The real reasons why the Federal government does not want to legalize drugs

[TakeALeftTurn]

Last edited Sat May 25, 2013, 04:59 AM - Edit history (2)

The large banks make a lot of money, laundering drugs money cash.
The recent case of HSBC large scale drug money laundering
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/outrageous-hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-20121213
Just about all of the big banks are heavily involved in money laundering - it's endemic.

The CIA make a lot of money trafficking drugs to fund black-ops.
The scenario of Iran Contra whereby arms were shipped to right wing rebel groups, paid for with drugs, and the drugs smuggled into the US, continues.
The CIA is one of the largest drug importers into the US and has been since at least Vietnam - see Appendix 1.
The CIA launder this drug money cash via client banks (see above).

It provides a useful mechanism to meddle into the affairs of other countries. E.G. Colombia and from there Venezuela and Ecuador.

It provides an excuse for heavy handed domestic intervention by the government and draconian laws.
It keeps street violence and general crime levels high. Very useful to maintain and exacerbate a scared population.

It creates a lot of slush money for politicians.
E.G. campaign donations from the prison industry.

The top 5 lobby groups (the heaviest spenders) to keep drugs illegal are :-

The pharmaceutical industry - they don't like competition.
They also don't want a "happier" population. Miserable and stressed out people are more susceptible to illnesses.
Drastically reducing the levels of crime is counter-productive for prescription drug sales. There would be far fewer people stressed out because a loved one/friend had been shot, or their house or car had been burglarized.
There would also be far fewer stressed out people if the streets and schools became much safer, because all the drugs gangs had been removed.
Etc. You can see how higher crime levels increases the demand for prescription drugs in all sorts of ways.

The alcohol industry (see above)

The prison industry - there are over 1 million people in jail for non violent drugs related crimes.
The prison population and the profits of the prison industry would be devastated if drugs were ever decriminalised/legalized

The prison guards union. See above. Less prisoners would mean less prison guards are required.

The police union. Less police officers would be required if the crime levels went down and they didn't spend lots of their time pursuing drugs crime.

The Federal government does not care that it costs the taxpayer $200bn a year with the current system (see 3). This is not a priority.

A number of senior policemen have spoken out against drug prohibition, due to the violence, crime and corruption it engenders.

A retired Police Captain demolishes the "war on drugs" and prohibition

&feature=youtu.be

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
http://www.leap.cc/

Appendices and References

1. A short history of the post WW2 drugs trade
After WW2 the major source of drugs was the Golden Triangle and the drug of choice was opium/heroin.

Indo China were French/ex French colonies.
It was little wonder that Marseilles became the drugs capital of Europe.
The movie "The French Connection" starring Gene Hackman is founded upon real history and the historical facts of how France was involved in the global drugs trade.

When the French gave up on Indo China in the 50's, America and the CIA moved in.
The CIA trafficked drugs out of Laos and Vietnam.

When America lost the Vietnam war and were kicked out of Indo China, a new source of drugs had to be found.

Colombia and Central America became America's new source of drugs, the drug of choice became cocaine.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-real-drug-lords-a-brief-history-of-cia-involvement-in-the-drug-trade/10013

Turkey's role in the opium trade.
http://www.infowars.com/u-s-wars-and-the-opium-trade/ (I know the source site is unreliable, but this is one of the few good articles in the last few years.)

In Afghanistan now, President Karzai and his family are heavily involved in the opium trade.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/asia/28intel.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Pictures & stories of Marines guarding the poppy fields in Afghanistan
https://www.google.co.uk/#gs_rn=12&gs_ri=psy-ab&tok=LOAys4AebUgExUYNej_MMg&cp=18&gs_id=22&xhr=t&q=Marines+guarding+poppy+fields&es_nrs=true&pf=p&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&oq=Marines+guarding+p&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.47008514,d.d2k&fp=d3d85859a5844b3f&biw=1024&bih=587

Opium production in Afghanistan fell by 90% after the Taliban banned it in circa 2000.
It is now back up to pre invasion levels.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2102158/Heroin-production-Afghanistan-RISEN-61.html

There is a whole web of intrigue around the CIA, HW Bush, the drugs trade and large scale money laundering.

2. The following articles are instructive in putting the drugs trade and drugs money into perspective.
Narco dollars for Beginners


Okay, let's start at ground zero. It is 1947, and World War II is over. America is ready to go back to work to build the corporate economy. We are in New Orleans on the docks.

Two boats pull into the docks. The first boat is full of a white agricultural product grown in Latin America called sugar. The owner of the cargo, lets call him Sam, sells his boat load of white agricultural substance to the sugar wholesaler on the docks for how much money?

Ok, so let's say that Sam sells his entire boatload of sugar to the sugar wholesaler on the docks for X dollars.

Now, after Sam pays his workers and all his costs of growing and transporting the sugar, and after he and his wife spend the weekend in New Orleans and he pays himself a bonus and buys some new harvest equipment and pays his taxes, how much cash does he have left to deposit into his bank account? Or, another way of saying this is: What is Sam's net cash margin on his sugar business?

Well, it depends on how lucky and hard working and smart Sam is, but let's say that Sam has worked his proverbial you know what off and he makes around 5-10 percent. Sam the sugar man has a 5-10 percent cash profit margin. Let's call Sam's margin S for slim or SLIM PERCENTAGE.

Back on the docks, the second boat---an exact replica of the boat carrying Sam's sugar---is a boat carrying Dave's white agricultural product called drugs. In those days this was more likely to be heroin, these days more likely to be cocaine. Whatever the precise species, the planting, harvesting and production of this white agricultural substance, Dave's drugs, are remarkably like Sam's sugar.

