum can reach three digits in CUCs (1 cuc = 1 U.S. dollar), and there are those who say that it takes a minimal investment of 200 CUCs.)
Skill might not suffice. There are sports in which technology is foremost, and financial backing is absolutely necessary. We may call them elite sports, and roller-skating, in any of its variants, is among them.
Unlike other sports in Cuba, it is the parents who shoulder ALL the costs, because the National Institute for Sports and Recreation (INDER) does not have the money or, in case it could eke out something from its budget, the amount would be insufficient for frequent or even sporadic outlays. We, of course, are not talking here of just any kind of roller skates because competition requires that they be of professional quality. And the skates vary according to the level of training, the size of the athlete and the type of competition. Obviously, there is no other way out of the dilemma if the goal is to train in a serious way.
No matter how unlikely it may seem to us, the fact is that there are some families that will pay any price in order to satisfy the wishes of their little ones kids. The sum can reach three digits in CUCs (1cuc = 1 U.S. dollar), and there are those who say that it takes a minimal investment of 200 CUCs. Even having them purchased abroad, the cost is still high. In case of secondary sales or “repurchases”, the figures can skyrocket.
Brand names, degree of specialization, materials used, fashions, tear and wear, etc. will make them more or less expensive. But the problem does not end here, because its useful life will depend on the quality of the track, the number of spills by the athlete, as well as other variables. Then, the count comes back to the beginning, or else to the solutions that you find in Cienfuegos: boots from one brand, a pair of wheels from one kind and the other pair from another, and so on…and the cash register is ticking.
Safety is another issue, and we have to add the cost of the helmet, knee pads, elbow patches, wrist bands and adequate clothing. The economics of it should also take in consideration working hours lost, trips, food, and even transportation. And all of this in a sport discipline that is not prioritized in Cuba.
Roller skating as a hobby is a luxury, but converting it into a competitive sport is a titanic mission. Yes, it is definitely expensive. The high cost of roller skating!
COMMENT FROM THE TRANSLATOR, who lives in Santiago de Cuba
I found the piece suggestive. I interpreted it mostly as an indirect and intelligent way of pointing out how Cuban society is changing, with some people now having enough money for what are (compared with the near past) luxuries. However, I had someone who was visiting me read the piece and she thought that it looked more like criticism of INDER (Cuba´s National Institute for Sports and Physical Recreation) for not helping roller skaters. What do you think American readers will see in it?
Hillary´s Hour
Hillary´s Hour
By Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
It´s less than a month to the US elections and it is still possible that Donald Trump turns out to be the winner. Such a scenario is regarded with astonishment and concern by those in the United States who still believe in their institutions.
When he began his campaign, very few people took seriously the aspirations of the millionaire who synthesizes the two qualities that ––in the words of Octavio Paz– define imperialist behavior: arrogance and ignorance. He displayed both when he faced the other Republican contenders and now against Hillary Clinton. All along that path he has tried to show himself, demagogically, as if he were an enemy of the “establishment” and the spokesman for its victims.
It is enough to read his proposals to understand that he is blatantly lying. His tax reform plan would benefit only those who concentrate wealth and hurt those who live on their wages. To make matters worse, – a unique case in American history– he refuses to disclose his income tax reports to the Internal Revenue Service and, last but not least, he has boasted of not having paid taxes for years. Al Capone was sent to prison for that crime. But Trump is still freely touring the country where thousands of enthusiastic supporters applaud.
Everywhere, day after day, he repeats a message of hatred, prejudice and violence. There is a long list of those who are subjected to his insults and threats: Mexicans and women, Muslims and people with physical disabilities, immigrants and the LGBT community, those who advocate limiting the arms trade, and those who fight against pollution, as well as an endless list that includes Republican politicians who distance themselves from his ultra-reactionary speech and foul language.
On a couple of occasions he suggested the assassination of Hillary Clinton; and in the debate with her, before millions of viewers, he threatened with her imprisonment if he reached the presidency.
In any country in the world, and in the United States in normal situations, a similar character would lose any election and –most likely– be held in a penal institution or in an asylum. Trump, incredibly, has been the focus of the election campaign and –although many criticize him– he has the support of millions of voters.
The only way to defeat him is Hillary Clinton, the first woman in history with a chance of being elected. The difference is abysmal. Barak Obama did not exaggerate when he said she was more prepared to be President than he –Obama– or her husband, Bill Clinton.
Hillary has a long political career from her early years and has always been seen as an enemy by the most conservative groups who have unleashed a fierce campaign against her in which slander abounds. She has made mistakes –some of undoubted importance– and reprehensible concessions. She did not always remain faithful to her ideals of youth. But the same can be said of any US politician and none other has been subjected to such relentless scrutiny by the media – those of the large corporations and many others circulating in the digital universe. These have examined her life in detail and cannot accuse her of having committed any crime. The biggest charges against her are having embraced neo-liberalism –as did almost all in her party– and having implemented, as Secretary of State, the warmongering line of the White House.
The United States remains the most powerful country in the world but its society is going through a deep crisis. Frustration and discomfort dominate US citizens who are increasingly skeptical of their politicians. Donald Trump manipulates the situation and does it appealing to the racism, brutal individualism, stupidity and violence that have been present –since its origin– in the nation that believes it is superior to the rest of the world. His candidacy has brought out the worst in the US and has turned it into an organized political force.
Hillary does not represent a revolutionary alternative. Choosing her will not produce the radical transformation of US society. But right now she is the only hope to stop barbarism.
It is possible to beat Trump. But it needs to be a crushing defeat: a landslide of votes that puts this unprecedented demagogue out of action, and also allows the start of a new stage where “Trumpism” can be defeated, because it is a disease that corrodes US society and threatens humanity.
Marijuana is not an alternative
Marijuana is not an alternative; it is a proven evil
In drug use, sometimes lethal does not necessarily mean physical death, but social or psychological death when you are still alive, the death of the relationship with yourself, says psychologist María Esther Ortiz Quesada, a specialist in the field. –in an interview with JR.
Dr. Ortiz Quesada believes that the family requires honesty.
Francisco Arias Fernández
digital@juventudrebelde.cu
September 10, 2016 22:40:51 CDT
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
MS María Esther Ortiz Quesada, professor of psychology at the University of Havana, has dedicated her life to saving and bringing back many who were lost to addictions.
Since early 2003, she began conducting a number of radio and television programs on the subject. She is an authorized professional, a communicator par excellence and has been one of the leaders of the battle against drugs for the last four decades, in the fields of health, clinical psychology and social communication.
A “Bayamesa” [from Bayamo in Granma province] by birth, she embraced her cause and defends it in the clinic through group and individual therapy; in university classrooms, passing on her knowledge and experience to future saviors; in the mass media, reaching even the most intricate, distant homes and perhaps –with good luck—those who need help the most.
When I checked with my interviewee if I had correctly listed the fundamental elements of her resume, she confirmed her high sense of belonging and commitment:
“I am proud of my work as a teacher. My students are proof that youth is not lost; they are the fundamental source of that certainty and fertile land where I place my hopes. In the media, either as a consultant, conducting workshops and seminars for journalists and creators or as a communicator, I have been given the opportunity to go outside the office and classroom to carry the message… even to places where it is not welcomed. All I have done, everything, started and developed in the department of Specialized Treatments at the Psychiatric Hospital in Havana. That’s my origin (Mental Hygiene), and I would love to have this on record. “
Her answers to the most diverse questions surrounding marijuana today help us understand the dangers of that harmful substance for human beings and society.
