Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
US Waves White Flag in Disastrous 'War on Drugs'
After 40 years, Washington is quietly giving up on a futile battle that has spread corruption and destroyed thousands of lives
After 40 years of defeat and failure, America's "war on drugs" is being buried in the same fashion as it was born - amid bloodshed, confusion, corruption and scandal. US agents are being pulled from South America; Washington is putting its narcotics policy under review, and a newly confident region is no longer prepared to swallow its fatal Prohibition error. Indeed, after the expenditure of billions of dollars and the violent deaths of tens of thousands of people, a suitable epitaph for America's longest "war" may well be the plan, in Bolivia, for every family to be given the right to grow coca in its own backyard.
Mexican drug dealers on the American border target local users because of the difficulty of smuggling. (AP) The "war", declared unilaterally throughout the world by Richard Nixon in 1969, is expiring as its strategists start discarding plans that have proved futile over four decades: they are preparing to withdraw their agents from narcotics battlefields from Colombia to Afghanistan and beginning to coach them in the art of trumpeting victory and melting away into anonymous defeat. Not surprisingly, the new strategy is being gingerly aired in the media of the US establishment, from The Wall Street Journal to the Miami Herald.
Prospects in the new decade are thus opening up for vast amounts of useless government expenditure being reassigned to the treatment of addicts instead of their capture and imprisonment. And, no less important, the ever-expanding balloon of corruption that the "war" has brought to heads of government, armies and police forces wherever it has been waged may slowly start to deflate.
Prepare to shed a tear over the loss of revenue that eventual decriminalisation of narcotics could bring to the traffickers, large and small, and to the contractors who have been making good money building and running the new prisons that help to bankrupt governments - in the US in particular, where drug offenders - principally small retailers and seldom the rich and important wholesalers - have helped to push the prison population to 1,600,000; their imprisonment is already straining federal and state budgets. In Mississippi, where drug offenders once had to serve 85 per cent of their sentences, they are now being required to serve less than a quarter. California has been ordered to release 40,000 inmates because its prisons are hugely overcrowded.
At the same time, some in the US are confused and fear that the new commission proposed by Congressman Eliot Engel, a man with a record of hostility to the Cuban and Venezuelan governments, may prove to be a broken reed. As he brought in his bill he added timidly: "Let me be absolutely clear that this bill has not been introduced to support the legalisation of illegal drugs. That is not something that I would like to see."
Part of the reason for the slow US retreat from the "war" is that the strategy of fighting it in foreign lands and not at home has proved valueless. Along the already sensitive frontier with Mexico the effect of US attempts to enforce a hard line by blasting drug dealers away has been bloody. Anxious to keep in check the flood of illegal immigrants into territory that once belonged to Mexico, Washington is building a wall and fence comparable to that which once cut through Berlin and that which is today causing havoc between Israelis and Palestinians.
In the areas of Mexico closest to the US frontier the toll of deaths in drug-related violence exceeded 7,000 people in 2009 (1,000 of them dying in January and February). This takes the death toll over three years to above 16,000, figures far in excess of US fatalities in Afghanistan. The bloodshed has continued despite - or perhaps because of - the intense US pressure on President Felipe Calderon to station a large part of the Mexican army in the region. It is deploying 49,000 men on its own soil in the campaign against drugs, a larger force than the 46,000 Britain sent to take part in the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003. But still the blood flows.
As in Colombia, where a multibillion-dollar US subsidy maintains that country's armed forces, there are well-founded suspicions that military operations are often rendered futile because the miserably paid local commanders and individual soldiers are easily bought off by drug dealers.
The quiet expiry of the "war" has dawned slowly on a world focused on the US's more palpable conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Last month, the US House of Representatives gave unanimous approval to a bill creating an independent commission to reconsider domestic and international drug policies and suggest better ones. Congressman Engel, a Democrat from the Bronx and the sponsor of the bill, declared: "Billions upon billions of US taxpayer dollars have been spent over the years to combat the drug trade in Latin America and the Caribbean. In spite of our efforts, the positive results are few and far between."