Ok, so if Sam the sugar man sold his sugar to the sugar wholesaler for X dollars, how much will Dave the drug man sell his drugs to the drug wholesaler for? Well, where Sam is getting pennies, Dave is getting bills. If Sam had sales of X dollars, let say that Dave had sales of 50-100 times X. Dave may carry the same amount of white stuff in a boat but from a financial point of view, Dave the drug man has a lot more "sales per boat" than Sam the sugar man.

Now, after Dave pays his workers and all his costs of growing and transporting the drugs, and after he and his wife spend the weekend in New Orleans and he pays himself a bonus and buys some new harvest and radar equipment and spends what he needs on bribes and bonuses to a few enforcement and intelligence operatives and retainers to his several law firms, how much cash does he have left to deposit into his bank account? Or, another way of saying this is what is Dave's net cash margin on his drug business?

It's also going to be a multiple of Sam's margin, right? Maybe it will be 20 percent or 30 percent or more? Let's call it B for Big, or BIG PERCENTAGE. Dave the drug man has a much bigger "cash profit per boat" than Sam the sugar man. Part of that is, of course, once Dave has set up his money laundering schemes, even after a 4-10 percent take for the money laundering fees, it's fair to say his tax rate of 0 percent is lower than Sam's tax rate. While it is expensive to set up all the many schemes Dave might use to launder his money, once you do it you can save a lot avoiding some or all of the IRS's take.

Look at your estimate of Sam and Dave's sales and profits. Now answer for yourself the following questions.

Who is going to get laid more, Sam or Dave?

Who is going to be more popular with the local bankers, Sam or Dave?

Who is going to have a bigger stock market portfolio with a large investment house, Sam or Dave?

Who is going to donate more money to political campaigns, Sam or Dave?

Whose wife is going to be bigger in the local charities, Sam or Dave's?

Whose companies will have more prestigous law firms on retainer, Sam or Dave's?

Who is going to buy the other's company first, Sam or Dave? Is Dave the drug man going to buy Sam the sugar man's company, or is Sam the sugar man going to buy Dave the drug man's company?

When they want to buy the other's company, will the bankers, lawyers and investment houses and politicians back Sam the sugar man or Dave the drug man?

Whose son or grandson has a better chance of getting into Harvard or getting a job offer at Goldman Sachs, Sam or Dave's?

Don't listen to me. And don't listen to Peter Jennings, Dan Rather or Tom Brokaw. Who do you think pays their salaries? Who owns the companies they work for? Sam or Dave?

Don't listen to anyone else. Think about the numbers and listen to your heart. What do you believe?

There is very little about how the money works on the drug trade that you cannot know for yourself by coming to grips with the economics over a fifty year period of Sam and Dave and their boat loads of white agricultural substance. It is the magic of compound interest.

As one of my former partners used to say, "Cash flow is more important than your mother."

Continue reading at :-


http://www.drugwar.com/fittsnarco1.shtm

The Narco money map and Politics


What are the four states with the largest market share in illegal narcotics trafficking? Draw a map if you want and shade them in on your map.

Yup. You got it.

New York, California, Texas and Florida.

It makes sense. Those are the biggest states. They have big coastal areas and borders and big ports. It would make sense that the population would grow in the big states where the trade and business flow grows. If you check back to Part I of "Narco Dollars for Dummies", we described two businesses. One was Sam's sugar business that had a SLIM PERCENTAGE profit. The other was Dave's drug business that had a BIG PERCENTAGE profit. It would make sense that these four states would be real big in both Sam's sugar business and Dave's drug businesses.

OK. Now. What are the four states with the biggest business in money laundering of narco profits and other profits of organized crime?

Not surprising? Same four states. They are all known as banking power places.

New York, California, Texas and Florida.

What's next? What are the four states with the biggest business in taking the laundered narco profits and using them to deposit money in a bank, or to buy another company, or to start a new company, or just buy stock in the stock market? That's what I call the reinvestment business.

Same four, right? New York, California, Texas and Florida.

Who were the governors of these four states in 1996?

Well, let's see. Jeb Bush was the governor of Florida. Governor Jeb was the son of George H. W. Bush, the former head of an oil company in Texas and Mexico and the former head of the CIA and the former head of the various drug enforcement efforts as Vice President and President. Then George W. Bush, also the son of George H. W. Bush, was the governor of Texas. So the governors of two of the largest narco dollar market share states just happen to be the sons of the former chief of the secret police.

Do you think it is possible to become the governor of a state with the support of the SLIM PERCENTAGE profit businesses and the opposition of the BIG PERCENTAGE profit businesses, particularly after the BIG PRECENTAGE profits have bought up all the SLIM PERCENTAGE profit businesses?

What about president?

Of course, George W. is President today fueled by the single most successful campaign fundraising in the history of Western civilization. Now do you know why Hillary Clinton wanted to be a Senator from New York? Now do you know why Andrew Cuomo wants to be New York governor and is reported to be doing polls to see if people associate him with the Mafia and organized crime?

When you think about it, the President would need to win the majority of the people who donate from the SLIM PERCENTAGE profit businesses but control the reinvestment of the BIG PERCENTAGE profit industry cash flow to win. The competition for the support of the people who control the reinvestment from the BIG PERCENTAGE profit business cash flow in the biggest states would be fierce.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics analysis of the 2000 elections, donors in California, New York, the District of Colombia Metro Area (which is full of lawyers and lobbyists who represent all the other states), Texas and Florida contributed $666.8 million, or approximately 47 percent of a total of $1.427 billion in donations.

