January 23, 2002

2:38 PM

Last week, the WTO ruled against a corporate welfare program for US exporters (again). This week, a Canadian hemp company claims the US owes them US$20m under NAFTA for harrassment and impinging on future returns.
posted by raaka (10 comments total)

Well, it's not pot!

I tried smoking some of that birdseed, and nothing. Not even a little buzz. The THC content must be close to nil...
posted by spnx at 2:45 PM on January 23, 2002

One of the NAFTA line items is a protection against legislative change impacting business. Example: suppose American company spends millions and sets up a whiskey distillery in mexico. Locals pass law outlawing whiskey distillery, forcing closure of the American company's plant. Under NAFTA, the Mexican government would owe that American company "fair market value" or some such, plus possible punitive damages.

Without this kind of protection, international business investment is too risky.

So the Canadians have NAFTA on their side in this one.

Hopefully this will be one more tremor in the quaking house of cards that is the irrational America's War on Drugs.
posted by yesster at 2:55 PM on January 23, 2002

Where's Art Vandalay, the world's leading importer-exporter, when you need him?
posted by Slagman at 3:34 PM on January 23, 2002

> Hopefully this will be one more tremor in the quaking
> house of cards that is the irrational America's War on
> Drugs.

Either that or else one more tremor in the quaking house of cards that is NAFTA.
posted by jfuller at 4:33 PM on January 23, 2002

Art has switched to dealing latex
posted by ArkIlloid at 8:47 PM on January 23, 2002

What's bumming me out is not being able to get the Jones beverage called "dave" since the DEA banned hemp foods.

I'm in B.C, and the DEA's ban on hemp products is affecting my choice of beverages in Canada. That's too much.

The DEA must be pretty screwed up to think that people will find away to get high from hemp.
posted by cburton at 9:29 PM on January 23, 2002

If you feel that way burton, you should get involved in this lawsuit. If the Canadian government doesn't back the claim, it'll either be settled out of court by the US or just fade away.

I read these events two ways: Golly, corporate globalization seems to be pushing the progressive agenda better than progressives; Gosh, the US doesn't seem to be as dedicated to free market ideology as it typically advertises.
posted by raaka at 10:15 PM on January 23, 2002

I'd go with B) raaka.

See the lumber dispute that's been going on for decades now. The US has imposed tarrifs, the WTO or NAFTA tribunal strikes it down, lather, rinse, repeat. ref1, ref2
posted by sauril at 11:03 PM on January 23, 2002

I read these events as a loss of national sovereignty. I don’t think enough can be said about how horrible the NAFTA dispute settlement provisions are.

Summing up the FSC tax law as a corporate welfare is a bit glib. The point was to try to correct America’s global tax scheme which makes it more difficult for corporations to compete without overhauling the tax system which is not possible for political reasons. Apparently the only reason Europe pursued the case was because they wanted leverage in their agricultural disputes (i.e. they want to continue buying small bananas).
posted by euphorb at 12:08 PM on January 24, 2002

The DEA must be pretty screwed up to think that people will find away to get high from hemp.

But it's not about getting high -- it's about sending a message to the children. The dear, sweet, precious children who can't possibly be expected to understand that marijuana gets you high while hemp does not. Good God, man, can't you see that?!?!
posted by Dirjy at 12:27 AM on January 27, 2002