Difference between revisions of "War on Drugs"
m (Text replacement - "|wikipedia=http://en.wikipedia.org/" to "|wikipedia=https://en.wikipedia.org/") |
(lede) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|start=June 18, 1971 | |start=June 18, 1971 | ||
|image=war-on-drugs.jpg | |image=war-on-drugs.jpg | ||
| + | |image_width=333px | ||
|so_called=1 | |so_called=1 | ||
}} | }} | ||
| + | The [[so-called]] '''War on Drugs''' (or, more accurately the '''War on Drug Users''') is an immensely profitable scheme cooked up in the early 1970s, to increase the profits of the corporocrats while stressing out the general population. It has only gotten wosre wince the supranational [[deep state]] has increased its control over the [[illegal drug trade]]. | ||
| + | |||
==Official narrative== | ==Official narrative== | ||
| − | The [[official narrative]] | + | The [[official narrative]] is that it is more or less agreed that the governments of the world must work together to prevent citizens from the use of a range of dangerous drugs. These drugs are dangerous in and of themselves, as they can overcome weak-minded citizens who are as ill advised as to consume them. |
{{QB|A free market for drugs would unleash a drug epidemic, while a regulated one would create a parallel criminal market.<br/> | {{QB|A free market for drugs would unleash a drug epidemic, while a regulated one would create a parallel criminal market.<br/> | ||
[[Antonio Maria Costa]], [[United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime]]<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/4787088.stm</ref>}} | [[Antonio Maria Costa]], [[United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime]]<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/4787088.stm</ref>}} | ||
| + | The [[Drug Enforcement Administration]] (DEA) must ensure that the drug prohibition laws are followed in the US, while internationally drug control treaties are need to reduce drug supply. | ||
===Official opposition narrative=== | ===Official opposition narrative=== | ||
| − | The [[official opposition narrative]] is that it is a huge mistake which doesn't actually succeed in reducing drug consumption, drug-related crime or fatalities. Evidence cited includes the fact that [[heroin]] use, for example, | + | The [[official opposition narrative]] is that it is a huge mistake which doesn't actually succeed in reducing drug consumption, drug-related crime or fatalities. Evidence cited includes the fact that [[heroin]] use, for example, ''increased'' in USA by 63 percent from 2003 to 2013.<ref>http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2015/09/06/middletown-ohio-ap-ohio-couple-calls-out-heroin-in-teen-daughters-obituary.html</ref> The [[Dutch]] policy of decriminalisation did not "unleash a drug epidemic", and may in fact have lead to a ''de''crease in recreational drug usage. |
The official opposition narrative doesn't question the putative altruism of the motivation behind the war on drugs. In fact, more and more people are seeing that the [[deep state]] is playing many sides against one another - making huge profits from both the [[global drug trade]] and the organised drug law enforcement actions, to say nothing of their profits from the prison industrial complex, from [[mass incarceration]] and drug related [[money laundering]], as well as using its for various purposes.<ref>http://www.unwelcomeguests.net/23</ref> | The official opposition narrative doesn't question the putative altruism of the motivation behind the war on drugs. In fact, more and more people are seeing that the [[deep state]] is playing many sides against one another - making huge profits from both the [[global drug trade]] and the organised drug law enforcement actions, to say nothing of their profits from the prison industrial complex, from [[mass incarceration]] and drug related [[money laundering]], as well as using its for various purposes.<ref>http://www.unwelcomeguests.net/23</ref> | ||
====Concerns==== | ====Concerns==== | ||
| − | Amidst the tired rhetoric about being tough on drug users, many observers have noted that some drugs such as cannabis have been ''de facto'' legalised in various [[Europe]]an countries without a surge in demand -- indeed, often with a ''de''crease in use. This point is not dwelt upon by the {{ccm}}, who continue to suggest that the "war on drugs" is really about reducing harm to people. Moreover, legal drug use in USA has surged during the same time, a trend rarely remarked upon in the context of the "war on drugs".<ref>[http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db76.pdf Over 10% US citizens over age 12 were on anti-depressive medicines from 2005-2008 ]</ref> In fact, scientific considerations about the impact of recreational drug use on society as a whole or upon individual users are only of marginal interest to the politicians.