Q: The most marketed and consumed illicit drug in the world is still marijuana. What is the impact of this international trend in Cuban patients and what are its most common effects?
A: I wonder if marijuana is really the most commonly used drug. I think that probably the most consumed drugs in the world –although there are no actual records– are the medications used for purposes that are not scientifically justified, that is, when a legal drug to cure certain diseases becomes illegal by how it is used; these drugs are misused in prisons, schools, at parties and other situations.
Beyond this perspective, I agree that among illegal drugs marijuana is the most widely consumed; it benefits from the promotion it receives, international advertising, especially on the internet, in movies and the mass media. Many believe that, because of its natural origin, marijuana is not harmful. There is also the naive believe that it is a gift from nature, not processed by humans and therefore good. The existence of laboratory marijuana is overlooked: that is, synthetic cannabis products which are the result of hundreds of formulas invented by humans, and are harmful products widely consumed in our planet.
Right now most patients who come to my clinic are marijuana consumers and it is clear that the last to realize that they are going down the wrong path are the consumers, even if they have not reached the addiction stage. They are not exactly the ones who request specialized help. Those who do become aware of the problem are the relatives who try desperately to find a solution.
The most common conditions among my patients have to do with family fractures, with damage to the family. A part of the family does not believe there is a problem and others are sure that what is happening to their loved one has to do with the consumption of marijuana. The consumer rejects the idea that he has any problems and that these could be associated with marijuana.
All this creates a conflict within the family that diverts attention from the real problem, which is the use of the drug. To me this discrepancy is most relevant because when those persons do not know what is wrong and have not sought help, they have no guidance to handle the situation properly; then the situation becomes much more complicated, and it primarily affects the consumer.
The most important damage I’m seeing is the “lack-of-motivation” syndrome: the person breaks their productive ties to society, because he or she may have too many “interests” and many “desires” but no longer has the psychological energy to organize a project and carry it through. In addition, there is the frustration of not being able to achieve anything, because he or she really does not have the possibility of carrying out a project. One frustration comes after another among marijuana users, because they accomplish nothing, they lose discipline, and the capacity to make the efforts or sacrifices that the fulfillment of any project requires.
On the other hand, there are those who have a creative life, because they are artists or simply dedicated to creation in general, but the muse never comes or disappears, and they begin to justify it calling it a creative block. Others begin to have problems in healthy relationships with their partners and these difficulties lead them to split up. When both partners use, coexistence becomes very difficult because they are constantly in conflict. It is something like a double addiction: to marijuana and bad relationships.
I have known cases where a partner has found out that the other goes out to use marijuana with other people. They consider this worse than adultery, because it reveals the very high importance that is given to the substance.
Also among the people I treat many have difficulties in their sexual relationships. When both partners are consumers they almost do not see the problem, because they are steeped in the world of alleged sexual fantasies that are initially imagined as hope for pleasure, until they annihilate all authentic intimacy. But when only one of the two is the consumer, then the problems really multiply. It happens especially with men who are consumers and women who are not. In such cases the women often complain that “even in bed I´ve lost him, I do not know where my husband is, because he is nowhere”, and she doesn´t have him even for helping take care of the children.
About those who seek to accompany sex with drugs: I think people should naturally discover the wonders of sex. The mixture of sexual enjoyment with marijuana or other substances to try to reach alleged fantasies, or the attempt to find always something different, becomes a trap that often leads to many frustrations.
A teenager, a young man who is endowed with enough hormones to enjoy any contact with his partner has absolutely no need to use drugs. I have treated teenagers who have been initiated in the use by a partner who encouraged him in his first sexual relationship, to mix it with marijuana. Many of these young people establish such a strong tie to the substance that they lose the possibility of sexual performance and require therapy to recover the ability to achieve a sexual relationship without the presence of the drug.
Other cases have come upon marijuana at a party, where –according to their description– they share a “joint” among a small group. There are those who choose to yield and not become the “odd one”, but they don’t really want to join the consumption; however, they do not feel ready to reject it and continue down the downward road. A young man told me that to avoid it, instead of inhaling the smoke, what he did was to blow it out so the others would think that he was actually smoking. Clearly this was intended to evade consumption, but he was still exposed to the smoke exhaled by the consumers and the consequent results.
In recent times there have been more frequent cases of cannabis psychotic crises and I believe that they are linked to brain damage caused by prolonged consumption of this substance, often enhanced by using other drugs. The syndrome that characterizes cannabis psychosis is very peculiar: florid but indefinite paranoid symptoms appear which are not always reversible.
I remember once, in my clinic, a salamander dashed in chased by a cat. I managed to save the reptile from the feline. A few months later one of the boys confessed to me: “Imagine how screwed up I was, that the day I saw the salamander, I thought it was a device that you had there to film me and that you were adjusting the equipment.” Asked how he saw it now, he replied: “I’m sure it’s not the way I saw it, but I still believe it was so”. This puzzled me, because he had seemingly overcome the crisis; however, this response demonstrated the existence of psychotic residuals.
We are not talking about underfed boys, most have no serious conflicts with their family, they are not frustrated in their aspirations of getting this or that career or job. Many are accomplished persons in their projects, who simply mixed with human groups who consumed marijuana.
The danger lies in the fact that to accept the risks of consuming some have to go through these psychotic crises that affect them deeply. This has to do with beliefs, which are the cognitive component of behavior. Hence people behave according to their concepts and it is precisely on these where we specialists must act in the rehabilitation process of these patients.
For years the notions that marijuana “does no harm, that it facilitates sex, that it makes persons more likeable, that it enlightens and brings the muse to a creator” have been encouraged. Now, countries that are supposedly more developed than ours accept consumption of marijuana as something legal; these harmful ideas become globalized and reach us strongly from all sides.”
Q: Then, what can we do to protect ourselves?
A: What is essential to prevent any harm, mainly to prevent the use of marijuana is a cohesive family. That is paramount. I mean a family that teaches that life is a process and that the acquisition of goods, the achievement of goals… everything is a process. These things are not bought; they are achieved through hard work, discipline, organization and diligence. We are talking about a family that enjoys the process of building things, and does not expect to get things done in rush.
Drugs tend to make people feel that they get what they need or want right there and then. There are those who turn to drugs in order to supposedly leave depressive moods behind. Sadness cannot disappear immediately; one has to learn that there are sorrows that are there and must be dealt with, that they are manageable and gradually diminish and disappear. But to think that they will disappear with a pill or marijuana joint is a serious mistake.
The family must also uphold honesty always –and not only in words. They must instill it in behavior. They must teach their children to enjoy the little things in life: watching television together, cooking, eating together, sharing enjoyments, making them feel that home is like a shelter where they will always be protected.
The family should teach children to be assertive and not aggressive. People confuse assertiveness with aggressiveness. They should learn to defend positions and principles: I am a human being regardless of what I own. Maybe I’m smart, maybe I’m not, but I am disciplined, polite, I work hard, I am an individual with values. These values should be acknowledged in children so that they feel good being who they are. They should not be asked for more than they can give. We should learn to demand more when we know they have talent and ability to do more; but we must learn to do that and not overwhelm or belittle them.