As far back as last May, Gil Kerlikowske, the former police chief of Seattle who was named head of the US Office of National Drug Control Policy and thus boss of the campaign, announced he would not be using the term "war on drugs" any more. A few weeks earlier, former Latin American presidents of the centre and right - Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil, Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico and Cesar Gaviria of Colombia - had told the new US President that the "war" had failed and appealed for greater emphasis on cutting drug consumption and the decriminalisation of cannabis.
For the lives and sanity of millions, the seeing of the light is decidedly late. The conditions of the 1920s, when the US Congress outlawed alcohol and allowed Al Capone and his kin to make massive fortunes, have been re-created up and down Latin America.
Mexico's President has not been afraid to point out to Washington that official corruption is at the root of drug trafficking in the US just as it is in Mexico. "I say we should investigate on both sides. I'm cleaning my house and I hope that on the other side as well the house is being cleaned," he said pointedly last April before President Obama came visiting.
Furthermore, President Calderon says that lax gun control laws in the US caused an influx of firearms into Mexico. He has declared that 90 per cent of the 30,000 weapons that government forces seized from drug dealers in Mexico came from north of the border. For their part, the Latin Americans, under a new generation of more self-confident leaders, are tired of being hectored about their failings by the US, the world's principal source of cannabis whose agents continue the drug dealing they indulged in during the Iran-Contra affair of the Reagan years.
Evidence points to aircraft - familiarly known as "torture taxis" - used by the CIA to move captives seized in its kidnapping or "extraordinary rendition" operations through Gatwick and other airports in the EU being simultaneously used for drug distribution in the Western hemisphere. A Gulfstream II jet aircraft N9875A identified by the British Government and the European Parliament as being involved in this traffic crashed in Mexico in September 2008 while en route from Colombia to the US with a load of more than three tons of cocaine.
In 2004, another torture taxi crashed in a field in Nicaragua with a ton of cocaine aboard. It had been identified by Britain and the European Parliament's temporary committee on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transport and illegal detention of prisoners as a frequent visitor in 2004 and 2005 to British, Cypriot, Czech, German, Greek, Hungarian, Spanish and other European cities with its cargo of captives for secret imprisonment and torture in Iraq, Jordan and Azerbaijan.
Given the circumstances, it is unremarkable that US strictures are being politely ignored. President Evo Morales of Bolivia - criticised by the US for defending Bolivians' practice of chewing coca leaves to assuage hunger and altitude sickness - wants to allow every Bolivian family around the city of Cochabamba to cultivate coca bushes for their own use. He also wants to export coca leaves to his country's neighbours. Mr Morales's authority, recently reinforced by winning a second presidential term in fair elections and by a strengthening of Bolivia's economy, has no need to worry about US criticism.
Venezuela and Bolivia have expelled US narcotics officers from their territory. At the end of last month, President Rafael Correa of Ecuador ended Washington's lease of a large air base on the Pacific from where US aircraft were engaged in the struggle against the region's increasingly powerful left.
This year should be the year that common sense vanquishes the mailed fist in an unwinnable war against an invisible enemy.
- Posted in

78 Comments so far
Show All"This year should be the year that common sense vanquishes the mailed fist in an unwinnable war against an invisible enemy."
Is it that OR are they needing to put THAT wasted money into the wasted money in the Middle East empirical "surge"?
- US Waves White Flag in Disastrous 'War on Drugs' -
Anybody see any white flags?* I mean, this can't be a 'nuanced and intelligent new strategy, unlike the last 8 years'.
Now, because it's Mr. Obama in our WHITE house, it's portrayed as surrender monkey time.
Another MIC-leading article giving MIC-spin in order to create MIC-news.
* to see any, one must go to Congress. The best viewing time is when the suits come a'calling and feeding time begins.
Last year I derided messaging movements supposedly designed to reach Santa Obama and beg of him that he withdraw troops from here and there.
I did so because the President is trapped as we are in this DAFT war. If he ever withdrew troops from a battlefield, he would be accused of surrendering.
