BajaNomad - How to stop the drug wars (From the Economist)

How to stop the drug wars (From the Economist)

Bajaboy - 3-13-2009 at 06:07 PM

I've not been one to believe in the merits of legalization but this article makes some valid points beyond what I've heard or read before.

Zac

Failed states and failed policies

How to stop the drug wars
Mar 5th 2009
From The Economist print edition
http://www.economist.com/opinion/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_i...

Prohibition has failed; legalisation is the least bad solution

A HUNDRED years ago a group of foreign diplomats gathered in Shanghai for the first-ever international effort to ban trade in a narcotic drug. On February 26th 1909 they agreed to set up the International Opium Commission—just a few decades after Britain had fought a war with China to assert its right to peddle the stuff. Many other bans of mood-altering drugs have followed. In 1998 the UN General Assembly committed member countries to achieving a “drug-free world” and to “eliminating or significantly reducing” the production of opium, cocaine and cannabis by 2008.

That is the kind of promise politicians love to make. It assuages the sense of moral panic that has been the handmaiden of prohibition for a century. It is intended to reassure the parents of teenagers across the world. Yet it is a hugely irresponsible promise, because it cannot be fulfilled.

Next week ministers from around the world gather in Vienna to set international drug policy for the next decade. Like first-world-war generals, many will claim that all that is needed is more of the same. In fact the war on drugs has been a disaster, creating failed states in the developing world even as addiction has flourished in the rich world. By any sensible measure, this 100-year struggle has been illiberal, murderous and pointless. That is why The Economist continues to believe that the least bad policy is to legalise drugs.

“Least bad” does not mean good. Legalisation, though clearly better for producer countries, would bring (different) risks to consumer countries. As we outline below, many vulnerable drug-takers would suffer. But in our view, more would gain.

The evidence of failure

Nowadays the UN Office on Drugs and Crime no longer talks about a drug-free world. Its boast is that the drug market has “stabilised”, meaning that more than 200m people, or almost 5% of the world’s adult population, still take illegal drugs—roughly the same proportion as a decade ago. (Like most purported drug facts, this one is just an educated guess: evidential rigour is another casualty of illegality.) The production of cocaine and opium is probably about the same as it was a decade ago; that of cannabis is higher. Consumption of cocaine has declined gradually in the United States from its peak in the early 1980s, but the path is uneven (it remains higher than in the mid-1990s), and it is rising in many places, including Europe.

This is not for want of effort. The United States alone spends some $40 billion each year on trying to eliminate the supply of drugs. It arrests 1.5m of its citizens each year for drug offences, locking up half a million of them; tougher drug laws are the main reason why one in five black American men spend some time behind bars. In the developing world blood is being shed at an astonishing rate. In Mexico more than 800 policemen and soldiers have been killed since December 2006 (and the annual overall death toll is running at over 6,000). This week yet another leader of a troubled drug-ridden country—Guinea Bissau—was assassinated.

Yet prohibition itself vitiates the efforts of the drug warriors. The price of an illegal substance is determined more by the cost of distribution than of production. Take cocaine: the mark-up between coca field and consumer is more than a hundredfold. Even if dumping weedkiller on the crops of peasant farmers quadruples the local price of coca leaves, this tends to have little impact on the street price, which is set mainly by the risk of getting cocaine into Europe or the United States.

Nowadays the drug warriors claim to seize close to half of all the cocaine that is produced. The street price in the United States does seem to have risen, and the purity seems to have fallen, over the past year. But it is not clear that drug demand drops when prices rise. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that the drug business quickly adapts to market disruption. At best, effective repression merely forces it to shift production sites. Thus opium has moved from Turkey and Thailand to Myanmar and southern Afghanistan, where it undermines the West’s efforts to defeat the Taliban.

Al Capone, but on a global scale

Indeed, far from reducing crime, prohibition has fostered gangsterism on a scale that the world has never seen before. According to the UN’s perhaps inflated estimate, the illegal drug industry is worth some $320 billion a year. In the West it makes criminals of otherwise law-abiding citizens (the current American president could easily have ended up in prison for his youthful experiments with “blow”). It also makes drugs more dangerous: addicts buy heavily adulterated cocaine and heroin; many use dirty needles to inject themselves, spreading HIV; the wretches who succumb to “crack” or “meth” are outside the law, with only their pushers to “treat” them. But it is countries in the emerging world that pay most of the price. Even a relatively developed democracy such as Mexico now finds itself in a life-or-death struggle against gangsters. American officials, including a former drug tsar, have publicly worried about having a “narco state” as their neighbour.

The failure of the drug war has led a few of its braver generals, especially from Europe and Latin America, to suggest shifting the focus from locking up people to public health and “harm reduction” (such as encouraging addicts to use clean needles). This approach would put more emphasis on public education and the treatment of addicts, and less on the harassment of peasants who grow coca and the punishment of consumers of “soft” drugs for personal use. That would be a step in the right direction. But it is unlikely to be adequately funded, and it does nothing to take organised crime out of the picture.