The family must also be able to supervise, and not trust blindly. Children are vulnerable at a certain age and we must be alert to help them at the right time. We have to be close to them when values are sown, we cannot be absent or far away. Parents must be their monitors, aware of their role in the family.
In my view, the key factor in drug prevention, above all things, is the family. Secondly, public policy, which must be clear, consistent and enforced.
To be effective in the rehabilitation process, we must first know the patient well. At first, I can rarely launch myself into battle to destroy false beliefs. I must first know the terrain because I want to be accepted, to establish a real communication with the consumer and I cannot be an extension of those who reprimand him or her in and out of their home. I must be someone they can trust.
Recently I treated a young marijuana user who had many problems and was initially very reluctant to get help and was very aggressive. I then decided to have a very open consultation with him; sometimes I made a joke over what he said and before he left he told me: “You are quite the opposite of what I expected, and I’ll start thinking about what you say.”
We must look for the most effective ways to reach these persons with a positive message, to be able to influence their beliefs; to put in their hands a book or accurate information, conceived by others, not necessarily by the psychologist who treats them. And we can say: “Look, I’m not the one who says this; this was written by a French or a Canadian specialist, many miles away, but it has to do with you … So just think about it, I would like you to read it.” It is a way of introducing dialogue, especially with those who are focused on what other countries allow or promote. Moreover, I also mention national colleagues, and this always leaves room for other alternative specialized treatments.
It is important to teach and assist children from early childhood so that they learn to say no. That’s my position. Sometimes you hear parents saying: “This kid cannot say no; anyone talks him into doing this or that.” However, that same young person is the one who says “I won’t go to the store, I won’t throw the garbage away, I can’t do that right now …” So, he or she really knows how to say no.”
The issue is to help them to say no in the right place and at the right time. It is a way to fix positions, perhaps even to create values. Saying no to what may be negative or harmful for the child, adolescent, young person or adult. Help them be ready to say no to drugs wherever they are, be it Cuba, Hong Kong or New York… wherever… But we need to train them from childhood at home.
This means making them ready for a flat out NO. Some resort to the excuse of saying: “No, I have my own.” And that’s not the way. The way is simply being able to say: “No, I do not use drugs, nor do I have to.” In other words this is to say: “Why do I have to give in; why do I have to play the game? Why smile at the enemy? “In a recent public meeting we had, I heard a teenaged high school senior and his two companions, students also, saying how much they enjoyed saying no to invitations to consume; how strong this makes them feel.”
Q: Have you suffered the permanent loss of any of your patients to marijuana?
A: Three of my patients have died. One was addicted to marijuana and I was told that he got killed. He was a person who became very aggressive when he consumed and hung out with very dangerous people, who beat him to death. Another committed suicide. He hanged himself because he assaulted a woman and the police were looking for him. He went home and took his own life. In both cases marijuana did not kill them directly; it was the consequence of using it that did. The latter did not have the capacity to realize that an offense carries a penalty that you serve and overcome. Obviously, he saw no other way out.
The third mixed marijuana with other drugs and his health deteriorated severely: an overdose killed him. He was a philosophy student, who began to justify his use saying that great philosophers, including classics, had allegedly been addicted to cocaine. He was a victim of his beliefs.
Among the people I have treated, I have lost some, but not necessarily because they died. One of them lost everything but the love for his youngest daughter, but in the end he lost all contact because the girl moved to another province with her mother. The man had become completely demented and had to stop working. That one I did not lose physically; unfortunately he is no longer my patient. His condition requires other levels of treatment, perhaps without hope of complete remission.
The other case was not detected by his direct use of marijuana, but because his wife came to the clinic seeking help because she wanted a divorce and needed guidance for handling the children. It turns out that she had young children and this man had become totally inconsiderate: he ate his children’s food and left them with nothing; he ate the baby food, jelly, cereal, custard, rice pudding, desserts mainly…
When she started telling me the story, I asked her bluntly:” Since when has he been using marijuana?” Surprised, she responded with another question:”And how do you know that? I was right because everything pointed to similar past experiences and fit with part of the clinical picture of marijuana users. I told her that I wanted to see her husband because before she made any decisions regarding divorce, I wanted to talk to him.”
When he came to see me, he showed a clear clinical picture: his delusions took him to believe that he had a direct link with San Lazaro. He announced that he was giving up therapy sessions to go to Rincon [to San Lazaro Church]. However, he came to each therapy appointment. Once, because the truck that was taking him back home took a detour, passed by my clinic and he decided to come in; another day because he had fallen asleep and woke up nearby; another because the buses were diverted … conclusion, he always came. His case was also handled by the rest of the therapy group; they made a sort of interpretation around his delirium: “San Lazaro is sending you a clear message, every time you’re going to see him, He –in one way or another– sends you over here; can’t you see?” From that moment on his presence was systematic, but he was already too deteriorated. I can tell you that the group wisdom is often my best ally.
Eventually he and his wife got divorced because his recovery process was very slow. The woman said: “I leave because I do not want to risk my children; I’ve already lost my husband, I can’t lose my kids.” After that he stopped coming to therapy, committed crimes and has spent a long time in a psychiatric hospital, not in a drug rehabilitation ward, but as a chronic mental patient.
Common denominators in these cases are violence, memory loss, psychosis, delirium and chronic biological or psychic illnesses that are very difficult to manage.
With drugs, sometimes lethal does not necessarily mean physical death. In my view, lethal means the social or psychological death while you still have biological life; the loss of creativity, the turning off of healthy interpersonal relationships, the death of the relationship with yourself. That is the worst part. To associate lethality only with the physical demise may be a mistake, or simply a narrow view. The worst thing that can happen to a human being is to lose the will to live or to stay in a position in which it seems to have motivations, but can do nothing and not even realize what is happening. A person who cannot be critical of themselves or of the surrounding reality, a person who cannot realize that their mind is disabled… that is what is lethal. What can be more lethal than the loss of a person’s talent to marijuana smoke? Sometimes it is unclear which is worse for parents: the “final” death or seeing their offspring die a bit each day. Of course, as long as there is life we keep thinking that something can be done. “
Q: According to your participation in the different international events where the prevention of drug use is discussed, what is the view of the trend toward legalization and decriminalization of marijuana? What impact does this have on Cuba and particularly on your patients?
A: I think behind these trends is drug trafficking. They serve the best interests of those deep-pocket mafias. It is not my paranoia. Organized crime has a great interest in legalizing drugs, because that would be a big advantage for them. Secondly, I believe that many countries suffer from a degree of naiveté and are falling into that position. Although it is very suspicious that powerful groups with such high power and prerogatives are so naive as to not see the dangers and threats that marketing and consumption of the drug generate.
I do not really think they’re oblivious to that reality. But if there is a margin for reasonable doubt there would be no explanation but naiveté. This does not relieve them of responsibility. Other nations are doing so because they have no idea –and do not seek advice from those working with the suffering of the addicts and their families– and are in the position of protecting human “pseudo-rights” because in my view these are so and nothing more.
Once Pope Francis said drugs can´t be fought with drugs. Evil is not fought with evil. And I have the conviction that if drugs are evil –and there’s no doubt about it– how can we fight the evils of drugs by legalizing them? The Pope worked in Argentina with people affected by this evil and has the first hand experience of these sufferings. That is why he thinks this way.