<ref>http://www.unwelcomeguests.net/636</ref> | + | Amidst the tired rhetoric about being tough on drug users, many observers have noted that some drugs such as [[cannabis]] have been ''de facto'' legalised in various [[Europe]]an countries without a surge in demand -- indeed, often with a ''de''crease in use. This point is not dwelt upon by the {{ccm}}, who continue to suggest that the "war on drugs" is really about reducing harm to people. Moreover, legal drug use in USA has surged during the same time, a trend rarely remarked upon in the context of the "war on drugs".<ref>[http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db76.pdf Over 10% US citizens over age 12 were on anti-depressive medicines from 2005-2008 ]</ref> In fact, scientific considerations about the impact of recreational drug use on society as a whole or upon individual users are only of marginal interest to the politicians.<ref>http://www.unwelcomeguests.net/636</ref> |
==History== | ==History== | ||
| − | [[Harry J. Anslinger]] was the first [[Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics]], from August 12, 1930 to May 1962. The "War on Drugs" was announced by [[US President]] [[Richard Nixon]] in 1971, amidst widespread disillusionment amongst US youth with the [[Vietnam War]] in particular and the [[establishment]] in general. | + | [[Harry J. Anslinger]] was the first [[Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics]], from August 12, 1930 to May 1962. The "War on Drugs" was announced by [[US President]] [[Richard Nixon]] in 1971, amidst widespread disillusionment amongst US youth with the [[Vietnam War]] in particular and the [[establishment]] in general. Many [[drug]]s that are illegal were made so after a barrage of [[propaganda]], sometimes of an overtly racist character (for example, in the case of cannabis. |
==Purposes== | ==Purposes== | ||
| Line 29: | Line 33: | ||
====Big Pharma==== | ====Big Pharma==== | ||
| − | [[image:marinol.jpg|left| | + | [[image:marinol.jpg|left|420px]] |
[[Pharmaceutical companies]] benefit from the lack of competition with their medicines. In contrast to naturally occurring herbal remedies, many of which have long histories of safe use, they seek to promote the use of chemical analogues. Adjudication of their relative lack of safety is up to the national regulatory bodies such as the [[FDA]], many of which are captured by big pharma. As novel pharmaceuticals they are patentable - and therefore monopolizable, if naturally growing opposition can be eliminated through legal measures such as the "war on drugs". | [[Pharmaceutical companies]] benefit from the lack of competition with their medicines. In contrast to naturally occurring herbal remedies, many of which have long histories of safe use, they seek to promote the use of chemical analogues. Adjudication of their relative lack of safety is up to the national regulatory bodies such as the [[FDA]], many of which are captured by big pharma. As novel pharmaceuticals they are patentable - and therefore monopolizable, if naturally growing opposition can be eliminated through legal measures such as the "war on drugs". | ||
Revision as of 08:31, 26 August 2016
 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Date | June 18, 1971 - Present |
| Exposed by | John Ehrlichman |
| Interest of | Daniel Bruno, CIA/Drug trafficking, Bill Conroy, Dark Politricks, Food and Drug Administration, Global Commission on Drug Policy, Michael Levine, Melvyn Levitsky, Tom Lloyd, Narco News, Netherlands/Deep state, Richard Nixon, UN/ODC, UN/Office On Drugs and Crime, Douglas Valentine, Gary Webb, James Q. Wilson |
| Subpage | •War on Drugs/Preparation |
The so-called War on Drugs (or, more accurately the War on Drug Users) is an immensely profitable scheme cooked up in the early 1970s, to increase the profits of the corporocrats while stressing out the general population. It has only gotten wosre wince the supranational deep state has increased its control over the illegal drug trade.
Contents
Official narrative
The official narrative is that it is more or less agreed that the governments of the world must work together to prevent citizens from the use of a range of dangerous drugs. These drugs are dangerous in and of themselves, as they can overcome weak-minded citizens who are as ill advised as to consume them.
A free market for drugs would unleash a drug epidemic, while a regulated one would create a parallel criminal market.
Antonio Maria Costa, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime[1]
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) must ensure that the drug prohibition laws are followed in the US, while internationally drug control treaties are need to reduce drug supply.
Official opposition narrative
The official opposition narrative is that it is a huge mistake which doesn't actually succeed in reducing drug consumption, drug-related crime or fatalities. Evidence cited includes the fact that heroin use, for example, increased in USA by 63 percent from 2003 to 2013.[2] The Dutch policy of decriminalisation did not "unleash a drug epidemic", and may in fact have lead to a decrease in recreational drug usage.