Now, where have I heard of that, recently?
The way to end the insanity is to end the law that started the war.
The American people need to end the war* and show our MIC-masters that we won't surrender to them.
* the only war, DAFT. Using 'war on drugs' only cheapens the term and makes the ideas vaguer and harder for people to grasp, thus abetting their perpetuation.
A book I read once stated that Nixon ran the only hamburger stand in the South Pacific during WW 2.
With the 'war on drugs', Tricky Dick was trying to name a new enemy so that he could lead the fight against it and be the hero that he wasn't.
Probably "tricky Dicky" was working his balls off to support his sickly parents and get through college.
The only thing Nixon ever worked at was perfecting his ability to lie.
Well, this is quite a concoction by the Independent. I'm not sure it'll really stand. The best bet on the backing off- besides the deficit- is that it has something to do with the fact that so much of the proceeds of the international drug trade is laundered through American banks- as is all of the world's black market- and we are not talking about another bailout anytime soon so their cash balances have to be secured. Probably when Federal examiners looked into Bank of America's books the stark reality hit them in the face and presented them with a limited number of options, at least for the time being. Maybe when and if the economy gets humming they can get the war started again... its just a question of finding a few crack-head horror stories. After all, its been a big part of the political portfolio of the Parties since the time of George Wallace and essential to keeping labor and minority groups "in their place".
The other big problem is in Afghanistan. The opium trade supports all comers there and trying to suppress it just screws EVERYTHING up on both sides. The Iranians don't like they way we have started to pretty much "forget-about-it" and talk about making a deal with the Taliban. They say the trade has grown 3 or 4 times larger then ever before and is a domestic threat to their regime.Maybe the American thinking is that opening the market completely will depress prices enough to hamper "the insurgents", other rebel groups and cartels. Thus it could be defended as a temporary, tactical measure. Will the Republicans go along with this now that the 'cat is out of the bag'?
Will all the reactionaries among the Democrats ? Will the main stream media pick-up the story?
(deleted)
Probably the main impetus is that the agents are being ousted by the populist governments.
Unlike every other Obomber policy, the release of fed pressure on MM makes me hopeful that there might be some other positive occurrences in the area of now illegal substances.
This is the first I have heard of the crashing CIA coke planes, where is the outcry and accountability?
Imagine how much herion is being returned from Afghanistan.
Keep in mind the precursors for heroin arrive in tanker trucks in tandem with USA military convoys through the Kyber Pass.
How much heroin can a Blackwater maintained Drone carry?
I wonder if Blackwater, since they've been 'immunized' against prosecution for such things as mass murder and terror (abroad as well as here at home - see Katrina), is also immunized against prosecution for smuggling Afghani opium, or herion - since the word is out that Afghanistan is doing 'value added' manufacturing now.
There was an article just the other day about Xe and the CIA, wondering if they're still working together even though they've been ordered to disperse. I mentioned that Xe (Blackwater) probably is a creation of the CIA because they're even more free from legal prosecution and liability than the CIA, if that is even possible. Considering that the CIA has built many front corporations and investment scams, banks (BCCI in particular), as well as terrorist armies, it isn't a very large stretch to imagine this. They were even involved in one or two bank failures (or three - see S&L failures in the late 1980's), and likely a built or infiltrated few churches as well (another nice way to create a tax-free cash flow), it would only make sense if Xe were one of their creations, and was helping to import heroin from the ME. It isn't as if this sort of precedent hasn't already been set in Vietnam and other places.
But then I'm sure it's just my left-wing paranoia acting up.
"This is the first I have heard of the crashing CIA coke planes, where is the outcry and accountability?"
Since you seem to be generally well informed and its the first you've heard then how widespread do you think the information is? I'm pretty sure it hasn't been in the US mainstrem press. In fact googling "cia plane crash drugs" yields only one mainstream article on the first page and that is collateral damage from the CIA "war on drugs".
Daniel Hopsicker was reporting on CIA drug planes for at least five years now. The Mexican govt. seized one some years ago (and this one didn't crash). It was quietly hushed up, and deals were made.