In order to understand the trend toward legalization, it is also necessary to remember the high levels of corruption that are shaking the world today. And it’s not disrespectful to think that many of those who advocate legalizing marijuana benefit from the business.
Moreover, I believe that social projects in many parts of the world have not been sufficiently effective in preventing the use of the substance. In many cases these projects have remained only on paper, with good intentions, or have been very limited to certain areas, without a holistic approach, sometimes in a school or a community, but with no impact on the entire population. Then the effects of preventive programs have been minimal and hopelessness makes them think that legalization is a better wat to avoid the problems. I think there are desperate countries that do not know what to do.
I fail to see a single benefit of legalizing marijuana. There are none. Some say: “It will reduce the prison population”. Yes, less drug traffickers go to prison and legally multiply their deadly business. But it will not reduce the prison population of addicts because they will continue to commit crimes while under the influence of drugs or to get drugs. And those who will not go to prison will remain prisoners of consumption. Violence or rape will not decrease. Lack-of-motivation syndromes will not diminish. All these will increase.
Those who were already addicted illegally will be joined by those who did not consume out of respect for the law. And once states give their blessing it would be like saying: “Well, the drug is no longer a problem; marijuana is not harmful.”Legalization is in itself an incitement. This is going against all logic and scientific truth.
Some hide behind the idea that it is important to remove the ban because it stimulates consumption. Following that logic, it is conceivable that if we legalized rape, violence, the abuse of women, if we legalized everything that is wrong, then there will be less chance that people would do those things that are no longer forbidden. It seems to me a very twisted logic. How come this would work for some things, like drugs, and not for others?
That’s a very poorly told story with very vulnerable reasoning. From my experience I cannot accept it. Seeing the suffering of my patients and their families, and the collateral victims of these processes, makes it very hard to see any positive side to legalization. I dread the idea that my grandchildren could grow up in a country where the drug is legal and easy to obtain.
I still wonder why if it has been proven that marijuana has a negative effect on the state of consciousness and generates a decrease in self-criticism and a distorted perception of the world, it is used with alleged therapeutic purposes, against stress or other conditions. Even more so when there are many medicines or medicinal plants that are in the international glossary with truly curative effects.
In Cuba as elsewhere, the international debate on the legalization of marijuana has a negative impact, because it tends to demobilize. In this battle it is essential to stimulate and strengthen the perception of risk; but when you are reading all the time on the Internet that marijuana is not bad and that more countries legalize it, those who believe in its uncertain benefits multiply. So we must raise our guard and be on the alert.
The most important thing is the protection of human beings and we must protect their sanity. No one should tarnish it with falsehoods and beliefs that would drag them to dire comparisons. It seems apocalyptic to hear voices calling from ignorance or absurd naiveté: “If they legalized it, why not us?” From resignation we could answer to those people: “Yes, let’s do the same; let’s commit suicide”. But that is a twisted and pessimistic view. I firmly believe that the battle can be won and to this end I have devoted my life. I find the idea of legalization repulsive. Marijuana is not an alternative, it is a proven evil.”
ALSO POSTED: https://beta.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/CubaNews/conversations/messages/158551
responding to that big interview opposing marijuana which appeared in
the Sunday edition of the paper, September 11. While I would not expect
any change in the near future in Cuba´s very tough attitude toward the
use of marijuana, I am impressed by the fact that this kind of discussion
can be had in the Cuban media. The original article, to which these are
responding, follow the letters.
If readers of CubaNews would like to comment on this discussion, the
floor is now open.
Walter Lippmann
——————————————————————————
Andres – September 12, 2016 5:04:10 CDT
Personally I recognize the experience and expertise of MS María Esther Ortiz Quesada. The results of her research are very important because they use. It is something we should definitely consider.
However, I disagree, respectfully but vehemently, with her conclusions regarding legalization. And I continue to disagree with the approach –in
a completely one-dimensional view– that the media in our country give the subject.In my opinion it deliberately favors a single criterion on the matter, even when it is publicly known that other evidence and other serious studies advocate a different approach.
When this happens you can’t say that we are acting in accordance with the evidence but according to our moral preferences. But the fact is that in so doing we run the risk of stigmatizing lots of people for no good cause, and disregarding scientific evidence.
I think that a very large ideological burden exists in our country on the subject. And I think this is one of the thorniest issues in the debate about marijuana, and, to be clear, not only in Cuba.
On the one hand it is indisputable that, like any psychotropic drug, legal or not, there are risks associated with excessive consumption of marijuana. Denying this is silly and naive. There are physical risks (not physical addiction), and psychological (including psychological addiction), known to scientists like MS Ortiz Quesada who has struggled all her life, and that is a great medical and scientific merit.
All this becomes more important when we recognize that the probability of creating dependency and other psychological disorders increases significantly if consumers are young children, whose cognitive and brain activities are in the process of development. This can certainly lead to long-term disorders.
Every effort (medical, social and legal) intended to prevent use in this vulnerable phase is welcome. However, I am also of the opinion that our debate in Cuba suffers from a strong lack of perspective.
First, it must be recognized that this is a debate where there are serious and high-level divergent viewpoints, which should be subject to public scrutiny. It should take into account the evidence provided by those who think differently. It is the right procedure in a serious scientific debate.
We cannot simply dismiss them as “naive” for having a different opinion. This would be an assessment of moral nature which does not respond to the evidence. It is important to contextualize the debate.
For example, there are recent studies indicating that of all marijuana users, only 9% end up developing some kind of dependency. This is not a figure to be disregarded but, comparatively speaking, does not justify the stigmatization and criminalization of millions of adults for its use.
The most important thing is that this 9% is not only associated with excessive consumption of marijuana, but other factors. Studies show clearly that psycho-social factors function as causal risks for dependency: people with low academic achievement, family relations issues (especially with parents, and rebellion associated with this), parents with a history of alcohol abuse and drugs, etc.
There are enough reasons to create social strategies to combat these issues (of course including prevention), but there is no reason and not enough evidence to blame marijuana directly for all these problems.
For example, research also points to the fact that marijuana use is a condition that is neither necessary nor sufficient to explain disorders such as psychosis. It’s not about promoting marijuana, but simply to put things in perspective.
I know the seriousness of the analysis of MS Ortiz Quesada, but there is also a multitude of researchers who think completely differently, and who have also spent decades seriously studying the issue. There are, to cite just one example of the long list, the publications of Dr David Nutt, a neuro-psycho-pharmacologist and British psychiatrist, a specialist in the study of the effects of drugs, addiction, anxiety, etc.
He is a high-profile personality, known among other things for his conflict with the British government, given the persistence of the latter in creating a classification system of psychotropic substances that had nothing to do with what the evidence reports on its effect.
Alcohol is positioned as less harmful, when all the evidence points to the contrary. It is not surprising that Dr. Nutt is of the view that this is a politically-motivated list and not something scientifically justified.
There are the articles on this research in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet, which propose a new classification system based on terms of health risk and its potential for abuse.
Indeed, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamines, but also alcohol and tobacco are high on the list. It recognizes that marijuana is not harmless, but it is placed in perspective. There is also serious evidence of its medical use, even in the treatment of disorders of psychic nature.