Legalisation would not only drive away the gangsters; it would transform drugs from a law-and-order problem into a public-health problem, which is how they ought to be treated. Governments would tax and regulate the drug trade, and use the funds raised (and the billions saved on law-enforcement) to educate the public about the risks of drug-taking and to treat addiction. The sale of drugs to minors should remain banned. Different drugs would command different levels of taxation and regulation. This system would be fiddly and imperfect, requiring constant monitoring and hard-to-measure trade-offs. Post-tax prices should be set at a level that would strike a balance between damping down use on the one hand, and discouraging a black market and the desperate acts of theft and prostitution to which addicts now resort to feed their habits.

Selling even this flawed system to people in producer countries, where organised crime is the central political issue, is fairly easy. The tough part comes in the consumer countries, where addiction is the main political battle. Plenty of American parents might accept that legalisation would be the right answer for the people of Latin America, Asia and Africa; they might even see its usefulness in the fight against terrorism. But their immediate fear would be for their own children.

That fear is based in large part on the presumption that more people would take drugs under a legal regime. That presumption may be wrong. There is no correlation between the harshness of drug laws and the incidence of drug-taking: citizens living under tough regimes (notably America but also Britain) take more drugs, not fewer. Embarrassed drug warriors blame this on alleged cultural differences, but even in fairly similar countries tough rules make little difference to the number of addicts: harsh Sweden and more liberal Norway have precisely the same addiction rates. Legalisation might reduce both supply (pushers by definition push) and demand (part of that dangerous thrill would go). Nobody knows for certain. But it is hard to argue that sales of any product that is made cheaper, safer and more widely available would fall. Any honest proponent of legalisation would be wise to assume that drug-taking as a whole would rise.

There are two main reasons for arguing that prohibition should be scrapped all the same. The first is one of liberal principle. Although some illegal drugs are extremely dangerous to some people, most are not especially harmful. (Tobacco is more addictive than virtually all of them.) Most consumers of illegal drugs, including cocaine and even heroin, take them only occasionally. They do so because they derive enjoyment from them (as they do from whisky or a Marlboro Light). It is not the state’s job to stop them from doing so.

What about addiction? That is partly covered by this first argument, as the harm involved is primarily visited upon the user. But addiction can also inflict misery on the families and especially the children of any addict, and involves wider social costs. That is why discouraging and treating addiction should be the priority for drug policy. Hence the second argument: legalisation offers the opportunity to deal with addiction properly.

By providing honest information about the health risks of different drugs, and pricing them accordingly, governments could steer consumers towards the least harmful ones. Prohibition has failed to prevent the proliferation of designer drugs, dreamed up in laboratories. Legalisation might encourage legitimate drug companies to try to improve the stuff that people take. The resources gained from tax and saved on repression would allow governments to guarantee treatment to addicts—a way of making legalisation more politically palatable. The success of developed countries in stopping people smoking tobacco, which is similarly subject to tax and regulation, provides grounds for hope.

A calculated gamble, or another century of failure?

This newspaper first argued for legalisation 20 years ago (see article). Reviewing the evidence again (see article), prohibition seems even more harmful, especially for the poor and weak of the world. Legalisation would not drive gangsters completely out of drugs; as with alcohol and cigarettes, there would be taxes to avoid and rules to subvert. Nor would it automatically cure failed states like Afghanistan. Our solution is a messy one; but a century of manifest failure argues for trying it.

DENNIS - 3-13-2009 at 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajaboy
Prohibition has failed; legalisation is the least bad solution

This only shows the lack of creative thought put to this problem. If it's to be controled, those who need to be controled have to have reason to believe their future will come to an end if apprehended in the commision of a crime involved with drugs. What's left of their miserable lives will be spent in prison on a pick'n shovel job building freeways.
Pick..Pick...Shovel...Shovel...then, they die of old age. Bye Bye. So much for the garbage who have bathed our countrys in havoc.
They have to understand that their behavior will be their end.
If this isn't the solution, we're screwed. We are theirs. It's over for us.
Is that what you want?
Who has a better solution. Let's hear it.

fishbuck - 3-13-2009 at 06:35 PM

Somehow, I don't think Guzman is going to go for this plan. In fact my guess is he will spend a considerible amount of his 1 billion dollars to defeat it.

Iflyfish - 3-13-2009 at 06:35 PM

Bajaboy.

I am impressed that you would reconsider your opinion based upon information and then share your insight with us.

Thank you.

It is again clear to me that if you start with the wrong premise you will inevitably reach the wrong conclusion. We have been working with the wrong premise for a very long time. The article says it well.

One definition of insanity is to keep doing over and over that which does not work.

The first beer is on me when we meet.

Iflyfish

What wrong premise?

Dave - 3-13-2009 at 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Iflyfish
It is again clear to me that if you start with the wrong premise you will inevitably reach the wrong conclusion. We have been working with the wrong premise for a very long time. The article says it well.

That prohibition can work?

Without being the least bit creative I guarantee that I could design policies that would effectively prohibit drug use... Even among hardcore addicts. In the 1940's the U.S. won a war against fascism. Don't insult my intelligence telling me we can't win against drugs. We have the means...We lack the will.

bajalou - 3-13-2009 at 09:20 PM

Prohibition has never worked against anything.