Continue reading at :-
http://www.drugwar.com/fittsnarco2.shtm



Drugs As Currency
One of challenges of doing the numbers on the narcotics business is that narcotics are not always a commodity -- sometimes narcotics are a currency used to pay for other things.

The arms industry sometimes markets to third world countries, or groups such as terrorists, who cannot pay with cash, but can pay with drugs. So, for example, it is not unusual to see arms-drugs transshipment operations, in which payment for arms is taken with drugs and then the drugs retailed in the US to facilitate the arms trading and profits.

A case in point is the Iran-Contra operation at Mena, Arkansas. It has been alleged that Oliver North and the White House (National Security Council) were dealing drugs through Mena not to make money, but to facilitate arms shipments. Mena has received attention as a result of its alleged financial contribution to Bill and Hillary Clinton's rise to national prominence.

You also see the arms-drugs relationship as you estimate how the money works on the private profits from various taxpayer funded wars. Vietnam, Kosovo, Plan Colombia, Afghanistan, what do they all have in common? Drugs, oil and gas, arms. Add gold, currency and bank market share and you have the top of my checklist for understanding how the money works on any war or "low intensity conflict" around the globe.

Many of the members of our global leadership were trained in wartime narcotics trafficking in Asia during WWII. George H. W. Bush and his generation watched our ally Chang Kai Shek finance his army and covert operations with opium. I am told that the Flying Tigers were the model that taught Air America how to fly dope.

If you trace back the history of the family and family networks of America's leaders and numerous other leaders around the world, what you will find is that narcotics and arms trafficking are a multigenerational theme that has criss-crossed through Asia, North America, Europe, Latin America and Eurasia and back through the City of London and Wall Street to the great pools of financial capital. Many a great American and British fortune got going in the Chinese opium trade.

One of the benefits of learning how narco dollars work is that it will help you sort through the money laundering and insider trading news on the War on Terrorism. Terrorism and narcotics trafficking often get linked through narcotics as currency. Terrorists need guns. Narco dollars need private protection and covert operations.

In Defense of the American Drug Lords
It's 1947. You want to make sure that America wins in the great game of globalization. The winner will be the country that accumulates the largest pool of capital to finance its corporations and investment in new technology. That is a problem because Americans vote for leaders who help them spend, not save. No matter how hard Sam the sugar man works and no matter how much he saves, how much capital can be pooled at SLIM PERCENTAGE? It is fair to say it is not enough to beat the investment network that can pool capital at BIG PRECENTAGE growth rates. (See Part I for the story of Sam and Dave).

Indeed, what a history of narcotics trafficking and piracy and various other forms of organized crime over the last five hundred years show is that our leaders have been in a double bind for centuries. The only thing more dangerous than getting caught doing organized crime, is not being in control of the reinvested cash flows from it. This is why monarchs played footsie with pirates in Elizabethan times and no doubt have been doing so ever since.

After taxation, organized crime is a society's way of forming lots of pools of low cost cash capital. Organized crime is a banking and venture capital business.

So the reality is that if you want to control the cash flow and capital that controls the overworld, you've got to control the cash flows getting generated by the underworld. Indeed, you've got to have an underworld. If it does not exist, you need to outlaw some things to get one going.

Here is the bottom line on how the money works on narco dollars. Unless Sam switches to dope, Dave will win his wife, his mistress, his banker, buy his company, buy his Congressman and be the star at the local charities. Everyone will admire and pay attention to Dave.

It's the power of compound interest.

It's 1947. If you don't do it, you will be the loser. What would you do?



Continue reading at:-

http://www.drugwar.com/fittsnarco3.shtm

3. How to reduce the number of hard drug addicts; the level of general corruption, violence and crime; and save $200bn a year of taxpayers money. Legalize drugs.

Legalizing drugs would :-

Save taxpayers $200bn a year
reduce criminality
reduce corruption
reduce policing costs
reduce the prison population
reduce the court backlog
reduce the number of hard drug addicts
make the streets much safer
improve social mobility
reduce the funding to the Taliban
reduce illegal immigration from Mexico


The estimated savings from legalizing drugs and taxing them as per alcohol and tobacco are $195bn+ a year. See below.

1. Social Problems and the scale of drug use

So you cry, legalizing drugs will dramatically increase drug usage. But it will actually reduce it.
Portugal decriminalized ABSOLUTELY ALL drugs in 2001. Combined with a treatment program, the number of hard drug addicts has halved in 10 years.
Also the cachet of doing something naughty amongst the young is removed by legalization.
So instead of jailing 100,000 criminals and having 80,000 hard drug addicts , Portugal now treats 40,000 hard drug addicts, with 100,000 less in prison.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/

Social problems did not decrease when prohibition of alcohol was introduced. They increased, principally due to large scale crime cartels and the endemic corruption they engendered with the amount of money generated from illegal alcohol.
Social problems did not increase when prohibition of alcohol was repealed. They went down for the same reasons they had gone up in the first place.
I have seen no evidence that the number of alcoholics went down with prohibition. If you are going to become an alcoholic, you probably are going to become an alcoholic whatever the law says.

There is no war on drugs going on.
There is a campaign to promote large scale drug use and large scale criminal activity and corruption going on.
The media is almost 100% complicit in feeding false information to the general public in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, so that public ignorance of the facts remain in place and the current political policies remain in place.