All this has serious implications regarding the debate on its legalization. What do we do with this and much other evidence? Do we ignore them because we do not like them, or do not coincide with our moral preferences?
When MS Ortiz Quesada compares the legalization of marijuana with the legalization of rape she makes, in my opinion, an inexcusable associative fallacy, which de facto criminalizes millions. The evidence on the mental and physical damage associated with rape is indisputable.
You can say the same of cocaine, heroin and crack, but not of marijuana, although we do not like it. Such biased equidistance cannot be established on this issue.
On the other hand, the evidence does not necessarily support the idea that crime will skyrocket with legalization. It is precisely its illegal character that attracts lots of unscrupulous elements to deal with this product. A legal regime associated with strong public regulations, taxes and quality standards will hardly help illegal traffickers.
Remember that it was precisely the outlawing of alcohol in the United States that boosted trafficking and organized crime in cities like Chicago. Figures like Al Capone found their raison d’être in that era. So far, everyone who was taking a sip was breaking the law, and life proved its inconsistency (despite the harmfulness of alcohol).
It is precisely the need to avoid stigmatization and criminalization of millions unnecessarily that stimulates debate on the legalization of marijuana. Trying to present those who favor it as naive (even when supported by serious and systematic evidence) denotes a moral preference, but it is not a sufficient scientific argument.
2
Jorge – September 12, 2016 8:04:13 CDT
Good morning to all. I do not know if Dr. Ortiz Quesada reads these comments, but I do not want to miss the opportunity to let you know that her program is one of the best of the kind I have ever seen on TV. She prepares it and leads it excellently and more than commend it (I do, too) I want to thank her for such a good job.
3 jpuentes – September 12, 2016 9:04:10 CDT
Maria Esther: the sweetest and most beautiful voice in the entire Cuban television universe.
If only I could meet her someday…4
jpuentes – September 12 2016 10:01:38 CDT
Andrés: excellent dissertation.
However I would like to comment that the issue in question, no matter how you try to avoid it, has a political edge. And it can get out of control and end up being a social phenomenon. Something that was taboo a few years ago and now comes as a scientific revelation it becomes sensitive, putting it in perspective, from the social and cultural angle. This is not to politicize a “scientific revelation” because it already comes politicized, because it has to, I say. All scientific discoveries have a political and social cost and this in particular has a high cost. However it is good to hear different views, but we must put them in context. 5Carlos Gutierrez – September 12 2016 11:37:52 CDT
I join the praise for Dr. Ortiz, BUT I DO NOT AGREE WITH WHAT SHE SAYS IN THIS ARTICLE. I am convinced that alcohol is much more harmful than marijuana and yet it is a thriving industry.
6
jpuentes – September 12 2016 13:28:02 CDT
This article is a call for sanity in the media and the scientific community. Coca producers say that Coca is “good”. White chocolate producers say black chocolate is harmful. Now the media are saying that sex in old age is bad, whereas until recently they said it was “important”.
It is said that there are alcoholic drinks that are good for the heart. It is even said that whiskey, gin, vodka and wine are good for hypertension, while rum and brandy are not. What is the difference…?
Some say that Mozart’s music is good for reaching a high IQ, that Cohiba cigars do not cause lung cancer, and so forth. My goodness, to compare alcoholic drinks with marijuana … By the way, now alcoholic beverages are not called like that, they are now “spirits”. In order to sell the media will always find a way.
7
Lolo – September 12 2016 13:58:28 CDT
Dear Andres, I think that all who agree with the legalization of marijuana receive economic benefits from this, or are consumers of it or have never had a brother, a father or a child who has lost its psycho-social or natural life for this cause and is today a vegetable or a totally despicable person who lost everything in life or is already worm food.
Life is more than being an addict, a prisoner of a toxic product in a world that is not real and that to achieve happiness or pleasure drives us from violent actions to suicide that affect not only the individual but the family and the society around it.
I’ve seen talented young people with a good life that have lost everything to try something new. In Uruguay, the use of marijuana was legalized; however this has brought all kinds or results except for the desired ones to such a point that legalization was suspended indefinitely to analyze again the proposal that has so far been a mistake in practice.
Beware of toxic substances, do not become slaves to an avoidable evil. Imagine your child is one of those within the 9% you say ends up addicted, and this addiction ends their life and it all began with let’s buy some and use it, anyway it’s legal, something new, and not all become addicts and certainly it won’t happen to me, I will control it; that’s like not using condoms because AIDS won’t touch me.
Down with drugs, legal or not, they rob a man’s capability for being rational and they become thirsty beasts craving for something they will never attain or satisfy them. I’m young, I have a baby some months old, and wish my son never would never in a country where drugs are served as food or medicine and are on the same shelf as those.
Andres, I don’t see a single benefit of legalizing drugs, I admire our country for its serious policy on drugs. Look what happens in Mexico or Colombia and see the true face of drugs.
By the way, I’m young, 23 years old, no one forbade me using anything, just that my mother and my family, from an early age, taught me what drugs were, they told me clearly about their effects-benefits and I decided what option was more intelligent and beneficial for me.
Luckily today I do not use any harmful substances and live very happily and enjoy life to the fullest. Look around and you will see how beautiful life is and the thousands of options to enjoy with our friends, family or partner. My greatest support to the doctor and to all those who fight against this demon, Greetings from someone whose eyes are open.
8
Luis Alberto Balcazar Bravo – September 12 2016 19:44:38 CDT
I came to this article without looking; I was not investigating the subject. I was inquiring about youth and that´s how I got to the newspaper of the Cuban Youth and this substantial article. By the overwhelming spreading today of the idea that marijuana should be legalized and decriminalized I was among those who believed it should be so.
Dr.: You just convinced me with this simple but strong article to move to the other side. A simple glance is enough to understand the truth of how this damn plague is spread by the drug cartels and sponsored by bad politicians is spreading among our young people so they get trapped in that dark pit without exit. At the end of the day, that’s what they [cartels and bad politicians] want: a society convulsed and a youth without reaction. Thank you so much.
9 Andres – September 13, 2016 1:20:55 CDT
Certainly, friend jpuentes, there is a strong ideological charge throughout the debate. And it is therefore important that all the evidence is considered critically.
Lolo: I respect your convictions and invite you to review the existing evidence about the issue. Many of the things you mention are not associated with marijuana, but with cocaine, heroin and other really destructive drugs like alcohol.
You cannot put them all in the same bag as if they were the same, because they are not. It is true that marijuana is not harmless (which has become clear in my comment above), but neither are alcohol and tobacco.
And yet, life shows that, despite having an overwhelmingly more lethal impact than marijuana, the use and abuse of these products is much more controlled legally.My point is we should make a more differentiated analysis of all these issues. On the other hand, the evidence on the medical use of marijuana is there, and it is less known because the official position of many nations is to choose criminalization, and ignore all studies on the subject.
Evidence, however, is abundant and has nothing to do with pseudo-science, but with the studies of many prestigious researchers who have dedicated decades of study to the subject, and their results have been registered in high level publications.There are also studies published in our Cuban Journal of Pharmacology, made by very serious and rigorous researchers. To simply ignore this because we do not like it is like crossing the street with our eyes closed, Lolo.