We killed millions of fascists - do you plan on killing the 20+% of the US population that uses drugs?

Worked, didn't it?

Dave - 3-13-2009 at 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bajalou
We killed millions of fascists

Iflyfish - 3-13-2009 at 09:42 PM

"That prohibition can work?"

Yup, that's the premise. They recently found a bundle of marijuana that was being carried by a man some 2,500 years ago.

Marijuana is the largest cash crop in California right now. Who do you think is consuming all that guage? It is not being used to stuff mattresses. Is the current approach working? Will doing more work. What sort of state would be left if we escalate what we are now doing? A police state?

bajalou:

There are some who say we have just lived through a period of fascism in the USofA and the use of drugs only increased. It is not a lack of committment or resources being thrown at this problem that is keeping the use up.

Is this THE MOST IMPORTANT problem we are dealing with now? Or is our fear making us become reactive?

Iflyfish

Iflyfish - 3-13-2009 at 09:48 PM

Yup Dave, lets kill millions of Mexicans and Norte Americans in an attempt to stomp out this immoral behavior. Like killing for peace it seems to me.

Lets go after people who have affairs. These immoral people ruin families and destroy the lives of children. Lets do it like they do in the Middle East, stone the women and garret or shoot the men. Much more harm is done by divorce than by people smoking marijuana. Over 50% of marriages are ending in divorce and the impact on those involved is life long.

Iflyfish

Ifyfish

Sharksbaja - 3-13-2009 at 10:19 PM

Quote:

Dave said:
It worked didn't it

I guess corporal punishment is a good thang to some. Yes you can kill people who don't conform to your ideology if you have the power to do so.

Now, isn't that the thousand dollar question; what ideology is correct and less harmful to society.

Of all the people here I would not have guessed you would make a statement like that. You are Jewish aren't you? :?:

Frantic1 - 3-13-2009 at 10:44 PM

Drug users will find drugs. If they can't find their drug of choice, they will use something else. It makes so much more sense to take it out of the hands of the cartels and druglords and put it under government control, then sell it in the liquor stores or pharmacies and tax the heck out of it. The cost of the war on drugs would go down, the tax revenue would go up, and the federal deficit would disappear. The cost of incarceration of drug users would be deflected to treatment programs. I just don't see the loser in this equation.

Seattle's ex police chief Gil Kerlikowske has been names Obama's drug czar. He made possession and use of MJ the lowest priority for the Seattle PD when I lived there. His progressive views on the use of certain drugs is likely to influence US drug policy toward at least decriminalization if not legalization. Decriminalization would not take the cartels out of the equation, nor would it provide tax revenue. I think the best option is complete legalization.

The "War on Drugs" has been an obvious failure, costing taxpayers a fortune. We would all be safer if it were under government control rather than a highly lucrative source of revenue for the cartels.

Bajahowodd - 3-13-2009 at 11:31 PM

I must admit that I am pleasantly surprised that there are so many conservative thinkers on this forum who are, at the very least, open-minded with respect to the drug issue. Personally, I believe that the legalization, control and taxation of marijuana, will not only produce enormous revenues for the government, and will force the cartels to seek other employment. But, despite all the rhetoric about gateway drug, if marijuana was legally available, it would actually diminish the use of cocaine and meth. The ugly truth is that during the Nixon administration, marijuana was classified as a drug more dangerous than cocaine and meth, only because the Nixon folks were striking back at the so-called hippie movement that was adamantly against the Vietnam war. The pariah classification of pot was just plain political. Nixon hated the anti-war movement that was greatly supported by the young, mostly college students, who were somehow painted with the broad brush as being, (shudder), hippies.

ckiefer - 3-14-2009 at 12:44 AM

So, for those who are opposed to the legalization of marijuana, I ask: Are you also opposed to the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes? I'm talking about for those with terminal illnesses?Those who can no longer, because of their illness/disease, work, drive a car, etc. If you're still saying yes, do you have a terminal illness or know anyone who has? Would you deny your neighbor (providing you actually like your neighbor), the pleasure of enjoying what life they may have left because your view point of marijuana is clouded with erroneous propaganda? At the very least these individuals should be allowed to live out their lives in peace, and if mind altering substances are needed, allow them that small pleasure. Allow those individuals to grow their own stash, (I think most do anyway), but make that legal. Legalization is a win win in my opinion and I look forward to the day this happens.

Alcohol too is mind altering but it is legal and taxed. What the hell??? So that martini holds more class than a joint, or a brownie? Everyone likes brownies, no? Oh, and that Starbucks ice coffee....that's the new meth!

Marijuana should be legal to those 21 and over and controlled in the same manner as alcohol. But not "taxed like hell". Let California deal with the marijuana issue, and generate some much needed revenue! BUT Home Grown, not imports!

I have deliberately left out any references to smoking tobacco, as marijuana has such diverse delivery methods.

signed: me, another flower child...... :biggrin:

k-rico - 3-14-2009 at 07:44 AM

Some anti-legalization arguments:

http://www.sarnia.com/GROUPS/ANTIDRUG/argument/myths.html

I think it's true that this and other similar discussions wouldn't be happening if not for the recent dramatic increase in violence between the cartels themselves and between the cartels and the cops. What started all of this horror? It's like some President somewhere decided to go to war. I wish they would stop doing that.