This is not new. It even has a close relationship to the owner of one of the airfields the alleged 9/11 hijackers trained at. The owner was Dutch (later fled the country), and was freed without charge after one of his own planes was found to contain the largest shipments of heroin in Florida History.
I guess I shouldn't be amazed that this is only now making headlines. I should probably be surprised it's making any kind of news at all.
You know how sometimes you're driving somewhere and if you lose concentration you drive somewhere else automatically?
I hate when that happens.
---------
- Mexico's President - "...I'm cleaning my house and I hope that on the other side as well the house is being cleaned," he said pointedly last April before President Obama came visiting. -
We need to clean the House of Congress. Let's all get on the Spring cleaning Crusade!
Everybody cleans. Sweep out the House in 2010.
And 1/3 of the Senate!
If this is actually true, and I don't really see that it is, it will be one of the greatest things to happen to this country in decades. Nixon's hypocrisy in this instance is just mind boggling. According to the records of his meetings with (I believe) Billy Graham, he was talking about drinking, which he did. His statement is that "No one drinks to get drunk, but people smoke pot to get high". Brilliant, isn't it?
There is absolutely NO difference between this prohibition and the one we lived through in the 20's. The generation of those people who grew up during those years was called "the lost decade". What a shame that such things aren't driven hard in our history classes, because that ignorance allowed us to live it all over again, this time for 5 TIMES the length of that one.
I was busted two years ago for having my own garden, with less than 1 decent plant and a few crappy ones. I got two years of probation and had to pay the county nearly $3,000 in fines, probation bribery and UA and breathalyzer tests (in spite of the fact that I haven't had a drink in 25 years). It cost the county nearly $2,000 for a 5 minute trial, and God only knows how much for the 12 armed and masked goons that were swarming all over my yard, threatening me and my cat. The Keystone cops looked like real professionals compared to these losers. The head detective thought it was all really funny. Said so many times during the course of the thing.
And what did this actually HELP? What did they actually save society from? A GARDENER? Whose life did they save? Whose life did they actually make better? Only the shit heads in the probation office, which is a FOR PROFIT business. It doesn't contribute a goddamned thing to society, other than taking money OUT of it. Laws should ONLY be passed if they make society BETTER. By hurting me, when I wasn't bothering anyone anywhere, they didn't help my neighbors, they didn't help the community, they didn't help ME. Other than amusing a little bully of a detective, I don't see any benefit to society at all. the whole thing was a complete waste of time, effort, money and two years of my life.
And BTW, Colorado HAS a medicinal cannabis law, but depression (something cannabis has been prescribed for for over 4,700 years) isn't on the list of things they will let you have it for. Prescription drugs kill 200,000 Americans a year, a full 10% of which are due to anti depressants and anti psychotics, the very things they wanted to shove down my throat at an alarming rate (damn near everyone I talked to in this debacle wanted to put me on pills). Cannabis has never killed a single human being in humanity's history.
Colorado, in 1985, spent $70 million a year on the DOC. Now, after the last 25 years of for profit prisons, we spend $770 million per year on it. Some savings, eh? What a lie it was that such stupidity would save the state money. At the same time, we are 49th in education spending, and that isn't gong to change places until we stop putting conservative authoritarians into office. These are the people who were little tattle tails in elementary school, and they never grew out of it. Time for them to go HOME and stay there. We've done it their way, now it's time to clean up the messes they gave us, apologize to those we've screwed over the last 50 years of stupidity, and grow some priorities.
Nixon was a paranoid. Reagan had Alzheimer's, as is evidenced by his policies and their effects on the country. HW lied about buying crack in Lafayette park across from the white house. He had to set it up to buy it there, the dealer didn't even know where Lafayette park WAS. Clinton was so afraid of the "I didn't inhale" comment that he would never do anything about it. And W had Cheney, who owns a LOT of stock in prison companies.