On the other hand, almost all the world’s governments have commissioned studies on the subject, and the results have not always been what they wanted. Many of them, despite maintaining the illegal status of marijuana, have started very calmly to deal with the problem in a more flexible and pragmatic way.They realize that otherwise they would criminalize a lot of ordinary people for no good reason: people who pay taxes, who fulfill their social duties, who are law-abiding, care for their families, work in the community, etc. This would be most unfortunate socially and politically.
Since the beginning of the revolution it was said that Cuba had to necessarily be a country of men and women of science. That does not mean that we must all go to a lab and work with microscopes; it is an invitation to us, as a society, to adopt a rational attitude on any conflict or problem that comes our way. And that principle is one of the things that makes me feel so proud of my country. We are not a herd of fanatics deciding according to a whim, but we read, investigate and make decisions with cool minds, according to the evidence, and without giving up our principles. If the leaders of the Cuban revolution had not acted in that way, they would not have survived; neither they nor the Cuban social project.My question, Lolo, is the following: Since when did we become a country that acts on a whim? We are not like that. Let’s reason together. The example of Uruguay proves nothing about the impact of marijuana. Of course it will be a complicated law that will have to undergo a lot of corrections and mistakes. There is ideological resistance in many sectors and this brings controversy. But that’s part of normal social debates Lolo, especially when it comes to new or controversial issues such as marijuana. How many initiatives and projects have been put on hold in our country to submit them to better analysis and implementation?
Does this mean that the central purpose of the project is flawed or inconsistent? Not at all. Social and political decisions need debate. The issue needs to be taken to the public, all angles should be analyzed, the source of our perceptions researched, the different ideas assessed (provided that they are based on serious studies), etc.
In the case of marijuana, there are other places apart from Uruguay where legalization (or at least decriminalization) works perfectly well. If we ignore this it is our business. Lolo: I have seen lives destroyed by drugs: by hard illegal drugs and also by those legal. I have seen many persons lose their lives to alcohol or smoking.I think that we have all seen enough to know the devil we are dealing with. It would be absolute nonsense to deny the excellent work of M.S. Ortiz Quesada, because anyone who is in that 9% is going to need people like her (I think that was made clear in the previous comment). Just as with alcoholics and tobacco addicts.
In addition, I have a six year-old daughter whom I adore, and I hope to leave her in a better world than the one I found. Believe me: what I say does not come lightly, or unconsciously. Now, this fight must be made based on knowledge and not from ideological fickleness.In the past, people were burned [at the stake] because others believed they were responsible for poor harvests or epidemics. Burning them never solved anything, despite the determination shown by the inquisitionists.
Putting our moral preferences above the evidence has led us to stigmatize people for the length of their hair, color of their skin, gender, sexual orientation, etc. The world is not on the right track when scientific evidence is ignored, my friend. That’s not the world I want for my daughter; definitely not. What is unequivocally bad must be prohibited and combated. But what is bad cannot only be defined from our ideological preferences.
–––––––––––––––-
Andrés – 12 de Septiembre del 2016 5:04:10 CDT
En lo personal reconozco la trayectoria y experiencia de la master María Esther Ortiz Quesada. Los resultados de sus investigaciones son muy importantes, pues no dejan duda sobre los riesgos asociados al consumo de la marihuana. Es algo que definitivamente debemos tomar en cuenta. Sin embargo, discrepo, respetuosa pero profunda y vehementemente, con sus conclusiones respecto a la legalización. Y también continúo discrepando con la lectura, a mi juicio totalmente unidimensional, que los medios en nuestro país le dan al tema. En mi opinión se privilegia deliberadamente una solo criterio sobre el asunto, incluso cuando se conoce públicamente que existen otras evidencias y otros estudios serios defendiendo un criterio distinto. Cuando esto sucede ya no se puede decir que estamos actuando de acuerdo con la evidencia sino de acuerdo a nuestras preferencias morales. Pero el asunto es que cuando actuamos así corremos el riesgo de estigmatizar a montones de gente por ninguna buena causa, y a desdén de la evidencia científica. Opino que en nuestro país existe una carga ideológica muy grande respecto al tema. Y creo que este es uno de los asuntos más peliagudos del debate en torno a la marihuana, y, para ser claros, no solamente dentro de Cuba. Por una parte es indiscutible que, como todo psicotrópico, legal ó no, hay riesgos asociados al consumo excesivo de la marihuana. Negar esto es una tontería y una ingenuidad. Existen riegos físicos (no adicción física) y psicológicos (incluida la adicción psicológica) conocidos, contra los cuales científicos como la master Ortiz Quesada han luchado toda su vida, y ese es un gran mérito, médico y científico. Todo esto adquiere mucho más relevancia cuando reconocemos que la probabilidad de crear dependencia y otros desórdenes psicológicos aumenta notablemente si los consumidores son jóvenes menores de edad, cuyas actividades cognitiva y cerebral están en pleno proceso de desarrollo. Esto puede ciertamente conducir a desórdenes a largo plazo. Todo esfuerzo (médico, social y legal) destinado a prevenir su uso en esta fase vulnerable es bienvenido. Sin embargo, soy también del criterio que nuestro debate en Cuba adolece de una fuerte falta de perspectiva. En primer lugar, se debe reconocer que se trata de un debate, donde existen opiniones serias y divergentes de alto nivel, las cuales deben ser sometidas al escrutinio público. Se debe tomar en cuenta la evidencia aportada por aquellos que piensan distinto. Es lo correcto en un debate científico serio. No podemos sencillamente tratarlos de “ingenuos” por tener otro criterio. Esta es una valoración de orden moral, que no responde a la evidencia. Es importante contextualizar el debate. Por ejemplo, hay estudios muy recientes que señalan que, de todos los consumidores de marihuana, sólo un 9 % termina desarrollando algún tipo de dependencia. Esto no es una cifra a despreciar pero, comparativamente hablando, no justifica la estigmatización, ni criminalización, de millones de personas adultas por su uso. Lo más importante es que este 9 % no está asociado solamente al consumo excesivo de marihuana, sino de otros factores. Los estudios hablan de factores psico-sociales claros que funcionan como factores de riesgo causales de la dependencia: personas con pocos logros académicos, relaciones familiares problemáticas (sobre todo con los padres, y la rebelión asociada a esto), padres con una historia de abuso de alcohol y drogas, etc. Existen motivos suficientes para crear estrategias sociales que combatan estos asuntos (naturalmente incluida la prevención), pero no existen motivos ni evidencia suficientes para culpar a la marihuana directamente de todos estos problemas. Por ejemplo, las investigaciones también hablan del hecho de que el consumo de marihuana no es una condición ni necesaria ni suficiente para explicar desórdenes como la psicosis. No se trata de promover a la marihuana, sino de poner las cosas en perspectiva. Me consta de la seriedad de los análisis de la master Ortiz Quesada, pero es que también existe una multitud de investigadores que piensan totalmente distinto, y los cuales también han dedicado décadas de estudio serio al tema. Ahí están, por sólo citar un ejemplo de la larga lista, las publicaciones del Dr David