I wonder what the criminals would do if in fact legalization put them out of the drug business. Would they become law abiding citizens?

I've heard that 400,000 people in Mexico put food in their stomachs, roofs over their heads, and clothes on their backs via the drug trade. I'm not saying that makes it OK, but it is a significant problem.

The amount of narco money flowing into Mexico annually is in the billions. If California lawmakers can change long standing criminal laws for apparently no reason other than to derive tax revenues, maybe Calderon should stop his war because, "hey, Mexico needs the money".

Bajahowodd - 3-14-2009 at 12:21 PM

k-rico- the link that you posted is to an article written by a member of the Family Research Council, which is a Fundamentalist Christian conservative think tank. I would have expected nothing less from the conclusions drawn in the article given their mission and their audience. Plus the article is 14 years old. However, I do thank you for posting it because open dialogue is a necessary fundamental to our democracy.

Bajahowodd - 3-14-2009 at 12:29 PM

On a separate note, not meriting a new thread, because it really doesn't apply to Baja, but still relevant to much of the discussion on this thread:

Is it always about the money? Many folks have noted that there could be tremendous revenue savings by relieving law enforcement of the burden of chasing after marijuana and increased tax revenues by the control of sales.

I do not seek to open a debate pro or con on the underlying issue, as it is hotly contested by sincere people. However, there is an article in today's paper quoting the New Mexico Attorney General as suggesting they do away with the death penalty. The case from which this derives involves the legislature's failure to fund the defense for the accused. Taken in context with many studies that show it is far less expensive to incarcerate someone for life than to fund the long appeals process. Again. Not looking to debate the issue. Was struck by the similar financial considerations as made in the pot legalization argument.

DianaT - 3-14-2009 at 12:34 PM

Good article---thanks for posting it Zac. It makes some very good arguments in favor of legalization----

It should have never been made illegal in the first place, IMHO.

Diane

WTF?

Dave - 3-14-2009 at 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sharksbaja

Of all the people here I would not have guessed you would make a statement like that. You are Jewish aren't you? :?:

Why would you consider my respect for and demand that others respect the law to run contrary to my religious beliefs? Jews were among the first people who codified law. It's ingrained in our DNA. Why do you think there are so many Jewish lawyers?

Iflyfish - 3-14-2009 at 01:24 PM

Dave,

There are so many Jewish Lawyers because their families survived the extermination strategies of governments that saw them as immoral and beneath human dignity. He was making an analogy between the two groups, marijuana users who are demonized and imprisoned by the state and Jewish people who were demonized and exterminated by the state.

Draconian measures like escalation of the "War on Drugs" ends in casualties, some innocent.

No offence intended, just couldn't pass that one up.

I am not surprised to find Conservatives who support ending this "War on Drugs". These people are the W.F. Buckley/B. Goldwater Conservatives who believe that the government has no place legislating morality or what we do in the privacy of our own homes. The problem is that a small, very radical element hijacked their party and moved their base away from their fundamental position of limiting government. The political continuum is a circle not a line as most believe with Conservatives on one end and Liberals on the other. It is actually a circle with Libertarians and Liberals sharing common beliefs in freedom from government interferance in what people do in their bedrooms and what they eat, smoke or drink. I hope that the Republicans return to their roots and requdiate the element that hijacked their party and their credibility.

Iflyfish

DENNIS - 3-14-2009 at 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dave
Why do you think there are so many Jewish lawyers?

And Rabbis...or is that just a coincidence.

Sharksbaja - 3-14-2009 at 02:08 PM

" Why would you consider my respect for and demand that others respect the law to run contrary to my religious beliefs"

Short answer: Because not all laws are right or appropriate for all. Should we have blanket laws? Should the coca farmers be annhiliated because our laws forbid it's use?

I don't perscribe to breaking laws but some are so antiquated and rediculous it's hard to take them seriously or even adhere to them.

It's the notion that because it is illegal that extreme measures like exterminating the demographic is justifiable.

I don't know but it seems that while executing Jews was not illegal to the N-zis I doubt it would be upheld in a World Court as a justified war act.

"Why do you think there are so many Jewish lawyers"

Because it's lucrative?

Lame

Dave - 3-14-2009 at 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Iflyfish
He was making an analogy between the two groups, marijuana users who are demonized and imprisoned by the state and Jewish people who were demonized and exterminated by the state.

Any legitimate State has the right to criminalize the use of any substance, be it cannabis or cooking oil. The N-zis criminalized the existence of a people. There is no analogy.

FYI, it was the study of the Talmud, not surviving the Holocaust that led Jews to the law.

That...and Jewish mothers. :rolleyes:

JESSE - 3-14-2009 at 02:09 PM

I have never understanded why far more lethal and addictive drugs like alcohol and cigarretes are legal, and marijuana, cocaine and others, are not. Why is watching a drunk stumble and puke on a street is perfectly normal, and smoking marijuana at home not?