The official opposition narrative doesn't question the putative altruism of the motivation behind the war on drugs. In fact, more and more people are seeing that the deep state is playing many sides against one another - making huge profits from both the global drug trade and the organised drug law enforcement actions, to say nothing of their profits from the prison industrial complex, from mass incarceration and drug related money laundering, as well as using its for various purposes.[3]
Concerns
Amidst the tired rhetoric about being tough on drug users, many observers have noted that some drugs such as cannabis have been de facto legalised in various European countries without a surge in demand -- indeed, often with a decrease in use. This point is not dwelt upon by the commercially-controlled media, who continue to suggest that the "war on drugs" is really about reducing harm to people. Moreover, legal drug use in USA has surged during the same time, a trend rarely remarked upon in the context of the "war on drugs".[4] In fact, scientific considerations about the impact of recreational drug use on society as a whole or upon individual users are only of marginal interest to the politicians.[5]
History
Harry J. Anslinger was the first Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, from August 12, 1930 to May 1962. The "War on Drugs" was announced by US President Richard Nixon in 1971, amidst widespread disillusionment amongst US youth with the Vietnam War in particular and the establishment in general. Many drugs that are illegal were made so after a barrage of propaganda, sometimes of an overtly racist character (for example, in the case of cannabis.
Purposes
The global drug trade has long been the source of immense profits for those groups with sufficient power to effectively control it. Nowadays it is tightly controlled by deep state groups, which derive huge off-the-books profits from the practice. These are either laundered and siphoned off as private profits, or directly recycled for use in black operations. The war on drugs is essential to protecting these profit margins.
Profiteering
Banks profit from the consequent demand for money laundering, with some in Florida, for example, charging fees of a percent or two for 'counting' large cash deposits.
Big Pharma
Pharmaceutical companies benefit from the lack of competition with their medicines. In contrast to naturally occurring herbal remedies, many of which have long histories of safe use, they seek to promote the use of chemical analogues. Adjudication of their relative lack of safety is up to the national regulatory bodies such as the FDA, many of which are captured by big pharma. As novel pharmaceuticals they are patentable - and therefore monopolizable, if naturally growing opposition can be eliminated through legal measures such as the "war on drugs".
Law Enforcement
Law enforcement and a privatised prison system provide further commercial incentives to keep drugs illegal. Former LAPD Deputy Chief Stephen Downing explains that the practice of sending undercover police into schools to buy drugs "is not about public safety – the public is no safer, and the school grounds are no safer. The more arrests you have, the more funding you can get through federal grants and overtime."[6]
Private Prisons
About half of the US prison population are locked up for drug offences; as a major part of the school-to-prison pipeline, the war on drugs is a major factor in the profitability of the private prisons.[6] Mandatory minimum sentences have seen non-violent drug dealers convicted for as long as 55 years without the possibility of parole.[7][8]
Social engineering
Sting operations are carried out in the US under the "war on drugs" even against children who have mental conditions such as autism. The movie Reefer Madness dramatically demonstrates how big media is used to manipulate populations into accepting laws which infringe on existing human rights or civil liberties. As a victimless crime, possession of drugs is an charge which can easily be used to frame people, or to threaten people with.
Foreign policy cover
The "War on Drugs" has also been exploited a cover for US/Foreign Policy. The major drug producing regions of the world are of particular interest to the deep state.
Plan Colombia - Cocaine
- Full article:
Plan Colombia
- Full article:
Colombia is used as a US beachhead in South America. Peter Dale Scott correctly predicted when this was announced that increased military planes flying to and from Colombia would correlate with increased cocaine arriving in the USA. Peru was turned into a "narco-state" for a time under the kleptocracy of Alberto Fujimori, managed by deep state spook Vladimiro Montesinos.