Nutt, un neuro-psico-farmacólogo y psiquiatra británico, especialista en el estudio de los efectos de las drogas, las adicciones, la ansiedad, etc. Esta es una personalidad de alto perfil, conocida entre otras cosas por sus conflictos con el gobierno británico, dada la persistencia de este último en crear un sistema de clasificación de psicotrópicos que nada tenía que ver con lo que la evidencia reporta de su efecto. El alcohol es colocado como menos dañino, cuando toda la evidencia apunta a todo lo contrario. No es raro que el Dr Nutt sea de la opinión de que se trata de una lista políticamente motivada y no de algo científicamente justificado. Ahí están los artículos de este investigador en la prestigiosa revista médica The Lancet, donde propone un nuevo sistema de clasificación basado en cuanto a su riesgo para la salud y su potencial de abuso. Efectivamente, la cocaina, la heroina, las metaanfetaminas, pero también el alcohol y el tabaco están bien alto en la lista. A la marihuana se le reconoce que no es inocua, pero se le ubica en perspectiva. También hay evidencia seria sobre su uso médico, incluso en el trato de afecciones de orden psíquico. Todo esto tiene implicaciones serias a la hora del debate sobre la legalización. Que hacemos con estas y muchas otras evidencias al respecto? Las ignoramos porque no nos gustan o no coinciden con nuestras preferencias morales? Cuando la master Ortiz Quesada compara la legalización de la marihuana con la legalización de las violaciones está incurriendo, en mi opinión, en una falacia asociativa inexcusable, que de facto criminaliza a millones de personas. La evidencia sobre el daño psíquico y físico asociado a una violación es indiscutible. Se puede decir lo mismo de la cocaína, la heroína y el crack, pero no de la marihuana, aunque no nos guste. No pueden establecerse equidistancias tan tendenciosas en este tema. Por otro lado, la evidencia no necesariamente apoya la idea de que la delincuencia se disparará con la legalización. Es precisamente su carácter no-legal lo que atrae a montones de elementos inescrupulosos a traficar con este producto. Un régimen de legalidad asociado a fuertes regulaciones públicas, pago de impuestos y normas de calidad difícilmente sea una ayuda para los traficantes ilegales. Recordemos que fue precisamente la ilegalización del alcohol en los Estados Unidos la que disparó el tráfico y el crimen organizado en ciudades como Chicago. Figuras como Al Capone encontraron su razón de ser en esta era. De momento, todo el que se tomaba un traguito estaba violando la ley, y la vida demostró su incoherencia (a pesar de lo dañino del alcohol). Es precisamente la necesidad de evitar la estigmatización y criminalización de millones innecesariamente lo que está estimulando el debate sobre la legalización del uso de la marihuana. Tratar de ingenuos a los que lo favorecen (aún cuando se apoyan en evidencias serias y sistemáticas) denota una preferencia moral, pero no es suficiente como argumento científico.
2
Jorge – 12 de Septiembre del 2016 8:04:13 CDT
Buenos días ante todo. Desconozco si la Dra. Ortiz Quesada leerá estos comentarios, pero no quiero desaprovechar la oportunidad de hacer saber que su programa es uno de los mejores de ese corte que he visto alguna vez en la TV, que para mi lo prepara y conduce excelentemente y más que felicitarla (que también lo hago) quisiera agradecerle por tan buen trabajo.
3
jpuentes – 12 de Septiembre del 2016 9:04:10 CDT
María Esther, la voz mas dulce y hermosa de todo el universo televisivo cubano. Si algun dia pudiera conocerla….
4
jpuentes – 12 de Septiembre del 2016 10:01:38 CDT
Excelente disertación de Andrés. No obstante quisiera comentar que este tema en cuestión, por menos que no se quiera, tiene una arista politica. Y que está sujeto a irse de control y acabar siendo un fenomeno social. Algo que hace algunos años era tabú y ahora viene a hacer como una revelación cientifica, viene a ser de cuidado, poniendolo en perspectiva, desde el angulo social y cultural. No se trata de politizar una “revelación cientifica” es que ya viene politizado, porque le toca, digo yo. Todo descubrimiento cientifico tiene un costo politico y social y esta en particular, su costo es de alto nivel. Sin embargo es bueno escuchar opiniones relativas, pero debemos ponerla en contexto.
5
Carlos Gutiérrez – 12 de Septiembre del 2016 11:37:52 CDT
Me sumo a los elogios a la Doctora Ortiz, PERO NO ESTOY DE ACUERDO CON LO QUE DICE EN ESTE ARTÍCULO. Estoy convencido que el alcohol es mucho más dañino que la marihuana y sin embargo es una industria floreciente.
6
jpuentes – 12 de Septiembre del 2016 13:28:02 CDT
Este articulo es un llamado a la cordura mediatica y cientifica: Los productores de Coca dicen que la Coca es “buena”. Los productores de chocolate blanco, dicen que el chocolate negro es dañino. Ahora los medios estan diciendo que el sexo en la tercera edad es malo, cuando hasta hace poco se decia que era “importante”. Se dice que hay bebidas aloholicas que son buenas para el corazón. Incluso se dice que el Wishkey, la Ginebra y el Vocka, el vino son buenos para la hipertensión y que el ron y el brandy no lo son. Cual es la diferencia…?. Que la musica de Mozart es buena para lograr un CI alto, que el tabaco Cohiba no te dá cancer de pulmones, en fin…Miren que comparar bebida alcoholicas con mariguana… a proposito: ahora las bebidas alcoholicas no se les llama así. Ahora son “espirituosas”. Vaya que para vender si que nos las arreglamos bien con los medios…
7
Lolo – 12 de Septiembre del 2016 13:58:28 CDT
Estimado Andres, creo que todos los que estan de acuerdo con la legalizacion de la marihuana o reciben beneficios economicos de esta, o son consumidores de la misma o nunca han tenido un hermano, un padre o un hijo que ha perdido la vida psicosocial o natural por esta causa y es hoy un vegetal o un ser totalmente despreciable que lo perdio todo en la vida o es comida para gusanos, la vida es algo mas que ser un adicto, un preso a un producto toxico que nos presenta un mundo que no es real y que para conseguir la felicidad o el placer nos conduce desde acciones violentas hasta suicidas que no solo afectan al individuo sino a la familia y la sociedad que le rodea, he visto jóvenes talentosos, con una vida buena por vivir que lo han perdido TODO por probar algo nuevo. En Uruguay legalizaron el consumo de la marihuana sin embargo este ha traido todos los efectos menos los deseados al punto de suspender la legalizacion por un tiempo indefinido hasta analizar otra vez la propuesta que hasta ahora ha sido un error en la practica, Cuidense de las sustancias toxica, no sean esclavos de un mal evitable. Se imagina que su hijo sea uno de los que esta dentro del 9% que usted dice terminan en adictos y esta adicción acabe con su vida y todo haya comenzado por un cómprala y consumamos de ella total es legal, algo nuevo y no todos se vuelven adictos y seguro que a mi no me va a tocar y la controlo, eso es como no usar condón, total a mi no me toca el sida. Abajo las drogas, legales o no, estas le quitan al hombre su parte de ser racional y las vuelve bestias sedientas de algo que nunca van a satisfacer o alcanzar. Soy joven, tengo un bebe de meses y nunca desearía que mi hijo viviera en un país donde las drogas se sirvan como alimentos o medicina y estén en el mismo estante que estas, no crees Andres, no veo ni un solo beneficio de legalizarlas, admiro a nuestro país por su seria política respecto a las drogas, mira que pasa en México, Colombia y veras el verdadero rostro de las drogas. Por cierto soy joven, 23 años, nunca nadie me prohibió el consumo de nada, solo que mi madre y mi familia desde muy pequeño me enseñaron que eran las drogas (me hablaron claro) y sus efectos-beneficios y yo decidí que opción era la mas inteligente y beneficiosa para mi, por suerte hoy no consumo ninguna sustancia nociva y vivo muy feliz y disfruto la vida a plenitud, miren a su alrededor y veran lo bella que es la vida y las miles de opciones para disfrutarla con nuestros amigos, familiares o pareja. Mi mayor apoyo a la doctora y a todos los que luchan contra este demonio, Saludos, alguien que abrió los ojos.