2. Costs of the "war" on drugs / Benefits of Ending It

2.1 Policing costs
In 2009 the Federal Goverrnment spent $22bn on the "war" on drugs.
In 1998 States spent $30bn. This could probably be doubled in today's dollars.
Total $82bn
Less a small amount, e.g. a similar cost to that currently incurred where alcohol is legal. No data is available, let's be generous and take off $10bn.
Revised total $72bn.
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/drugpolicy/p/War-on-Drugs-Facts.htm

2.2 Jail population
55%+ of the Federal and 21% of State's prison populations are jailed for drugs related crimes.
These are official figures and will not include some other crimes for which a link to drugs is more obscure, e.g. a significant number of additional homicides and other drug gang violence. So it is an under estimate.
It also does not included people convicted of property crimes to pay for their habit. E.G. Burglary, street thefts, car crime etc.
Drugs RELATED crime is far higher than the DOJ numbers. More realistic estimates are that 70 to 80% of inmates are in jail for drugs RELATED crime.

But we will just use the under reporting DOJ numbers for these costs.

Assuming a 90% reduction in drug related crime, legalization would save $11 to $15bn just in the costs of jails.
It costs $22,000 to $30,000 to jail each prisoner per year.
The US prison population was 1.5 million a few years ago.

2.3. Taxes
A significant revenue stream would be generated if drugs were taxed like alcohol or tobacco and distributed via licensed premises.
Estimates vary wildly, after all it is a black market.
Assuming the legal price was roughly the same as the current street price.

Marijuana $40bn to $100bn
Cocaine and Heroin $30bn+
All other drugs around $5bn
http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2010/03/legalize_mariju.html

I don't know how the $32bn figure for cocaine/heroin was arrived at. It might not be the full difference between production/transportation cost and the street price.

2.4 Intangible / unquantifiable benefits

A significant part of street crime, muggings, robberies, burglaries, auto crime is committed to pay for hard drugs.
In addition to this the future cost of lower earnings for those criminalized by low level drug offenses and welfare payments for those unemployed or in poverty.
Less the cost of treatment programs for drug addicts.
Crime careers plus victims of crime :- Estimate $12bn+

2.5 International Relations
Most of the Taliban's income comes from the illegal heroin trade. This could be severely curtailed if Europe followed America.

Latin America has started calling for the end to the war on drugs.
The majority are still against it, they remember Noriega of course.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/07/war-drugs-latin-american-leaders
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryamericas/2012/04/201241773745976367.html

Mexico had 50,000 drug related homicides last year. Mexico would certainly be far more stable without the drug cartels smuggling drugs into the US.
Illegal immigration from Mexico would certainly be reduced if parts of Mexico were no longer an anarchic drugs battleground.

International Relations and International Stability would be improved by legalizing drugs.


4. The current major drug routes and the amounts smuggled

http://www.phantomreport.com/narcotic-superhighways-the-top-5-routes-for-drug-trafficking?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+PhantomReport+(Phantom+Report)

5. The top 5 special interest groups lobbying to keep marijuana illegal
http://truth-out.org/news/item/8854-the-top-five-special-interest-groups-lobbying-to-keep-marijuana-illegal

[burnodo]

1. Stop making sense!

Weak-kneed politicos are already weak-kneed enough without you threatening them with courage and conviction!

[TakeALeftTurn]

2. If you want to radically change something for the better

it is better to have a good understanding of the forces that are lined up against you.

[TakeALeftTurn]

3. It would be much better to line up the forces of the rest of Corporate America

against the industry groups that profit from the drugs trade (banks, pharma, alcohol, prisons).

Hey guys - these other people are WRECKING your businesses.

You could sell FAR more goods and make FAR more profits if these other industries were not wrecking America and wrecking America's economy, through their support of the drugs trade.

[TakeALeftTurn]

4. Similarly it would be much better to try and harness the power of the other unions

against the prison guard and police unions.

Prison guards and the police unions are only 2 out of how many unions?

Hey guys - the prison guards and police unions are wrecking the interests of your members through their support of the drugs trade.

I am sure the Teacher's union for example could be persuaded to support the legalization of drugs.

How much easier would teacher's lives be if all of the influence of the drugs gangs were removed from the schoolyard, because the drugs gangs no longer existed?

How many bootleggers have you seen running around Chicago lately?

[duhneece]

9. United Food & Commercial Workers Union

I heard the President of UFCW at the last International Drug Policy Reform Conference (scholarships available for the upcoming conf in Denver Oct 23-26...I can't recommend going enough...http://reformconference.org/about-conference)

http://www.ufcw.org/2013/02/26/ufcw-medical-cannabis-members-attend-national-conference-to-educate-members-of-congress/

Wouldn't it be great if the cannabis industry revitalized unions?

[TakeALeftTurn]

11. Great example

Thanks for sharing

[duhneece]

14. Happy to connect with others & share resources

We keep taking baby-steps toward a more rational, compassionate, fiscally responsible, morally right change of policy. Anything I can do to move us forward, I'm happy. I'm really grateful for your well-thought-out original post. It feels good to be in your company!

[In_The_Wind]

5. Kick

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1018&pid=382922

[duhneece]

6. I got training, have been very active in my county

Please consider attending this year's International Drug Policy Reform Conference in Denver Oct 23-26...partial scholarships available. My partner & I attended (you can see former workshop sessions at site), have had a county fair booth 4 years in our rightwing, fundamentalist, all Republican county, decorated with LEAP t-shirts, "Cops Say Legalize Drugs. Ask Me Why." Best marketing strategy ever.

http://www.reformconference.org/

It provided us with enough support so that I speak to our US Congressman and Senators, state officials, our DA (made some good friends of Assistant District Attorneys...who'd a thunk?).

[TakeALeftTurn]

10. Now that is a very powerful slogan

"Cops say Legalize Drugs. Ask me why."

[duhneece]

13. I love LEAP and their speakers

They provided us with three different speakers. Law Enforcement carries alot of weight in my community so hearing their reasoning for ending the War on Drugs is powerful. And just being around them has provided me with mucho 'backbone.'

http://www.leap.cc/

[TakeALeftTurn]

7. My apologies for the length of the Op-Ed above

but unless you collate and put all of the various strands together, the power of the argument to legalize drugs is much diminished.

Lots of the strands would be less believable, without the evidence of the other strands.

It's like a jigsaw.
You can't see the picture unless you put the individual pieces together.

I think it would be a very rare case indeed for anyone to not at least start to question the validity of current drugs policy, after reading the full contents of the above Op-ed - which might take about an hour.

(Any person that does not make money out of the drugs trade that is - even if they were virulently pro the current drugs policy before they read this information.)

[Live and Learn]

65. Excellent research and documentation. Thanks for sharing it. nt

[truedelphi]

69. I thought it was one of the best posts I've seen on this site in

At least a year.

Might be a bit long to read at one sitting, but I immediately got the idea that it was important that you make as many of the points s you made. It is basically a reference manual on everything anyone would need to say to make decent arguments about ending the prohibition.

Greatly appreciate your work on this.

[Dragonfli]

76. Don't apologize for an excellent post. you are correct, it is a collaborative screwing

They would prefer to focus the argument on slanted simplifications and refute them with bullshit one by one. It is important to see the whole rather than merely some of the parts.

[Jesus Malverde]

8. Cannabis prohibition is also supported by the growers.

The Emerald triangle, the growing region of Northern California largely voted against Proposition 19. The last bill to address legalization in California. They like the current system with black market prices for Cannabis with lax enforcement as long as it's sold as medical marijuana.

[AllyCat]

48. An important issue with this piecemeal legalization around the country.

Of course we need to pick away at the exterior of this problem state by state, city by city... but while a market still exists outside that legal area, the black market and the propping up of all that is wrong with drug prohibition weighs heavily on people. It needs to be legal nationwide.

[madokie]

12. Making sense once more and I'm loving it

This goes with what I've been thinking for years. Soon after reagan took office our streets were awash with illegal drugs where just months before you couldn't find pot for 6 months out of the year, cocaine was unheard of here, meth wasn't a figment of any of the meth heads imagination yet but as soon as reagan/bush took office those drugs were everywhere any day all day. I seen it first hand and I know of what I say here too. I never was a meth head or cocaine freak but I was around them because the same people who sold me pot also started selling this other crap and it all began within a month of January 20 of '81. I was a witness to this happening.

Please be careful as I would think there will be those who might not take to kindly with what you have figured out.
You have one if not the best analytical minds of any writer or person for that matter that I've ever known or read.
Please keep up the good work.

[TakeALeftTurn]

16. Thanks very much for the terrific compliment

I don't really do anything special.

I do quite a bit of analytical research into things - it used to be part of my job.
I do have an analytical mindset and I like to stay informed.

I do step back and examine the motives behind why certain things happen and keep an open mind about things.
Usually that involves some aspect of "follow the money".

Then I ask some more questions like "why are things like this, why did they do this, why didn't they do something else?"

Then I collate the information and usually reach some conclusions.
I usually write them up as I am going along over a few months.

It's not rocket science - anybody could do it on more or less any subject.

[HiPointDem]

37. +1.

[dotymed]

15. takealeftturn, thank you for compiling all of this information.

You have scratched the surface. IDK if anyone could list all of the reasons for the fake war on drugs or the paradigm shift possible by legalizing and taxing drugs. So many of our "betters" would lose money while average citizens would reap many benefits.
"Our" militarized police depts. do get huge federal grants for this "war." Not to mention the million$ (at least) they get in bribes (in Tn. they often cut out the middlemen and hire locals to distribute and run their "business&quot of course they still make "busts" for financial reasons and to show the public how capable they are.

Decades ago, when they needed to bust (their) big dealers, they would give them advance notice (so they didn't lose too much product) and release them to a (very well respected ) lawyer who already had a deal (they all colluded and were the bosses of the local network) with a judge.
I assume "regular" peoples heads would explode if they knew how all of this works. This is just local. On a world-wide scale, my head might explode.
25 years ago, I was a small part of this. It was very lucrative, I was well respected, no chance of real jail time, but some of my friends were killed (executed) for not following the rules.
This "war" is just another scourge on America.

[TakeALeftTurn]

19. Yep

It would "explode" quite a lot of people's heads, if they were previously unaware of the background to the drugs trade and "War on Drugs" and suddenly knew everything that went on.

[randome]

17. None of this could stand up to the public's demand to change it.

But the truth is that most people do NOT use drugs and would probably prefer they remain illegal. Some of us have children and don't want to see some 'youthful indiscretion' ruin their lives.

Especially the harder drugs. Marijuana, I could live with. But the 'war on drugs' does do some good in that it keeps a lot of product from flooding the cities. Some will always get through, of course, but by keeping the harder drugs illegal, it makes it more difficult to get into the hands of younger people who don't have the self-control we sometimes imagine them having.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[TakeALeftTurn]

22. Take a look into the experiences of Portugal over the last 10 years

Portugal decriminalized absolutely ALL drugs including heroin, cocaine, crack, Meth etc. over 10 years ago.

Their drug problems have gone DOWN.
Hard drug addicts have halved over that time.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/

[randome]

24. Sure, it's worth looking at. But there are a lot of differences between Portugal and America, too.

Portugal is a smaller country. They don't have drug cartels on their border. And Americans are...well, crazy, to put it bluntly.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[timdog44]

41. Of course

if drugs were legal, there would be no cartels on the borders.

I think that the more something is illegal, the more it is enticing to use. This is a perfect opportunity for parental education about the dos and don'ts of things. Something that does not seem to happen much any more. I am not arguing that there would not be some kids who "fall between the cracks" but at least they would not be made to be criminals. And treatment options would be much more acceptable. Don't get me wrong, I am a little conflicted on this making all drugs legal thing. Some of them are horrible. But I always keep in the back of my mind that from what I understand, legitimate pharmaceuticals kill more people in the US than the illegal ones do. Just some thoughts, not arguments.

[randome]

55. I think they wouldn't be drug cartels. They would simply morph into something else.

It's not like they would all get office jobs simply because drugs were made legal.

But, yeah, addictive personalities generally find something else to become addicted to. On the other hand, non-addictive personalities can also become hooked on hard drugs so I agree there are conflicting pros and cons to the entire issue.

If we want to do some social experimentation, I would say to start by fully funding rehab centers and reduce sentences for drug offenses.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[TakeALeftTurn]

23. Kids get drunk too

The prohibition of alcohol in the 1920's didn't stop alcohol from being widely available.

[randome]

27. Prohibiting hard drugs doesn't keep them out of the hands of kids, either, I know.

But it makes it more difficult. We have too many addicts on our hands now but, overall, we have fewer by keeping hard drugs illegal.

I completely agree about not incarcerating people for drug problems, though. Rehab should be our primary goal, not ridiculously destructive sentences.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[TakeALeftTurn]

86. I bet if you have teenage kids

that they know who to go and ask in school if they want to buy drugs (if they don't know who's selling them already).

[AllyCat]

49. Really? At ANY given time, one could find all available.

I don't seek the stuff out, but have had people say: "hey, if you ever need x, y, or z...I have a friend..." It's EVERYWHERE. It DOES flood our cities. It is NOT difficult to get. And I am NOT a drug user. If it's this easy for me, what would it be for someone looking? The whole thing is set up for that market. It would be LESS easy if it was not so profitable.

[randome]

54. We have different sets of friends, I'll wager.

I wouldn't have the faintest idea how to go in search of hard drugs. Go to downtown St. Louis and start asking shady looking characters for help?

No, I think keeping the hard stuff illegal provides a deterrent because most of us are afraid of getting caught up in a sting operation, buying drugs laced with poison, etc.

I would still be in favor of reduced sentencing and rehab, though.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[AllyCat]

81. You are slamming my friends? You must just be a MUCH better person than I am.

[SomethingFishy]

64. My experience has been different..

I'd say 90% of the people I know think it should be legal, and most of them don't get high... I work in the music industry though

Also I think the availability of drugs has increased since the war on drugs started. You are not going to ever get any kind of consensus since it is illegal but the cities are, as you put it, flooded. If you know where to go you can pretty much get anything. What I'm seeing now that I didn't when I was a kid is pharmaceuticals on the street. When we are on the road you can pretty much get any kind of painkiller in any city.

The drugs are here, and they aren't going anywhere. If we take the crime out of it, leave the casual users alone and turn our attention to curing addictions there will no longer be the stigma of "youthful indiscretions". Much better to have your indiscretion be "I smoked some weed in high school" then "I spent two years in jail for possession".

[nomorenomore08]

83. That "youthful indiscretion" is a lot more likely to "ruin their lives" if it gives them a record.

Which if you ask me, is a good argument for at least decriminalizing possession of all drugs, no matter how "scary."

Thing is, people (not necessarily you) assume that keeping drugs illegal will prevent "good," predominantly white suburban kids - which, if we're being brutally honest, are the only kids anyone really cares about on a mass level - from becoming addicted. Which I can tell you from first, second, third-hand experience, prevents no such thing.

[ananda]

18. Yep: banks, CIA, and big Pharma

This is too bad.

[skydive forever]

20. The video is awesome

I wish more people could speak as clearly on the subject as e does. I HIGHLY (no pun intended) recommend watching it.

[forestpath]

21. K&R

[Coyotl]

25. A sprinkling of truth does not change conspiracy theory WooWoo BS

[TakeALeftTurn]

28. A sprinkling of truth?

I have collated a large number of facts on the drugs trade.
I have also examined the motives behind the drugs trade and keeping drugs illegal.

If you want to talk about Conspiracy Theories, let's talk about some Conspiracy Facts.

Some of the aspects of CIA drugs running during Iran Contra came out in the Congressional Hearings on the subject.
That's a Conspiracy fact - not a theory.

Marines guarding poppy fields in Afghanistan is a fact.
There are loads of stories and pictures about it.

The 90% decline in Afghan opium production from about 2000 is a fact.
As is the 10 fold increase, back to pre ban levels, after the US invasion.

[daleanime]

32. Then call it out...

what parts of the OP do you disagree with?

[TakeALeftTurn]

36. Exactly

.

[TakeALeftTurn]

35. There are lots of other facts that I could of included, but didn't.

E.G. The involvement of Pakistan's ISI in drugs trafficking.

E.G. The involvement of Karzai's brother in the drugs trade.
Karzai's brother is a Governor of one of Afghan's provinces.

E.G. The multitude of evidence of involvement by LAPD in selling large quantities of drugs.

[Dragonfli]

77. Labeling something a conspiracy theory does not make it one, weak. Enlighten us

Or keep your magickal proclamations in your dungeon and dragons games where they belong.

