Guatemala leader to propose legalizing drugs

[Peace Patriot]

17. This does raise a major problem in my Big Pharma theory, that our corporate/war profiteer rulers

and their servants in U.S. government are very, VERY attached to the corrupt, murderous, failed U.S. "war on drugs"--or at least they have been to this point. How could legalization of drugs occur in this context?

The "war on drugs" is not a failure in their view, because, a) it supports an entire fascist industry of legal weapons and police/military hardware, infrastructure, personnel, prisons, etc.--billions and billions of dollars worth of private contractors; b) it has proven useful for slaughtering trade unionists, peasant farmers, environmentalists, political leftists and other undesirables in LatAm countries; c) it is a major tool for infiltrating, spying on and controlling LatAm countries in the interest of U.S.-based transglobal corporations; and d) it provides vital preparation for other wars across the "global south" including Africa and Asia (Pentagon "Southern Command" wide lateral planning, i.e., Air Force bases, the U.S. 4th Fleet and other naval resources, surveillance, coordination with allied military forces and local infrastructure such as airports, etc.).

The U.S. "war on drugs" does all this and more. In general, it militarizes and brutalizes LatAm societies, providing important support for fascist elements, and softens these countries up for lawless corporate rule (rape of resources, enforcement of slave labor conditions).

The Bush Junta added at least two new uses for the "war on drugs"--melding it in the "war on terror" for a two-barreled assault on human/civil rights and on good leftist governments, and the master twist: using the "war on drugs" to consolidate the fabulously lucrative drug trade into fewer hands and better direct its trillion+ dollar revenue stream to U.S. banksters, the Bush Cartel, the CIA and other beneficiaries.

What all of the above means is that it is, in fact, impossible to get rid of the "war on drugs" by popular demand in the U.S.A. "Popular demand" ain't in it. This no longer works in the U.S. Democracy is pretty much over here and "good government" is quite literally impossible. Government here is one big extortion scheme by the "war on drugs"/"war on terror"/oil war mafia.

The U.S. embassy in Guatemala is reflecting this reality, in its absurd defense of the "war on drugs." We hear this absurdity every day, endlessly, from every government agency and politician in the country. We have to make "war" on "drugs" because "drugs" are bad. No matter that it hasn't made a dent in the drug trade, lo these forty years of "war." No matter that drug use has in fact greatly escalated and criminal networks now grip entire countries. No matter that it has nuked entire segments of the poorer classes. (Ever hear of a rich kid going to jail for possession?) (Do you know why prisons full of black men are located in white rural areas in the U.S.A.?) We have to keep doing this insane thing--"war on drugs"--because, because, because....into blithering idiocy.

HOWEVER, Big Pharma can accomplish great things, where democracy cannot. If Big Pharma wants legalization, legalization will occur. End of story. And the "war on drugs" will be transmorgified into some other kind of war profiteering and fascist culture-building. That could be very bad (for instance, Oil War II: Latin America, or "the China threat"/war in the Pacific--there are lots of possibilities, including war on the streets at home, in response to massive rebellion in the U.S.).

I am working backwards here, from the evidence--TWO rightwing politicians calling for an END to the "war on drugs"--TO the logical conclusion, that the biggest potential beneficiary of ending this "war" --the Bush Junta-consolidated drug trade in league with Big Pharma--want this to happen and will make it happen. And these are not just any politicians. They are TWO rightwing PRESIDENTS, one of a major U.S. client state (vast reserves of oil, fertile land and other resources) and major "free trade for the rich" partner (Colombia)--not to mention Colombia receiving $7 BILLION in U.S. "war on drugs" largesse--and the other, a minor "free trade for the rich" partner but major drug route (Guatemala).

Plus the center-right former Mexican presidents' commission--Mexico, a major U.S. "free trade for the rich" partner, major drug route and major "player" in every way, right on the U.S. border.