8
Luis Alberto Balcázar Bravo – 12 de Septiembre del 2016 19:44:38 CDT
He llegado a este artículo sin buscarlo, no era lo que investigaba, indagaba sobre la juventud, así llegue al diario de la Juventud Cubana y a este categórico artículo. Por la atosigante propagación que hoy se le da a esto de que la mariguana debe ser legalizada y despenalizada me ubicaba en el montón de que así debía ser. Dra. Acaba de convencerme con su sencillo pero contundente artículo de cruzarme a la otra vereda, y es que, solo hay que mirar con el rabito del ojo como decimos en nuestro país, para darnos cuenta de la realidad de cómo esta maldita plaga propagada por los carteles y apadrinadas por los malos políticos gobernantes las están diseminando por entre nuestros jóvenes, para dejarlos atrapados en ese oscuro hoyo sin salida. Al final del día eso es lo que persiguen, una sociedad convulsionada y una juventud sin reacción. Muchas Gracias.
9
Andrés – 13 de Septiembre del 2016 1:20:55 CDT
Ciertamente amigo jpuentes, hay una carga ideológica fuerte en todo el debate. Y es por eso importante que toda la evidencia se considere de modo crítico. Lolo: respeto tus convicciones y te invito a que revises la evidencia que existe al respecto. Muchas de las cosas que mencionas no están asociadas a la marihuana, sino a la cocaína, a la heroína y otras drogas realmente destructivas, como el alcohol. No se puede echar a todas en un saco como si fueran lo mismo, pues no lo son. Es cierto que la marihuana no es inocua (lo cual ha quedado claro en mi comentario de arriba), pero tampoco lo son el alcohol y el tabaco. Y sin embargo, la vida prueba que, a pesar de tener un impacto abrumadoramente más letal que la marihuana, el uso y abuso de estos productos está mucho más controlado de forma legal. Se trata sobre todo de hacer un análisis más diferenciado de todos estos asuntos. Por otro lado, la evidencia sobre el uso médico de la marihuana está allí, y si se conoce menos es porque la postura oficial de muchas naciones ha optado por la narrativa de la criminalización, y por ignorar todos los estudios al respecto. La evidencia, sin embargo, es abundantísima y no tiene nada que ver con pseudo-ciencia, sino de numerosos y prestigiosos investigadores que han dedicado décadas de estudio al asunto, y cuyos resultados han sido registrados en publicaciones de alto nivel. También hay estudios publicados en nuestra Revista Cubana de Farmacia, hecha por investigadores muy serios y rigurosos. Ignorar todo esto porque sencillamente no nos gusta es como cruzar la calle con los ojos cerrados Lolo. Por otro lado, casi todos los gobiernos del mundo han comisionado estudios sobre el tema, y los resultados no siempre han sido lo que han deseado. Muchos de ellos, a pesar de mantener el estatus ilegal de la marihuana, han comenzado a lidiar muy tranquilamente con el problema de forma más flexible y pragmática. Se dan cuenta que de lo contrario estarían criminalizando a muchísima gente normal por ninguna buena causa: gente que pagan impuestos, que cumplen sus deberes sociales, que respetan la ley, que cuidan de sus familias, que trabajan en la comunidad, etc. Esto sería muy lamentable desde el punto de vista social y político. Desde el principio de la revolución se dijo que Cuba tenía que ser necesariamente un país de hombres y mujeres de ciencia. Eso no se refiere exclusivamente a que nos vayamos todos a un laboratorio a ver microscopios, sino que además nos invita, como sociedad, a que adoptemos una postura racional ante cualquier conflicto o problemática que se nos presente. Y ese principio es una de las cosas que más orgullo me hace sentir de mi tierra. No somos una manada de fanáticos decidiendo de acuerdo a la bilis, sino que leemos, investigamos y tomamos decisiones con la mente en frío, de acuerdo a la evidencia, y sin claudicar a nuestros principios por ello. Si los líderes de la revolución cubana no hubieran obrado de ese modo, entonces no habrían sobrevivido. Ni ellos ni el proyecto social cubano. Mi pregunta, Lolo, es la siguiente: ¿desde cuando nos convertimos en un país que piensa con la bilis? Nosotros no somos eso. Razonemos. El asunto de Uruguay no prueba nada respecto al impacto de la marihuana. Por supuesto que va a ser una ley complicada que se tendrá que someter a montones de correcciones y entuertos. Existe resistencia ideológica en muchos sectores y esto trae polémica. Pero eso es parte de la normalidad de los debates sociales Lolo, sobretodo cuando se trata de cuestiones nuevas o controvertidas como esta de la marihuana. ¿Cuántas iniciativas y proyectos no han tenido que posponerse en nuestro país para someterlos a mejor análisis e implementación? ¿Significa eso que el objeto central del proyecto es fallido o inconsistente? Para nada. Las decisiones sociales y políticas llevan debate. Hay que llevar este asunto al público, analizar todas sus aristas, investigar el origen de nuestras percepciones, valorar las ideas distintas (siempre que estén basadas en estudios serios), etc. En el caso de la marihuana, hay otros lugares más allá del Uruguay donde su legalización (o al menos su decriminalización) funciona perfectamente. Si queremos ignorarlo es cosa nuestra. Lolo: he visto vidas destruidas por las drogas. Desde las ilegales fuertes hasta las legales. He visto a muchos, muchos, perder su vida por el alcohol, o por el hábito de fumar también. Creo que en el particular todos hemos visto lo suficiente como para saber con el demonio que estamos lidiando. Sería una tontería absoluta negar la excelente labor de la master Ortiz Quesada, pues todo el que esté en ese 9% va a necesitar de gente como ella (creo que eso también quedó claro en el comentario anterior). De la misma forma que ocurre con alcohólicos y fumadores de tabaco. Además, tengo una hija de seis años que adoro, y a la que espero dejar un mundo mejor que el que encontré. Créeme, que lo que digo no viene ligeramente, ni inconscientemente. Ahora, esa lucha debe hacerse desde el conocimiento y no desde la veleidad ideológica. En el pasado quemaron gente porque creían que eran culpables de las malas cosechas o de las epidemias, y eso nunca resolvió nada, a pesar de la determinación mostrada por los inquisidores. Poner nuestras preferencias morales por encima de la evidencia nos ha llevado a estigmatizar a la gente por el largo del pelo, por el color de la piel, por el género, por la inclinación sexual, etc. El mundo no va por buen camino cuando se ignora la evidencia científica amigo. Ese no es el mundo que deseo para mi hija; definitivamente no. Lo que es inequívocamente malo debe ser prohibido y combatido. Pero lo que es malo no puede sólo definirse a partir de nuestras preferencias ideológicas.
You must be logged in to post a comment.