Afghanistan - Opium
In 2014 the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) John F. Sopko admitted that "Despite spending over $7 billion to combat opium poppy cultivation and to develop the Afghan government’s counternarcotics capacity, opium poppy cultivation levels in Afghanistan hit an all-time high in 2013."[9] Sibel Edmonds explains that profits from opium production and export has been massively streamlined and stepped up during the US occupation of Afghanistan, and that Russia has been more or less cut out of the trade, leaving Turkey as the major shipping point.[10]
Examples
| Page name | Description |
|---|---|
| Document:Hong Kong and the Sassoon Opium Wars | |
| Plan Colombia | This was officially intended to decrease cocaine production and export to the US. On its announcement, Peter Dale Scott predicted that increased involvement of the US military would have an entirely converse effect. His prediction, that the amount of cocaine produced and exported would increase, proved correct. |
| Prohibition | The banning of drinkable alcohol (ethanol). This served multiple hypocritical purposes, much like the later "war on drugs". High on the list, as usual, were the private interests of the small clique who arranged it. |
| United States opioid epidemic | The extensive overuse of prescription opioid medications leading to illegal use in the United States from the 1990s. The purpose was to create a market for Afghan opium and to break potential political dissent. |
Related Quotations
| Page | Quote | Author | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blowback | “You want to know what this was really all about. The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying. We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” | John Ehrlichman | 1994 |
| Rodrigo Duterte | “If they are there in your neighbourhood, feel free to call us, the police or do it yourself if you have the gun. You have my support. If he fights and fights to the death, you can kill him. I will give you a medal... If you are involved in drugs, I will kill you. You son of a whore, I will really kill you.” | Rodrigo Duterte Wikiquote | 2016 |
| John Ehrlichman | “You want to know what this was really all about. The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying. We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” | John Ehrlichman | 1994 |
| Enrique Gomez-Hurtado | “Forget about drug deaths and acquisitive crime, about addiction and AIDS. All this pales into insignificance before the prospect facing the liberal societies of the West, like a rabbit in the headlights of an oncoming car. The income of the drug barons is an annual five hundred thousand million dollars, greater than the American defence budget. With this financial muscle they can suborn all the institutions of the state and, if the state resists, with this fortune they can purchase the firepower to outgun it. We are threatened with a return to the Dark Ages of rule by the gang. If the west relishes the yoke of the tyrant and the bully, current drug policies promote that end.” | Enrique Gomez-Hurtado | February 2001 |
| Heroin | “To understand this war and to understand the problems of heroin in particular, you need to grasp one core fact. In the words of Professor Arnold Trebach, the veteran specialist in the study of illicit drugs: "Virtually every 'fact' testified to under oath by the medical and criminological experts in 1924... was unsupported by any sound evidence." Indeed, nearly all of it is now directly and entirely contradicted by plentiful research from all over the world. The first casualty of this war was truth and yet, 77 years later, it still goes on, more vigorous than ever.” | February 2001 | |
| Singapore | “Singapore is a representation of humanity’s techno future. The city-state is one of the top Asian cities in terms of wealth, with a highly educated population and impressive infrastructure and public services.
But in the past seven months, Singapore has sent at least 11 people to the gallows. And, that should be a concern for rights groups and Christian Churches that campaign against capital punishment. The figure is met with skepticism, as Singapore does not notify the public about every execution it carries out nor does it release information about inmates waiting for their turn to be executed. Prison officials and executioners are bound by the Official Secrets Act not to divulge details of their work. The death penalty raises many questions as the state decides who lives and dies, and ultimately what message capital punishment conveys to society as a whole.” | UCA News | 2022 |
| Peter R. de Vries | “We already lost the War on drugs long ago, and the policy is bankrupt, it has led to nothing, yes, full prisons, a clogged justice system and it didn't help one bit because you can find a coffee-shop on every corner of the street and even with record-braking catches of shipments of cocaine in the harbour, it doesn't mean anything. We're dealing with a extreme high demand in the world with $300.000.000.000 profit for drug traffickers with $100.000.000.000 of it cocaine alone, with the same 100.000.000.000 for the worldwide diverse police and justice agencies used, amounting to nothing. You can't just maintain this repressive policy. You need to make this more of national health crisis.” | Peter R. de Vries | 2020 |
Related Document
| Title | Type | Publication date | Author(s) | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Document:Transnationalised Repression Parafascism and the US | article | September 1986 | Peter Dale Scott |
Rating
26 August 2016 Robin An expose of the truth behind this elaborate fictionA still slightly random assortment of ways in to the purposes of the fiction of drug interdiction and the reality of the multi-trillion dollar business which this charade evolved to protect.
References
- ↑ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/4787088.stm
- ↑ http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2015/09/06/middletown-ohio-ap-ohio-couple-calls-out-heroin-in-teen-daughters-obituary.html
- ↑ http://www.unwelcomeguests.net/23
- ↑ Over 10% US citizens over age 12 were on anti-depressive medicines from 2005-2008
- ↑ http://www.unwelcomeguests.net/636
- ↑ a b http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-entrapment-of-jesse-snodgrass-20140226
- ↑ http://www.progressive.org/mag_abramsky0606
- ↑ http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705300412/Judge-wont-toss-out-55-year-sentence.html
- ↑ http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/10/21/7-billion-us-eradication-effort-delivers-record-high-poppy-crop-afghanistan
- ↑ http://www.unwelcomeguests.net/691