The facts are clear, this is never going to be solved under our current system, why not control it, tax it, and make it less dangerous.

JESSE - 3-14-2009 at 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dave

Quote:

Killing people in order to enforce laws regarding what a state considers right or wrong, is just as bad as N-zis criminalizing the existence of certain people. I am frankly surprised about your opinion about this Dave. Jews where seen as inferior because of the beliefs of a large portion of german society. Did that belief give N-zis the right to kill Jews based on their views? isnt that very similar to killing someone just because a large portion of society thinks they deserve it in order to enforce what they perceive as good or right?

Bajahowodd - 3-14-2009 at 02:57 PM

The holocaust was perhaps the most recent example, and certainly among the most disgusting, but Jews have had to deal with discrimination, attacks, and second class citizenship throughout history. It seems they have been the poster child of focus by demagogues all around the world. I can understand when people lose hope, they can be manipulated to rally against the enemy without. But when it comes to Jews, Christians and Muslims, so much of the dogma has common origins. Just go to Jerusalem which is the confluence of all three. Rodney King said it......"Can't we all just get along?"

No, not even close

Dave - 3-14-2009 at 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JESSE
Killing people in order to enforce laws regarding what a state considers right or wrong, is just as bad as N-zis criminalizing the existence of certain people.

It's called capital punishment. Very effective in preventing repeat behavior.

What the N-zis did was incomparable to and worse than anything.

Iflyfish - 3-14-2009 at 03:07 PM

Dave,

"FYI, it was the study of the Talmud, not surviving the Holocaust that led Jews to the law."

So you think Moses was not bringing down laws with the big ten? Oy vey!

"It's called capital punishment. Very effective in preventing repeat behavior.

What the N-zis did was incomparable to and worse than anything."

Jessie is right, the difference is not one of kind but of degree.

Are you arguing for capital punishment for drug use?

Iflyfish

Bajahowodd - 3-14-2009 at 03:09 PM

Capital punishment is state sponsored murder. See any parallels?

k-rico - 3-14-2009 at 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajahowodd
k-rico- the link that you posted is to an article written by a member of the Family Research Council, which is a Fundamentalist Christian conservative think tank. I would have expected nothing less from the conclusions drawn in the article given their mission and their audience. Plus the article is 14 years old. However, I do thank you for posting it because open dialogue is a necessary fundamental to our democracy.

The significance of the information is not diminished. There were many information sources cited. See the footnotes.

14 years is a blink of the eye considering the age of this debate.

I wonder what side drug addicts would take? I'm addicted to cigarettes so I'm an addict. You know where I stand.

There's a middleground.

For example:

Yesterday on San Diego freeways there were many people driving 80 mph. Illegal, but very lightly (never?) enforced. It's a gray area.

Peaceful coexistence.

I gotta say I like the tax aspect tho. Then there would be money to spend on ad campaigns warning people not to do what was just legalized.

[Edited on 3-14-2009 by k-rico]

No

Dave - 3-14-2009 at 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Iflyfish
Are you arguing for capital punishment for drug use?

I prefer a more draconian approach. :rolleyes:

Bajahowodd - 3-14-2009 at 03:43 PM

One of the keener minds who posts here mentioned that the political spectrum is round and not linear. That libertarians and liberals share certain views. My concern that caused me to post a critique of the linked website is that as we all know, you can find ideas and quotes to suit your purpose. I will go so far as to absoultely agree that any intoxicant should be witheld from minors under all circumstances. But for adults, there should be a freedom of choice. And if I am recalling correctly the article on the link said something to the effect that freedom does not give the right to people to abuse themselves. If it does no harm to others, what is the problem? So, I'm thinking that the posters' agenda is that we should conduct our lives as they feel is the(ir) correct way.

That reminds me. Do you remember a time when it seemed like the freeways were teeming with CHP? Where they all go?

Bajahowodd - 3-14-2009 at 03:44 PM

Capital punishment is state sponsored murder.

You're repeating yourself

Dave - 3-14-2009 at 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajahowodd
Capital punishment is state sponsored murder.

Which should be a capital offense.

Damn. :rolleyes:

Bajahowodd - 3-14-2009 at 04:45 PM

It's the revenge factor that drives it. But Dave, you are correct.

BajaBruno - 3-14-2009 at 05:47 PM

A little background in the government involvement in supplying hard drugs to America may be in order....

In 1972, the CIA shut down an IRS money laundering investigation of marijuana and LSD dealer Allan George Palmer, because the bank he was depositing into was a CIA front bank operated to finance operations in Cuba, et al, with “off-the-books funds.”

As early as 1951, the CIA was taking money from Mafia gang leaders, chief among them Meyer Lansky, considered the bookkeeper of the Mafia, to finance operation in Thailand, Burma, and other regions the CIA was trying to either destabilize or retain control of. This money has been reported to come from the CIA actually transporting drugs from Burma via their front transportation entities, Sea Supply and Cat Inc. (later Air America).