It's time to stop taking a problem and making it worse. Yeah, the prison guards love prohibition. It gives the pot smokers to watch instead of REAL criminals. The cops love it because it gives the the power to go around fucking with minorities and anyone else they want. Ask the cops in Alaska what happened when they made cannabis legal for ten years. They will tell you that NOTHING CHANGED other than they weren't arresting people for cannabis anymore. They didn't have huge increases in impaired driving, they didn't have huge increases in crime, they didn't have any increases in violence. They just stopped wasting state money on cannabis.
Time to end this stupidity, once and for all. If someone has a problem with a substance, then get them help. It's FAR more effective than being an asshole about it and forcing them into jail. All we've been doing for the last 50 years is to be a country of assholes, taking people with health issues and making them criminals. Really has helped things out, hasn't it Recognize it for what it is, stupidity and just mean spirited, unsustainable bullshit.
But, all that being said, I don't believe anything will change. Too much money making too much noise with the same old lies that we all KNOW are lies, but no one in power seems to have the courage to admit.
WJM 11:57 ----- I agree with you but I am highly dubious that POTUS would not merely ask a security agent for anything he wanted.
Unless he wanted the action of a street purchase.
Then you don't remember the speech that HW gave, where he flashed a huge bag of crack, and showed us all the problem, telling us that it had been bought by agents right out in front of the White house. he was trying to scare people into even more draconian drug laws, when the reality is that they had to give the dealer directions for how to get to the white house so they could make the buy. It came out less than a week after the speech. He DID want the street purchase, and wanted it in a specific location, so it would seem even more insidious than it was.
Hell, he should have just asked the CIA for it. Crack is THEIR invention, after all. They had at least one plane shot down back during the Iran/Contra BS that had tons of coke in it, coming back from Central America. You don't think that those planes would come back EMPTY, do you? If you're running guns down, it's a simple matter to fill it back up with drugs, and since you have gov't clearance, you can fly wherever and whenever you want.
You can disagree with me all you want, but history says I'm right. I remember it well. It was ugly, stupid and disastrous, and nothing more than an advertisement for the latest bit of fund raising for the feds. Think of it. A "new" drug, more addictive than the old one, aimed at the lowest income sector of society where they could go and bust people who had NO recourse against it. More profit for the prison industry, less minorities on the street, looking for work, and since you're running down to South America anyway, it's a hell of a loop. And profitable for the feds all the way along.
We can thank the CIA for the fact that people like 'Freeway' Ricky Ross replaced people like Huey Newton as 'community leaders'. Tell me that isn't a deliberate act of chemical warfare against political enemies. (rhetorical)
H.W.'s own drug czar was involved in cocaine smuggling. The WOD isn't meant to resolve any public health problems, it is meant to keep drug prices at black market prices.
"There is absolutely NO difference between this prohibition and the one we lived through in the 20's."
True, drug prohibition didn't begin with Nixon. He just ramped it up with the passage of the Controlled Substances Act and subsequent creation of the D.E.A. (He did this as a direct assult on the "counterculture aka hippies.) Drug prohibition begin in 1914 with the passage of the Harrison Narcotics Act with Harry Anslinger being the head of the Federal Narcotics Bureau. Anslinger, being the bigotted motherfucker he was and seeing a lucrative job possibility with the federal government basically created the hysteria to garner the votes to pass the Harrison Act by promoting fear through rascism (the blacks, mexicans, and chinese are gonna rape your white daughter while on drugs) and a lot of lies. This was with ALL drugs ("marihuana" with Mexicans, heroin/opium with the Chinese immigrants, and cocaine with blacks) in one way or another.
Anyone who does any research on the true effects and damage caused by most prohibited drugs will find that they have been fed a slew of lies their entire life. Alcohol and tobacco, probably two of the most dangerous and destructive drugs around, are the ones that remained legal. Most know now that marijuana is basically harmless and completely non-addictive physically. What most people don't know is that even heroin in pharmaceutical grade and known dosages is relatively safe. Researchers in Switzerland, where heroin has been legally dispensed to addicts in maintenence programs since 1994 (the law was made permanant last year because of the success of the program) have found that regular heroin use, if the drug is of pure pharmecuetical grade, does no physical damage even over a lifetime of regular use. Further, most overdoses attributed to heroin usually also show the presence of another drug besides heroin. So...heroin, this demon drug, is actually safer thaan alcohol or tobacco if taken in pure, known doses. Drug prohibition causes almost all problems associated with its use, not the drug itself. Countries such as Switzerland have more than proven this.
Drug prohibition is a policy based on misinformation, fear, and religious morality. Jimmy Carter once said that a law should not cause more damage than it prevents. Drug laws do cause far more damage to the lives of users than do the drugs themselves. Almost all currently prohibited drugs, in pharmeceutical grade, are as safe or safer than the two drugs currently legal. The damage comes from prohibition. Prohibition forces drugs into the black market where there are no controls over who uses them or what the drugs contain. They ruin the lives of users through draconian laws with draconian punishments and dangerous impure drugs.
Mr. Obama. Stop this war and stop it now. You are supposed to be a Constitutioal Law Professor. Do your job and enforce the Constitution. You know damn well the intent of the Commerce Clause has been twisted beyond recognition to justify this war. You are creating crime and destroying the lives of people who merely decide what they wish to ingest for recreational purposes. Take the resources used in the drug war and apply them to an area that would truly benefit society. Eliminate the jackboots at the DEA and move them into the financial crimes that are destroying this country. Call it the F.L.E.A. (Financial Law Enforcement Administration) and use it as agressively against financial criminals as you currently do against those who just wish to alter their mind in the manner they wish.
Oh, WJM...I recently saw a taped interview between Nixon and Art Linkletter (whose daughter was said to have jumped out of a window during an L.S.D. "trip" when in fact she hadn't used the drug for over 6 months when she committed suicide because of abuse by her father) where the two were discussing the virtues of getting drunk over getting high on marijuana. They were also discussing the Pope's responsibility for homosexuality. The interview was beyond hilarious. I will try to find a link and provide it. Sorry to hear about your run in with the drug worriers.
Harry Jacob Anslinger (May 20, 1892 – November 14, 1975) held office as the Assistant Prohibition Commissioner in the Bureau of [alcohol]Prohibition, before being ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger
this guy was about to loose his job and saw an opportunity to extend it.
he was an asshole.
You're not kidding. One thing some don''t know is that Anslinger was related to William Randolph Hearst by marriage. Hearst had several hundred thousand acres of pulpwood forest to be used in making paper. In addition, he *HATED* Mexicans because of some land he lost when we were at war with Pancho Villa. Of course Mexicans and marijuana were linked in Mr. Hearst's mind. Colaberating with Anslinger, he was able to help pass prohibition of "marihuana" as the hemp was in direct competition with his pulpwood business. Also...John D. Rockefellar was involved with prohibition (both marijuana and alcohol.) Henry Ford's first automobile was designed to run on ethanol. At the time, one of the major sources of ethanol was hemp. Rockefellar had found that gasoline, a waste product from his refineries, could be used instead of ethanol to run cars and had an opportunity (an understatement considering how much gasoline is now sold). He was able to convince Henry Ford to redesign the engine to run on gasoline as a main fuel, and with hemp outlawed and alcohol prohibition in effect...well, you know what the end result was.
Frankly, Harry Anslinger would make today's politicians proud. He was a lier and bigot of the first degree. I just wonder how many people wish they could bring him back just so they could kill him again, this time more painfully and without the benefit of painkilling drugs. I'll bet Anslinger, Nixon, and Reagan are just waiting in Hell, setting a place at the table for Poppy Bu$h. Fuck 'em all.
I was not aware of the interesting hemp/gas conflict.
I believe the first Diesel engine was designed to run on hemp oil.
One of Ford's cars had a body made of an early hemp-based plastic.
This conflicted with Dupont Chemical's designs and they also joined the weed witch-hunt.
google image: henry ford hemp car
I had heard that about both the diesel engine and Ford's plastic body car. And yes, the DuPont Co. was also involved in marijuana prohibition. It seems as though the plant was outlawed for every reason *except* health reasons.
FYI...if you are interested, here is an article that pretty thoroughly describes the process in which our beloved weed became outlawed. http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/
As I recall, it doesn't go into Henry Ford's ethanol engine but is a very good article for those who you wish to educate on the issue of marijuana prohibition. Actually, the entire blog is pretty decent and Pete, the blog owner, does a lot to fight drug prohibition in general.
Take care my friend!
Hey, Bro - I hear you. You are obviously angry - you have a right to be. I am angry, too - really angry. This insanity, called the US government, has got to go! Let's help it to happen.
It is nice to think that one day our government would make a decision that would cause something positive for the average person. It is nice to think..............
My gut reaction is that the author must be smoking something to think O'bummer is going to end the "war on drugs". Realistically, given the cowardly politicians that created and maintain this stupidity, the best case is that all the infrastructure and crappy body of laws remains in place except no one shows up any more to use or enforce it.
I suppose that's the way all of this fascist garbage will slowly fade away as America goes bankrupt. There will be no dramatic announcements or explicit changes of policy - just quiet notes buried in the back of newspapers about how this prison is closing, or that far-flung imperial base is being abandoned or "shuttered temporarily" etc.
And if that's the case, well, better than nothing. What was always needed in regard to these stupid wars on nouns was a face-saving way for politicians to walk away from the obvious catastrophic wreckage without having to admit they were wrong or appearing "soft" on drugs/terror/military matters. If burying the story works, f*ck it - bury the story.
My occasionally-munchified gut had the same reaction.
When a baggie of harsh, trashy buds loaded with sticks, stems, and seeds drops to about a tenth of its current $400/oz price, I'll believe that Victory is at hand.
Whoops, I guess I mean "Defeat" is at hand.
· Yr Obd't Servant
shit!
I thought £45 per quarter was steep!
and that's for buds.
bring back the ten buck lid!
Well, once you account for the impact of inflation, I don't think the price of pot has gone up at all. (at least in Canada) It was 60$ for a quarter thirty years ago, and it's still $60 a quarter, sometimes it goes up to $65.
I'll believe the wo some drugs is over when the cops stop busting people...
Hemp Rules!
Oh, don't forget that according to the latest poll I saw, 75% of all adults in this country are on some prescription drug or another. So a "war on drugs" should look at that and see it as a major problem. I do. It's one reason why 200,000 of us lose our lives to them every year. Less than 20,000 die from ALL the illegal drugs combined every year. What do you think is the REAL problem?
Legal drugs are the bigger problem. "We" are losing our market share in illegal drugs and the cost of doing business is going up. But not with legal drugs. "We" are the market, and through government buy-ins we are decreasing our costs, with the side benefits that legality means more profit with less risk.
The stats on legal drugs are scary. Two examples, the most prescribed drugs are now antidepressants - and when can we ascribe the indifference of our society to being drugged as opposed to not caring on the natch? And, children are being put on drugs at an alarming rate, with poor children being drugged at taxpayer's expense of about $400 a month. If you are in big pharma - it's all gravy.
Then there is the story on the internets, not thought big enough to make teevee, about the FRAUD of the swine flu vaccination, at cost of $4bn in the last guesstimate I saw. All that scaring people, all that waste of teevee BREAKING NEWS scaremongering so that some of Obama's fat cats could get a little fatter.
While watching CNN coverage of Haiti in the day or two after the quake, they had been filming at night when people suddenly started to get up and run away. CNN continued coverage and told us what had happened: some thieves had deliberately scared those already traumatized people into fleeing for their lives by yelling a tsunami was coming so they could steal the few possessions that had and left behind in their panic.
These are the dregs of humanity; those who prey on other humans in their most vulnerable moments. And while I am making the analogy between Haiti and the global scare on swine flu, the suited pharma execs are far worse both because of the scale of their crime and the fact that they had no survival need that could be held out as a mitigating excuse.
The legal drug industry... I don't know what you call legalized organized crime.
Most pot smokers are already somewhat less than respectful of laws that aren't worth the paper they're written on. This automatically brands them as seditious pinko commie anarchist terrorists, as far as those on the 'right' are capable of thinking.
I see no reason to hope that the Drug War is overwith, specifically because of the amount of money involved in fighting it (much less selling it). Would Dick Cheney willingly give up his right to profit from attacking, incarcerating, and entirely removing from the political process, his political enemies? I think not.
But then we should ask ourselves who was most prepared to profit from repealing prohibition in the early 1930's? How many gangsters went 'legit' and took their profits to Wall St. (where deregulation had already made it a loot-fest)?
"How many gangsters went 'legit'"
Its well known that the Canadian house of Seagram went legit in the US (as well as already being legit in Canada).
I guess we must have been more independent in the 20's since the only reason cannabis is still illegal in Canada is due to the US influence.
It's not over, this is a source of MAJOR funding, according to history.
The article never talks about WHERE the drugs consumed will come from did it?
Either you buy it legally or black market. If it's black market the profiteers are still at work. Let's see WHO controls the present market?
Can't say for sure, but I've been told that the majority of today's SMOKE is domestically grown. Of course when you start talking about the 'manufactured' drugs, they have to start from outside the US for the most part. Best bet, stick with what God provided...
I'm talking about the big money drugs like big H.
Unfortunately the Mexican cartels have moved in a major way into American domestic production. Growing it in national forests. They are also involved in distribution. The only way around this connection is to legalize home growing.
Gary
If you think big pharma will allow the decriminalization of pot, then I want some of what you're smoking.
"Look! Stars! I'm ready Rouel!" -Roger Rabbit
Actually, it is the lawyers association that has the biggest iron in the fire. They have consistently pushed to maintain illegality, since they make money on both sides of the fence... Decriminalization WILL come I believe though... too much good home grown to stop it all....
Wrong. Big Pharma is going to make more money than Phillip Morris on this. Do you know anyone that rolls their own cigarettes or grows tobacco?
Big Pharma thinks ahead. State and Federal government can tax this stuff. They have a new revenue stream and less law enforcement costs. Also, the fascist government (see - Brave New World) has a more pacified populace.
That's the plan.
I say lots of luck with the "pacification" part. A little pot or coke isn't going to calm unemployed people down.
[Do you know anyone that rolls their own cigarettes or grows tobacco?]
Well, there is a bit of a difference between the drugs. There are a few good reasons to keep on rolling your own pot, and I'd also rather grow my own thanks. If the company rolled the joints, they'd stuff too much pot to smoke comfortably; at least at my age.
You're quite right about the pacification part, that's just not going to happen. Even the heavy pot heads will get irate if they can't find a job or a comfortable place to crash.
A baby step that would have been impossible during a Republicon administration.
It interesting to note that while on the one hand claiming a new shift in focus on the war on drugs.
The US MIlitary expands its bases in Columbia in order to fight the "War on Drugs"
The US Military is given basing rights in Aruba and Caraco by the Government of the Netherlands . This too claimed as an expansion in "the War on Drugs".
Now Curaco and Aruba are right off the Coast of Venezuala. President Chavez has claimed that that the US is using the cover of the War on drugs to expand their prescence in South America with Venezuala in their gunsights.
The US denies this of course.
Once again it appears Mr Chavez is being more truthful then the Government of the USA.
It is also more obvious that this was never about DRUGS. It was about expanding US Militarism to South America as they try and do today in the Middle East and now "Africa in order to fight "Terrorism".
Actually this isnt about drugs or militarism, but instead ousting Chavez and claiming their oil for US interests. I expected the USA to go after Chavez next, not Yemen...
how's that war on poverty thing doing?
about as well as the war on terror
vdb - the WAR ON POVERTY is doing VERY WELL. We're killing record numbers of poor every year. Hell we murder 45,000 every year from denial of medical care alone and our our global record for murdering the poor is simply stupendous. ROMA VICTA!