All three countries--Colombia, Guatemala and Mexico--with huge "war on drugs" moneys from U.S. taxpayers, with all that that means for the local fascisti and for vast military/police corruption and protection rackets. The rightwing in these countries = the drug cartels. That is the clear and obvious result of the U.S. "war on drugs" in Colombia. The Bush Junta, as a parting shot (2008) dumped billions into Mexico for the same purpose (consolidation of the drug trade; protection of their networks; control of politicians). Guatemala is rife with rightwing and drug violence--and is still hurting from the Reagan era horrors (TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND Mayan villagers slaughtered). The U.S. didn't have to do much to destroy Guatemala as a society and as a democracy.

Now, why would RIGHTWING politicians want to end all this? WHO would they be speaking for?

They must be speaking for very big "players" in the drug business: the surviving, favored drug cartels and Big Pharma. They are proposing the end of a rival business--the "war" business. And, if I didn't know what I know about the "war on drugs," I would say that they are ASKING for a bullet in the head from some "war on drugs" general, or DEA agent, or hired gun, or drug cartel death squad. Are these men stupid? No, they are not. They are speaking for powerful interests and they know that they will not be assassinated for this. How do they know that?

I can't rule out that they are actually defying U.S. government policy--for their own reasons or in solidarity with leftist leaders in the movement for LatAm sovereignty--but I think that that is very unlikely.

This song and dance--Molina advocating legalization, and the U.S. embassy pooh-poohing that and trotting out all the tired old lies about it--is nothing more, in my opinion. It is orchestrated. If my theory is right, this Molina proposal (and Santos' prior, same proposal) is a "false flag" ploy. It is coming FROM the U.S. government, but from the outside, THROUGH these U.S.-controlled, rightwing leaders, to see how it will fly and to begin prep of our propagandized people for Big Pharma's big move.

Now, there may still be some controversy within the U.S. government and within the overarching corporate/political establishment, as "war on drugs" profiteers consider their options. Maybe they are being promised a war on Iran or a war on Venezuela. I shudder to think. One thing I think we can be pretty sure of: Legalization will NOT result in reduced "war" budgets, although it might result in reduced 'prison-industrial complex" budgets. The prisons are bursting with inmates and state budgets have been looted. In California (looted by Enron), "liberal" Governor Brown is dumping thousands of prisoners on the counties, which can hardly absorb them. (Note: SEVENTY PERCENT of U.S. prisoners are in jail for non-violent crimes, mostly drug related.) This is a true crisis and legalization would relieve it. There is NO MORE MONEY to punish people for drug possession/trading and the rightwing purposes in doing so have already been accomplished--decimation/disempowerment of poor populations.

One other thing: legalized recreational or addictive drugs will be the subject of a regressive (anti-poor people) tax (the sales tax). It is another way to tax the poor and avoid taxing the rich. This is another "glow" around legalization (in addition to Big Pharma/Bush Cartel profiteering) that makes it attractive to those who serve the rich (all of our political leaders, almost without exception). Legalization will produce a new regressive tax of major proportions (fending off fair taxation); it will be a corporate business stimulant; it will relieve the prison crisis; it can be monopolized and become part of huge, unaccountable conglomerates; it can "launder" Bush Cartel/CIA billions in illicit money and so on. It has many plusses and "glow" points for the powers-that-be.

"Military-industrial complex" profiteering will stay the same. We're in for more wars, I'm afraid--from the "liberals" (their little wars, such as drone-bombing Libya), and from the nutball fascists (Bush Junta II: big wars). The U.S. has almost nothing else to "sell" but war and war toys. And the profiteers of war cannot be dislodged. They will suck up all gain from legalization into their great big hungry maw. As with the end of the "Cold War," we will see no benefit from the end of the "war on drugs." Indeed, recreational and addictive drugs may become MORE expensive in Big Pharma's hands--but, more likely, the legal looting will be spread out across Medicare and private insurance co-pays, to include more "consumers."

Big Pharma R&D on recreational and addictive drugs has likely been completed. Long term planning (including how to maintain the war machine budget) has likely been completed or is in-progress. And if anybody can simply turn the country from one direction 180 degrees to its opposite, it is Big Pharma combined with the Bush Cartel and its favored recreational/addictive drug providers.

I know that I'm extrapolating a lot, from these two rightwing presidents' statements, but I can't make any other sense out of them.

It's interesting that Santos said, in his statement about drug legalization, that he "would be crucified" if he took the initiative on it, but that he would support legalization if "someone else" took the initiative. Soon, that "someone else" came along and did just that. "Crucified" by whom? Perhaps the immediate war profiteers around him, his own military (of which he was Defense Minister during several of the "glory years" of U.S. billions flooding into their hands). Perhaps the war profiteers in Washington. Or both. His statement about being "crucified" may mean that the matter was not quite settled yet, how the war profiteers would continue war profiteering. Molina's follow up statement may mean that we are close to a decision and a big move within OUR political establishment/government, on legalization.

"Liberal" politicians, like Obama and Jerry Brown, will not--do not have the power to--propose legalization until they get the "green light" from those who own them. They would, indeed, be "crucified" if they did. Their hypocrisy on the "war on drugs" is palpable (not to mention disgusting). So it may come from the right instead--and be part of a deal, say, that will put Jeb in the White House, big war back on the table and Big Pharma dealing out cocaine, heroine and other drugs legally.. That could be fun. "Zonked out nation goes to war." (We're already zonked on sugar, hormones, anti-psychotics, anti-depressants, painkillers, speed and other "substances"--so maybe adding the illegal drugs to this mix won't change things much--although easier availability of marijuana and coca leaves (not cocaine) could be beneficial, if Big Pharma provides undoctored herbs--not very likely.)

Like I said, what corporations want, corporations get--and what the Bush Cartel wants, the Bush Cartel gets. Doesn't matter if it's a 180 about-face on U.S. policy. I mean, look what they did with torture--made it "the fashion," in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the U.S. Constitution, the UN Charter and numerous laws and treaties, not to mention democratic tradition! Easily overturned. Easy 180. So it goes.

It's also kind of like the transglobal corporate interest in "green energy." When the time comes, when they're ready, they will monopolize/expand the technology and make us pay through the nose for free energy from the Sun. They're already doing it. That is a monopolization-in-progress. They've done it with EVERYTHING that people want or need--from food, to clothing, to shelter, to energy, to medical care, to education, to sex, to entertainment, to love of family (buy them things), to "community" (shopping malls), to clever widgets, to postal services, speedy transportation, personal security and personal hygiene--everything turned into a manipulable commodity. Why not illicit drugs?

No reason whatever why not, from a corporate point of view.

Peoples' need/desire for recreational drugs or dependence on addictive drugs will become just another corporate commodity. The blather from the U.S. embassy in Guatemala--like all such "war on drugs" blather--is just a temporary defense of current policy, until the big players have made their arrangements, and then we won't hear that defense any more and they will start blathering about something else (all the "terrorists" in Nicaragua or Venezuela that need to be bombed back to the Stone Age).

I think it's coming (legalization) but, with Big Pharma in charge, could be bad. Very bad. I've too often seen corporate monsters turn good things into bad things--food, drugs, journalism, business, "the marketplace," medicine, entertainment, investment, credit, you name it. Legalization--which I heartily support, in theory--could well be "turned," in typical corporate fashion, into a big negative.

These rightwing presidents advocating it has caused me to analyze possible downsides. The end of any "war" is a good thing. The "war on drugs" has been immensely bloody and destructive. It has also been as costly, all in all, as the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan. It is evil. So, whatever may come of legalization, it is good to stop the killing and the repression and the immense cost. Legalization will NOT increase addiction. That has been proven, time and again. It DECREASES addiction, and it will have the benefit of categorizing drug addiction as a medical problem, not a criminal problem. These and other huge potential benefits could come from legalization. But with Corporate Rule as it is, and considering the Bush Cartel set up for legalization (their activities in Colombia), and control of our government by war profiteers, we could end up with a different but equally bad set of problems, long term.

Aldous Huxley warned of a society controlled by a government-provided, mind numbing drug, in "Brave New World." That is something to think about, as we contemplate a Big Pharma/Bush Drug Cartel legalization--not that we have any power, as a People, to stop it, mitigate it or do something else (a better legalization). We really don't. And that is something else to think about: how we get our power back as a democratic People. (Start with the corporate-run, 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines, is my advice.)