In the 1990s Dennis Dayle, having retired as a top DEA investigator in the Middle East, told an anti-drug conference that "in my 30-year history in the Drug Enforcement Administration and related agencies, the major targets of my investigations almost invariably turned out to be working for the CIA."

In the late 1970’s, Neil Evans, representative in Thailand of Australian Bank Nugan Hand, said the bank “moved $50 to $60 million at a time for the CIA,” and told Australian television that the millions he handled were “garnered from the drugs transiting the area. The bank, he put it starkly, was a ‘laundry’ for Meo [Hmong] tribesmen and other poppy growers.” At the time, this was the largest supplier of heroin to the US.

In 2002, a former FBI translator complained that “Al Qaeda is financed 95% by drug money - drug traffic [furnishes 96% of Europe's heroin] to which the U.S. government shows a blind eye, has been ignoring, because it very heavily involves allies and assets of ours."

US troop commanders in Afghanistan have complained bitterly that they are prohibited from disturbing opium poppy fields in the country, and official US sources report that the Afghan poppy harvest is at record levels, after having been nearly eradicated by the Taliban.

In the 1990, DEA agents stationed in Thailand similarly complained bitterly that the CIA was protecting heroin flights out of the Golden Triangle so they could buy weapons from China and supply them to, of all people, Cambodian mass-murderer Pol Pot, who the CIA regarded as anti-communist.

++++++++++++++++++++
The examples could go on for pages, but my point is that the US government is a major supplier of hard narcotics to the US and European markets, while at the same time maintaining the pretense of a “War on Drugs.” My friends who are Marxist criminologists would say that the government uses drugs, just as it uses welfare, to keep the unemployed too high to revolt or riot. Whether true or not, it is quite obvious that the government, at very high levels, is unconcerned with illicit drug use and is probably just using the drug fight as a platform issue to get reelected.

Politicians have been very effective at vilifying drug users for their own purposes, but we all know a drug user and most of us can find him by looking in the mirror.

The idea that a government can outlaw anything, at will, is false. Buried deeply within US law (which we inherited from England) is the concept that the government must have a “legitimate government purpose” for the laws it enacts and we have courts to enforce that requirement. That the courts have let the government continue to imprison drug users, when the government itself is a major drug supplier, is a testament to the time-honored tradition of zealots to “let my conscience be your guide.”

DENNIS - 3-14-2009 at 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajahowodd
Capital punishment is state sponsored murder.

Over-taxation is state sponsored murder.

bajalou - 3-14-2009 at 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dave

Quote:

Originally posted by bajalou
We killed millions of fascists

You didn't answer the question Dave - do you plan on killing the 20+% of the US population that uses drugs?

[Edited on 3-15-2009 by bajalou]

Frantic1 - 3-14-2009 at 06:22 PM

@ k-rico

You are correct, many third world nations rely on drug cultivation to support their economies. There is obviously a big enough demand for the products that US companies could legally import it, using fair trade practices, which would continue to support the governments that rely on drug revenue. That would also have a financial benefit for the US by decreasing the amount of foreign aid we distribute.

Amazingly enough, pharmaceutical drugs, legally prescribed, are now among the most highly abused drugs in the US. Drug users will find drugs.

It just seems pointless to make them criminals as well as drug users. And it really seems pointless to spend a bunch of money on a drug war that has shown no progress since the 1960's.

As Dean might say:

Dave - 3-14-2009 at 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Frantic1
Amazingly enough, pharmaceutical drugs, legally prescribed, are now among the most highly abused drugs in the US.

"Ain't that a kick in the head?"

So we should legalize more drugs?

You people must all be stoned.

Would I?

Dave - 3-14-2009 at 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bajalou
You didn't answer the question Dave - do you plan on killing the 20+% of the US population that uses drugs?

No. But it wouldn't bother me none if you did.

Have at it.

ckiefer - 3-14-2009 at 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dave

Quote:

Originally posted by Frantic1
Amazingly enough, pharmaceutical drugs, legally prescribed, are now among the most highly abused drugs in the US.

"Ain't that a kick in the head?"

So we should legalize more drugs?

You people must all be stoned.

Now that was too funny!! :lol:

And who's pushing the pharmaceuticals? Big drug companies with their ads, and doctors who, yes, get kick backs. You know it's true! The difference is, pot for example is as good for you as apple pie (read with a southern accent). Grown from mother earth herself! Just a couple hits and you won't be reachin for that xanax! Now don't bogart that doobie, and pass it around! :spingrin:

Sorry, I just couldn't resist! :tumble:

Iflyfish - 3-14-2009 at 08:55 PM

"A little background in the government involvement in supplying hard drugs to America may be in order...."

Very interesting and informative post. I recall the plane crash reported by the San Jose Mercury News that contained drugs smuggled as part of the Iran/Contra drugs/guns deal. Seems to be clear parallels in this world of mirrors between Mexico and the USofA. This could be a major impediment to removing prohibition along with propaganda going back to the 1930s that have demonized marijuana and it's users.

Thanks for the post.