[chervilant]

85. Conspiracy theory woowoo bs?

That sounds like you're still in your adolescence, at least mentally.

Did you take time to read the OP? You might want to read "Licit and Illicit Drugs" by Edward Brecher.

You'll have a difficult time refuting this OP's validity if you take time to gather information about the "war on drugs."

[Dustlawyer]

26. And he did not even touch the medicinal benefits of pot. Works wonders for neuropathy which

Is a very painful chronic condition. The strong prescription drugs used to treat the pain have very bad side effects, pot shares some of these, temporary memory loss and weight gain. It doesn't however hurt your kidneys and liver like the ones prescribed today. You cannot overdose and there are no drug interaction dangers. Why does our country always do the opposite of what makes sense. He did not mention how much money would be saved by not having to house half of the prison population.

[TakeALeftTurn]

30. The taxpayer savings of halving the prison population

are included in the $200bn of annual savings from ending the "War on Drugs". See Appendix 3.

But I have been very conservative in the estimated cost savings of having fewer prisoners and fewer prisons.

[Dustlawyer]

39. Thank for posting! I tried to link it to my Facebook, but frequently the "post" button is cut

off and I cannot send it. This guy needs to speak with law enforcement groups around the country. If we had most of them behind this we could end the prohibition!

[tridim]

52. Cannabis doesn't cause weight gain...

and the memory loss thing is way over-hyped. It does NOT erase memory, it helps your brain to be selective in what it keeps in long-term memory. This is why it is being used to treat PTSD.

If your brain were to commit everything to long-term memory you'd go crazy.

[Lunacee_2013]

84. I have neuropathy,

been a type 1 diabetic since I was 3. I know from personal experience that pot works a hell of a lot better than the pills do, but its illegal and I don't want to go to prison. Hadn't heard about the kidney damage stuff before. Do you know which new neuropathy drugs can do that?

I've also been through cancer and chemo treatments before, and pot was the only thing that allowed me to hold down food and by the time I started using it I had already lost about 1/3 of my body wieght. I tried 2 other medications before that and all they did was make me have seizures, which were so bad that the blood vessels in my eyes burst so now I'm completely blind in 1 eye and about 30% blind in the other.

So yeah, I wish they'd just legalize the damn stuff already.

[Hotler]

29. A must read. n/t

[GoneFishin]

31. A compelling post for anyone with their eyes open.

Sad that many average americans' who oppose legalization are responding to decades of disinformation and propaganda.

[TheDebbieDee]

33. I haven't heard of any shortages or fluctuations in the world's supply of opium or heroin

at any time since we started the War on Terrorism in Afghanistan......

You'd think that a war in the poppy fields would somehow disrupt the drug supply line.

[ctsnowman]

34. Thank you.

[B Calm]

38. Beer companies lobby congress too

[TakeALeftTurn]

40. I have lumped them in with the alcohol industry

.

[timdog44]

42. Thanks for the great article.

You made me work hard at this. But I think when I was done reading all you presented, I think you were the preacher and I was in the choir.

I mean that in a good way.

[TakeALeftTurn]

43. Great

The intention of the article is to persuade some more people

And perhaps to give some more ammo to those who are already campaigning and/or supportive of drugs legalization.

I have learned a bit more too.

And there is a great slogan contributed by Duhneece :-

"Cops say Legalize Drugs. Ask me why."

I will definitely be using that in the future.

[timdog44]

45. I will remember

that slogan.

[Locrian]

50. this is great stuff (again) from you!

And it's not just a collection of links and youtube videos. It's your narrative that provide an easy way to fit the pieces together in your head as you dig further - something that is missing in a lot of info. It's like scaffolding - and it makes a damn interesting read.

Keep it up. If you have a blog or a site - keep us posted. This is great stuff.

[TakeALeftTurn]

58. Actually I am working on a project to set up a website right now

It is nearly there.

It is aimed at reporting news, policies, politics, events etc. that go under reported by the mainstream.

I am now thinking this could be a good one for one of the first articles.
Together with a link to this DU thread so that people can see the comments and level of response on here.

I will keep you posted when the website is ready.

[Locrian]

59. thanks! looking forward to it - n/t

[kelliekat44]

44. And Turkey and Israel make loads of cash and arms. Plenty material out there on how this works.

Even if a President wanted to legalize drugs, our Congress would not allow it.

[TakeALeftTurn]

46. As per my earliest replies - we have to build a coalition of sufficient support

so that Congress CANNOT refuse it.

A coalition of people that are damaged by current drugs policy.

That is EVERY company in America, except banks, pharma, alcohol & prisons.

That is EVERYBODY in America, except those who gain from the profits of those companies or directly from the profits of the drugs trade itself.

[redqueen]

47. K&R

[RainDog]

51. k&r n/t

[RainDog]

53. would you please copy and paste this in the Drug Policy Forum here?

It will be much easier for others to find if it's there.

thanks!

[TakeALeftTurn]

61. Done

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11701130

I hope that is the right forum - otherwise please let me know

[Dreamer Tatum]

56. There is nothing more convincing than awful writing and editing. nt

[RainDog]

60. You post nothing but snark here

You go from thread to thread insulting people. You post no OPs of your own, apparently.

Thank you for your contribution to DU.

[Live and Learn]

67. Or a reply that says little and means nothing. nt

[Dragonfli]

78. No substance, please refrain from wasting our time in future

[CanSocDem]

57. Excellent research.

Thank you for your efforts in putting all the information together, connecting the dots and naming names. Hopefully one day common sense will trump hysterical paranoia.

.

[felix_numinous]

62. K&R!!

The real criminals are running the program, lunatics running the asylum, foxes guarding the henhouses--while the rest of us are playing by the rules.

[russspeakeasy]

63. Wow !!

Thanks for a great post..

[ut oh]

66. The retired Captain

was ON POINT!

His presentation and responses were impressive. Hope more people see that video.

[Live and Learn]

68. It is not just the drug laws but the increase in all laws, sentences and

the life long punitive consequences (lack of jobs, housing and social benefits for those convicted. All of which are aimed at keeping the incarceration rate, not just steady, but increasing to support the greed of those companies that can make a profit off it.

[brett_jv]

70. I believe that at least 80% of the 'societal problems' caused by drugs are really caused by the WoD

And their illegality.

Sure, drug addiction can wreck people's lives, and the lives of their families. But at least in this case, the damage is mostly restricted to the circle of the addict. But with the current system, ALL of society pays, and pays big.

I don't believe, however, the decriminalization in and of itself is a good idea. We need to do that, to be sure, but we also need for the drugs to be sold, and relatively cheaply, at retail outlets across the country. This allows us to raise the taxes for the rehab, bring addicts into 'light' so they can get 'help', and most importantly, to undercut the dealers/cartels/etc.

If you all you do is legalize everything, but don't provide an alternative source, it will do NOTHING to neutralize (in fact it will even help) the cartels, nor will it lower level of 'drug violence' or anything of that nature. Decriminalizing alone, I believe, will make things worse. It makes it harder to bust 'dealers', plus ... millions of drug users will be freed from jail ... increasing the cartel's profits drastically. It actually solves only about 1/2 of the problems at BEST when done alone.

No, taking the extra step and allowing drugs to be sold cheaply, at the retail level, with low profit margins, so that dealers and cartels are cut out ... is the only way this whole idea 'works', if you ask me.

Would this lead to 'more users and addicts'? Of course it likely would. But at least then (save for the likely slight increase in cases of 'drugged drivers' killing others in their cars while high), society as a whole pays a minimal cost ... the damage will be restricted to the users/addicts and their loved ones. And financially, as detailed in teh OP, we'll come out WAAAAY ahead as a society.

As an aside, a fair part of what makes (many) drugs so bad for people is the crap they're cut with, along with the use of dirty needles. Plus, the large variations in purity of street drugs (esp. opioids) leads to lots of overdoses. 'Legal, pharmaceutical quality dope' will end up being a lot 'safer' than the crap people get on the streets. Something like Rx Dexedrine gives nearly as good a buzz as methamphetamine, and doesn't screw a person up NEEEEEARLY as bad as the bathtub crap people use in trailer parks, full of god knows what chemicals. Just as one example.

Plus, for many actual addicts (again, esp. opioid addicts), the things that really make their lives fall apart is actually not so much the USE of the drugs, but rather the intermittent availability, along with the staggering costs of them.

I guarantee there's many 1000's of opioid addicts out there either sitting in jail or on unemployment/welfare that would NOT be ... if they simply could reliably go down to the corner drug and buy a weeks worth of their dope for a price like what it really costs (like $25, rather than $500+ on the street).

A large majority of opioid addicts would get along just fine, go through life as productive members of society, with few people being any the wiser. The reason they CAN'T though, is because they're rendered non-functional when supply on the street, and/or large amounts of money, run out.

Addicts end up missing work all the time because they're dopesick, then they get fired and end up on the dole, or they get caught with it (or steal from someone to get $) and end up in jail (and then a bad 'record' for the rest of their lives, making it tough to get jobs). They also end up with massive amounts of debt, shredded credit if they had any to begin with ... opioid addiction destroys lives, but MUCH of the blame for that destruction can actually be laid squarely on the drug laws themselves, by making dope intermittently difficult to get, and extremely expensive.

[RKP5637]

71. And many of the little good citizens, the lemmings, the deer

in the headlight people, the guppies and DUH people think it has to do with morality and protecting their health ... so brainwashed, so led, such fools.

[Stuart G]

72. K and R...thanks for posting..nt

[Fire Walk With Me]

73. Remember that until very recently, the US government owned the patent upon cancer-cure use of

cannabinoids, or "marijuana" aspects. An absolute monopoly on a cancer cure, alongside attacks upon medical marijuana and casual use (enter the increasingly for-profit private prison-industrial complex).

It all links together. It also explains why the government came down so hard upon Occupy for going after the nation's ports.

Thank you for making DU a pleasure to read!

[BlueStreak]

74. Yet another factor

The powers that be (and we know that isn't anybody that has to stand for an election or anybody whose term expires) have always enjoyed domination of this hemisphere. There are lots of resources they want to get on the cheap. And to maximize profits, they want governments that will do as we say. This drug trade serves those interests because it creates perpetual instability in many of the countries in this hemisphere, and that makes it easier to prop up governments that will do what we want.

[Dragonfli]

75. Excellent post k&r

[Chaco Dundee]

79. beSt post on this site in a long time

Everything close to my heart was adressed In this post.the only guy missing was. Prescot bush,the guy who got them educated,

[gopiscrap]

80. I can tell you the real reason in one fucking word:

Last edited Sat May 25, 2013, 05:11 AM - Edit history (1)

MONEY!!!

[Live and Learn]

82. +1 Or "Greed"!

[BB1]

87. Where I live, guns are outlawed

and drugs are (mostly) legalized. I couldn't go to a store and buy a gun, but I cán go to a so called coffeeshop and buy weed.

Needless to say I have a harder time swatting off youngsters asking me to buy weed for their underage asses, than I do dodging bullets.