Iflyfish

Bajahowodd - 3-14-2009 at 11:14 PM

First off, I don't know where bajalou got the 20% figure. But assuming that is all who use illicit drugs, have any idea how many people are taking legal prescription drugs for so-called mood issues? Tens of millions. And often prescribed by doctors who make their own clinical decisions based more on big pharma pressure than on patient presentation.

So maybe anyone here taking Lexapro, Efffexor, Cymbalta, Zoloft, Paxil, Prozac, Wellbutrin or Lithium should excuse themselves from the debate about marijuana. Does anyone really think that any of those prescription drugs is safer than pot?

Sharksbaja - 3-15-2009 at 12:08 AM

That's just not fair!! :lol:

Dave , you seem to lump all drugs together. Can't we define them more clearly. From the standpoint of physical harm where would you place pot?

Safer than liquor and cigarettes? Safer than extasy and meth? Safer than all those prescribed mental drugs? Or not? Can that be an argument for legalization? I mean, what criteria do you use to say that pot users should be treated the same as meth users? Because they are both illegal?

I wonder how many people that use prescribed mood altering drugs actually have a medical condition. Life is full of stress for many. Should they not be allowed a toke but allowed to drink themselves to death or take handfuls of pills? :rolleyes:

I say each to their own. If you can't handle it get outta the woods. Have you ever met someone who couldn't manage their pot? If you have please tell me what happened.

One thing I have not seen are people dying from the ingestion of pot. Can you say that about any other drug, legal or not? I guess that's why they call it a "soft drug". What else can be called a soft drug anyhoo??

ckiefer - 3-15-2009 at 12:31 AM

Let's not forget these popular two: Xanax and Elavil
And has anyone really looked at the side effects of some of these "legal" drugs?

Xanax

Get emergency medical help if you have any of these signs of an allergic reaction: hives; difficulty breathing; swelling of your face, lips, tongue, or throat. Call your doctor at once if you have any of these serious side effects:
unusual risk-taking behavior, decreased inhibitions, no fear of danger;
depressed mood, thoughts of suicide or hurting yourself;
hyperactivity, agitation, hostility, hallucinations;
feeling light-headed, fainting;
seizure (convulsions);
urinating less than usual or not at all;
muscle twitching, tremor; or
jaundice (yellowing of the skin or eyes).
Less serious Xanax side effects may include:
drowsiness, dizziness, feeling irritable;
amnesia or forgetfulness, trouble concentrating;
sleep problems (insomnia);
muscle weakness, lack of balance or coordination, slurred speech;
blurred vision;
nausea, vomiting, constipation, appetite or weight changes;
dry or watery mouth, increased sweating; or
loss of interest in sex.
Side effects other than those listed here may also occur. Talk to your doctor about any side effect that seems unusual or that is especially bothersome. Side effects cannot be anticipated. If any develop or change in intensity, inform your doctor as soon as possible. Only your doctor can determine if it is safe for you to continue.

Elavil:

Older adults are especially liable to certain side effects of Elavil, including rapid heartbeat, constipation, dry mouth, blurred vision, sedation, and confusion, and are in greater danger of sustaining a fall.
Side effects may include:
Blurred vision, bone marrow depression, bowel problems, breast enlargement (in males and females), constipation, dry mouth, hair loss, heart attack, high body temperature, problems urinating, rash, seizure, stroke, swelling of the testicles, water retention
Side effects due to a rapid decrease in dose or abrupt withdrawal from Elavil include:
Headache, nausea, vague feeling of bodily discomfort
Side effects due to gradual dosage reduction may include:
Dream and sleep disturbances, irritability, restlessness
These side effects do not signify an addiction to the drug.

Pot

sudden uncontrollable laughter, a relaxed happy feeling, urge to raid your refrigerator, you start to salivate as you reach for those chocolate chip cookies, movies, people, pets are more interesting, other things I won't mention are more pleasurable than you remembered, you wake with no hangover, feeling alive, refreshed and ready for the day. :light:

'confuced'

nancyinpdx - 3-15-2009 at 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jdtrotter

It should have never been made illegal in the first place, IMHO.

Diane

Confucius say, "you stand on toilet, you high on pot!"

nancy

Pot makes you stoopid

Dave - 3-15-2009 at 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sharksbaja
From the standpoint of physical harm where would you place pot?

Why would I care about that? I care for my welfare.

I know how flocked up you can get. I know that legalization will lead to more use. I deal with enough idiots as is. Why would I want more?

Sharksbaja - 3-15-2009 at 01:06 PM

It sounds like you care a whole lot to me. Why else would you continue condemnation. It's not like anyone really cares how we feel about it. It's not like the majority of board members haven't tried it.

I guess they are all idiots eh.

edit fer stoopid sp.

[Edited on 3-15-2009 by Sharksbaja]

For the health of those who use illegal drugs?

Dave - 3-15-2009 at 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sharksbaja
It sounds like you care a whole lot to me.

Only if they get in my way.

Otherwise, not one whit.

Sharksbaja - 3-15-2009 at 01:53 PM

Well, I think you're safe then. I seriously doubt if some pot smoker will affect your daily life.

Probably a lot safer than some drunkin' Spring-Breakers! :lol:

Bajahowodd - 3-15-2009 at 01:54 PM

Maybe we should introspectively look at what is going on here. Is our country suffering from a mental health illness epidemic? Or has big pharma, in cahoots with the health care providers been selling us a bill of goods. Thanks, ckiefer for adding a couple of drugs I missed. Now get this statistic. The last year for which the data are available, 2007, there were 233 million prescriptions written for the aforementioned anti-depressant drugs, in the U.S. Something wrong with this picture.

Sharksbaja - 3-15-2009 at 02:06 PM

Hey, those are legal, so knock it off right now! :rolleyes:

oldlady - 3-15-2009 at 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sharksbaja

I say each to their own. If you can't handle it get outta the woods. Have you ever met someone who couldn't manage their pot? If you have please tell me what happened.

My son, when he was 17. He tried to kill me.

Bajahowodd - 3-15-2009 at 04:04 PM

Oldlady. I feel for you. I once had a dear, dear female friend, back in the days of college, who had an atypical reaction to pot, and became very belligerent, seeking physical combat with anyone near her. That being said, for the overwhelming majority of folks the effects of pot are to mellow-out. Check the various warnings on any prescription drug label, and it's a wonder that people take them. You know, like flu, headache,nausea, difficulty breathing, death. Fact is that anything we ingest will have an atypical and sometimes very negative reaction on some (peanuts). And reiterating something I've stated many times, I don't smoke pot, there are studies that show far more violent reactions in people who imbibe alcohol than who smoke marijuana.

Sharksbaja - 3-15-2009 at 04:55 PM

Whoa, I hope he doesn't drink. :no:

Honestly...

Dave - 3-15-2009 at 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sharksbaja
Have you ever met someone who couldn't manage their pot?

I've met few who could. I know I couldn't maintain worth caca. Couldn't drive, talk..nada. Didn't want to kill anyone but I'll bet there were some who wanted to kill me. :lol:

I would have no problem with anyone getting high in the privacy of their own home. But we know that's not how it goes down. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion...Would we? :rolleyes:

Bajahowodd - 3-15-2009 at 05:21 PM

Dave, that's where libertarians and liberals come to meet!

BajaBruno - 3-15-2009 at 06:14 PM

The assertion that legalizing marijuana, or any other drug, would result in higher consumption is not supported in the example of Prohibition.

Alcohol use was at historical lows before Prohibition.

Alcohol use jumped to historical highs during Prohibition and the alcohol use of women and children jumped dramatically.

After Prohibition, alcohol use dropped, though it has never reached the low levels of pre-Prohibition.

The other thing we are stuck with is organized crime, which was able to firmly establish itself in US society as a result of Prohibition.

Dave - 3-15-2009 at 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BajaBruno
The assertion that legalizing marijuana, or any other drug, would result in higher consumption is not supported in the example of Prohibition.

Because prohibition is a poor example. Users were rarely targeted. Only the supply side. Prohibition was a sham.

Most States severely penalize pot smokers. If penalties are removed usage will increase.

[Edited on 3-16-2009 by Dave]

Bajahowodd - 3-15-2009 at 10:54 PM

May not be correct, Dave. However, even if that is the case, users may just be converts from other illicit drugs. Netherlands legalized drugs 22 years ago. Last time I checked, Royal Dutch Shell was still among the largest oil companies in the world. Ditto for Phillips as a huge electronics company. Usage did not appreciably increase with legalization.

k-rico - 3-16-2009 at 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajahowodd
May not be correct, Dave. However, even if that is the case, users may just be converts from other illicit drugs. Netherlands legalized drugs 22 years ago. Last time I checked, Royal Dutch Shell was still among the largest oil companies in the world. Ditto for Phillips as a huge electronics company. Usage did not appreciably increase with legalization.

"Netherlands legalized drugs 22 years ago. Last time I checked, Royal Dutch Shell was still among the largest oil companies in the world."

Those two sentences are a perfect example of the meaning of "non sequitur".

[Edited on 3-16-2009 by k-rico]

wsdunc - 3-16-2009 at 09:51 AM

I have been for a long time firmly entrenched in the Legalize, Tax, Educate, Rehabilitate camp. And I used to hope that as the obvious failure of the "War on Drugs" became more apparent that the pendulum would swing and the new approach get a try. Depressingly, I think I have changed my mind about the possibilities of legaization, as I finally grasped the full size of the economy involved. There is too much money being made by too many powerful people who will not allow legalization. Or who at least will make it very hard to bring about change.
I enjoy reading the opinions from both camps. I do find it somewhat ironic that the more conservative opinions would seem to mesh quite well with the opinions of the cartels themselves.
A great book to get a feel for the size of the drug business is "Down by the River.

Bajahowodd - 3-16-2009 at 10:10 AM

Alas, many of us share your pessimism, wsdunc.

And k-rico- It was sort of an attempt at non-sequiturial hyperbole! :biggrin:

Really?

Dave - 3-16-2009 at 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by wsdunc
I do find it somewhat ironic that the more conservative opinions would seem to mesh quite well with the opinions of the cartels themselves.

The cartels want to punish illegal drug users? I thought they were their best friends. :rolleyes: