The War on Drugs is a bust

Zeuzzz

Banned
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
5,211
Very interesting article. I'm starting to think that oil may not have been the only reason we invaded Afghanistan.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=9fdb92c0-eeb8-4d2d-9e1a-1609b0e2fbee
Dan Gardner, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Wednesday, October 08, 2008

Afghanistan is going badly. "We're not going to win this war," said a top British general last week.

Well, pass the smelling salts.

The War on Drugs created Afghanistan's massive illicit drug trade. This trade funds the insurgency, corrupts the government and destabilizes society. But neither the United States nor the United Nations will acknowledge that the War on Drugs is anything less than a roaring success and so they refuse to discuss alternatives to the policy that fuels the whole bloody mess.

And victory eludes us? Well.

Look, the debate about Afghanistan has always bordered on farce. Every serious observer -- including the president of Afghanistan himself -- has said that Afghanistan's illicit drug trade, not the Taliban, is the single greatest threat the country faces. And yet the drug trade has always been treated as a peripheral issue.

Discussion has been scant. It has also been ignorant and vapid. Even the Manley report said nothing intelligent about it. "Coherent counter-narcotic strategies need to be adopted by all relevant authorities," the report sagely recommended, leaving the identity of these marvelous strategies to the reader's imagination. [........]


If they wanted to win the war in afghanistan by bankrupting the warlords and the taleban, and really wanted to solve the heroin drug trade problem, why not just spray the fields with a killer pesticide??? This could be done in a matter of days.

They've got the troops, the planes, the chemicals, they would solve the drug 'problem', bankrupt their warlord 'enemies', and win the war. So why the hell not?
 
Last edited:
Another interesting article written by proffessor of Economics at the University of Ottowa, Michel Chossudovsky.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20060921&articleId=3294
Who benefits from the Afghan Opium Trade?

Implemented in 2000-2001, the Taliban's drug eradication program led to a 94 percent decline in opium cultivation. In 2001, according to UN figures, opium production had fallen to 185 tons. Immediately following the October 2001 US led invasion, production increased dramatically, regaining its historical levels.

The Vienna based UN Office on Drugs and Crime estimates that the 2006 harvest will be of the order of 6,100 tonnes, 33 times its production levels in 2001 under the Taliban government (3200 % increase in 5 years). Cultivation in 2006 reached a record 165,000 hectares compared with 104,000 in 2005 and 7,606 in 2001 under the Taliban (See table below). [......]

Based on the structure of British retail prices for heroin, the total proceeds of the Afghan heroin trade would be of the order of 124.4 billion dollars, assuming a 50 percent purity ratio. Assuming an average purity ratio of 36 percent and the average British price, the cash value of Afghan heroin sales would be of the order of 194.4 billion dollars.

While these figures do not constitute precise estimates, they nonetheless convey the sheer magnitude of this multibillion dollar narcotics trade out of Afghanistan. Based on the first figure which provides a conservative estimate, the cash value of these sales, once they reach Western retail markets are in excess of 120 billion dollars a year. [......]

There are powerful business and financial interests behind narcotics. From this standpoint, geopolitical and military control over the drug routes is as strategic as oil and oil pipelines.

Moreover, the above figures including those on money laundering, confirm that the bulk of the revenues associated with the global trade in narcotics are not appropriated by terrorist groups and warlords, as suggested by the UNODC report. In the case of Afghanistan, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime estimates that a mere 2.7 billion accrues as revenue within Afghanistan. According to the US State department "Afghanistan drug profits support the Taliban and their terrorism efforts against the United States, its allies and the Afghan government." (statement, the House Appropriations foreign operations, export financing and related programs subcommittee. September 12, 2006)

However, what distinguishes narcotics from legal commodity trade is that narcotics constitutes a major source of wealth formation not only for organized crime but also for the US intelligence apparatus, which increasingly constitutes a powerful actor in the spheres of finance and banking. This relationship has been documented by several studies including the writings of Alfred McCoy. (Drug Fallout: the CIA's Forty Year Complicity in the Narcotics Trade. The Progressive, 1 August 1997).

In other words, intelligence agencies, powerful business, drug traders and organized crime are competing for the strategic control over the heroin routes. A large share of this multi-billion dollar revenues of narcotics are deposited in the Western banking system. Most of the large international banks together with their affiliates in the offshore banking havens launder large amounts of narco-dollars.

This trade can only prosper if the main actors involved in narcotics have "political friends in high places." Legal and illegal undertakings are increasingly intertwined, the dividing line between "businesspeople" and criminals is blurred. In turn, the relationship among criminals, politicians and members of the intelligence establishment has tainted the structures of the state and the role of its institutions including the Military.
[.......]


hmmmm.
 
Last edited:
Great. So not only are our poloticians and intelligence agencies mass murdering warmongering traitors, but they also apparently run and are responsible for the worlds illicit drug trade.

When will the madness stop :eye-poppi
 
The War on Drugs is one of the worst policies the United States government has ever implemented. It sure as hell never stopped me from doing any drugs, and I have done all of them most people have heard of. All it has done is made me waste more money than I would have anyway by grossly inflating prices. This isn't really a huge deal for me since I've never been an addict but it is for plenty of people that are addicts (and the people they harmed by their actions) because they have to rob, steal, or become dealers themselves to support their habits.

And the War on Drugs actually causes drugs to be more dangerous than they would otherwise be. You wouldn't have people selling fentanyl as heroin, or PMA as ecstasy, or meth with a bunch of other dangerous chemicals due to improper manufacture if it wasn't for these policies.

It also causes a large amount of corruption and violence in countries like Mexico and Columbia. You wouldn't have this happening if it weren't for the huge amounts of money that can be made off the drug trade. And those huge sums of money couldn't be made if it weren't for the War on Drugs. No cartels in Mexico who move billions of dollars worth of drugs killing cops and politicians (the ones that have not been corrupted) everyday. No inner city gangs fighting each over the crack trade.

Don't even get me started on the moral implications of somebody else telling me what I can and cannot put in my body.

ETA: This isn't even just politicians' fault. It also lies with everyday Americans. Most of whom see no problem putting somebody in prison for selling drugs, yet think it is OK for their neighborhood gas stations to sell drugs that actually cause much more harm to society than all illegal drugs combined to anybody who is old enough.
 
Last edited:
The War on Drugs is one of the worst policies the United States government has ever implemented.


Tell me about it. Its illegal to chill out and get high with a bit of weed, but perfectly legal to drink as much alcohol (or rather consume the drug ethanol) as you want until your completely bladdered, beating people up, drink driving about like a nutter and causing mayhem. And its illegal to use mdma even though last year more people died of swallowing bee's in cans than died directly from swallowing mdma. Lets start the war on bee's! And its perfectly legal to use, buy, pick, sell and cultivate highly hallucingonic planets like datura, that are highly poisonous and can potentially kill people if too much is taken, but using and growing a few small plants of cannabis can land you in jail for years. They'll even release rapists and murderers from jail in place of people caught smoking a joint of weed in some states. Its legal to sell one of the most potent hallucinogeioc mushrooms that can really screw peopels heads up after a bad trip, amanita muscaria, you can buy it from nearly anywhere online, yet the weaker more popular and enjoyable 'magic' mushrooms are a grade A substance with a maximum of life imprisonment. The army have been using mdma to treat people with ptsd for years, with amazingly good results, yet due to drugs laws its banned for all members of the public. You can get ... .... I better stop. Drug laws just make no sense.


My two cents: Crime should be defined as an activity that injures, kills, deprives a person or institution of property or creates an unsafe environment.

With drugs (illegal or otherwise) these are the criterion that should be used to determine what category they should be put into.

The propensity of committing a crime under the influence of different drugs varies (I am including injuring self as well as others and propery). If you could assign scores based on criminality to different drugs and classify them, the scores for the basic recreational drugs based on the statistics would go something like this: Cannabis/Marijuana 1/10, Ecstasy 3/10, Tobacco 4/10, Alcohol 7/10, Cocaine 8/10, Crack 9/10, Meth 9/10 Heroin 10/10. Any drug that scores under 5 should not carry any penalties. Those using drugs scoring 5-10 and showing a clear criminal act as a consequence should be charged with the crime AND for abuse of the drug which would carry an extra penalty (heavier on subsequent offences). Drugs scored above 8 should be an offence to have in possesion without licence.
 
Last edited:
Very interesting article. I'm starting to think that oil may not have been the only reason we invaded Afghanistan.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=9fdb92c0-eeb8-4d2d-9e1a-1609b0e2fbee



If they wanted to win the war in afghanistan by bankrupting the warlords and the taleban, and really wanted to solve the heroin drug trade problem, why not just spray the fields with a killer pesticide??? This could be done in a matter of days.

They've got the troops, the planes, the chemicals, they would solve the drug 'problem', bankrupt their warlord 'enemies', and win the war. So why the hell not?

While I agree that the war on drugs is doing more harm than good, we definitely did not invade Afghanistan for drugs and we definitely did not invade there for oil. If this is what you think happened, provide one single source where the United States has gained any sort of income from either oil OR drugs in Afghanistan.
 
While I agree that the war on drugs is doing more harm than good, we definitely did not invade Afghanistan for drugs and we definitely did not invade there for oil. If this is what you think happened, provide one single source where the United States has gained any sort of income from either oil OR drugs in Afghanistan.


See my second post in this thread, and especially read the bolded text. Someones making a lot of money off this market, and it isn't the taliban or afghani's.
 
While I agree that the war on drugs is doing more harm than good, we definitely did not invade Afghanistan for drugs and we definitely did not invade there for oil. If this is what you think happened, provide one single source where the United States has gained any sort of income from either oil OR drugs in Afghanistan.

You're definitely right about this. The war in Afghanistan has nothing to do with drugs. And the War on Drugs is just about stupid and immoral policies rather than making money for the United States.

And Zeuzzz, destroying poppy fields would not end the war, it would make it worse. Poppy is the main source of income not just for the Taliban and warlords, but also for everyday people there. Destroying the crops would turn the entire country against us. Furthermore, destroying the fields would be no easy task. They have tried doing the same thing in South America with coca and it doesn't work.

See my second post in this thread, and especially read the bolded text. Someones making a lot of money off this market, and it isn't the taliban or afghani's.

They are making plenty of money off it. Not as much as the international cartels that smuggle it into places like the United States where it worth more though. Just because some article says that the CIA is does not make true. They don't even need the money, they have a black budget from a country that spends like $2.5 trillion dollars a year.
 
Last edited:
The propensity of committing a crime under the influence of different drugs varies (I am including injuring self as well as others and propery). If you could assign scores based on criminality to different drugs and classify them, the scores for the basic recreational drugs based on the statistics would go something like this: Cannabis/Marijuana 1/10, Ecstasy 3/10, Tobacco 4/10, Alcohol 7/10, Cocaine 8/10, Crack 9/10, Meth 9/10 Heroin 10/10. Any drug that scores under 5 should not carry any penalties. Those using drugs scoring 5-10 and showing a clear criminal act as a consequence should be charged with the crime AND for abuse of the drug which would carry an extra penalty (heavier on subsequent offences). Drugs scored above 8 should be an offence to have in possesion without licence.

Well, then you are no better than drug crusaders than. You just want drugs that you like to be legal.

First, injuring yourself is no crime (or shouldn't be at least). Second, heroin the drug that you rate worst does not cause people to harm others while under influence. I can tell you this from first hand experience. You just sit there, high as hell. The major harm with heroin is that it can be highly addictive (not everybody that does it gets addicted though, I have never been nor will I) and that since a heroin addiction can be very expensive because it is illegal some people resort to other things that are actually crimes to get their fix. It is also relatively easy to OD, but if you mess up and do too much, that is on you.
 
Well, then you are no better than drug crusaders than. You just want drugs that you like to be legal.

I think you need to look at the hard core statistics that I'm basing my above points on. Look at the death rates for various drugs, I think you'll be surprised. Legal ones like tobacco, alcohol, and even caffeine (due to heart disease) are far higher than ecstacy or marijuana. And there are many more things you may be surprised of. Especially about magic mushroom statistics.

I think all drugs should be legal. If a person is of age, has the correct liscence, and has shown to beable to use the substance responsibly, then this should not be a problem. If they start abusing it in any way, then remove their liscence and give a suitable punishment, not prison where they'll just get more drugs than they do outside, more councelling and support. Gangs wouldn't be able to make money this way anymore and hassle and kill people, the price would drop, crime would plummet, drugs would be a hell of a lot safer, and more people would be content.

The key is informing everyone at an early age properly about what each drug does, still teach that avoidance is the best option, but at least teach ACCURATE information. Most kids are taught that cannabis is some sort of killer drug that makes you go mad instantly, that if you take some mdma your bladder will explode and you'll die, and when they find out thats all crap later in life they think thats the same for all drugs, which it certainly isn't. Some drugs are just pure bad and addictive. This is what makes cannanbis a 'gateway' drug. The only people to blambe for this are the govenment.
 
Last edited:
Believe me I know about the statistics about death rates concerning legal drugs versus illegal ones. I know nobody ever dies from weed, LSD or 'shrooms and that almost nobody ever dies from real ecstasy and that plenty of people die from alcohol and tobacco. Hell, I've taken the four illegal drugs I just mentioned way more times than I can count so I also have some personal experience on the issue.

The moral problem that I have with licensing people to use drugs is that it implies that the government has more of a say what you do with your body than you do. As long as I am committing no real crimes in the process, it is nobody's business if I decide to sit around and put heroin into my veins all day (I won't do this because it is stupid). Just the same as it is nobody's business if I drink all day as long as I don't drive drunk or otherwise act stupid.

I am also opposed to it for practical reasons. Drug licensing would be impossible to enforce. How would they even determine who is responsible enough to have one? And how would they find out if a person was abusing drugs unless somebody comes to check on them to see if they are high all the time?

And what if I was a junkie and I don't want to stop shooting up heroin and the government discovers that I am abusing it? How are they going to force me to go to counceling if I don't want to? Threaten to send me to prison? Sure they can take away my license to get it legally but since I am an addict, I wouldn't really give a crap whether or not I got it legally. I can already get it easily now even though it is illegal as hell. In some cities in the United States, getting heroin is literally as easy as going to the ghetto and finding a black person standing on a corner.

With this licensing nonsense you are back at square one with people that are going to abuse drugs no matter what. I guess at least you are not making criminals out of people that just want to go to a rave, and take some ecstasy to help them have some fun and that sort of thing.

I certainly think that kids should be taught the real effects of drugs and not a bunch of nonsense. That nonsense also includes things about hard drugs like cocaine and heroin. "Do them once and you'll be addicted for life." I know for a fact that statements like those are bald-faced lies, although both can definitely wreck your life (so can ecstasy though although it is less likely to).
 
Last edited:
like most wars this one could better be solved by fixing the core issue. That means increasing the standard of living of the people. If the people there got a decent price for their crops instead of a pittance they would not need to cultivate drugs. The EU is just as guilti to this as the US since both have protectionist policies designed to lower the prices third world country farmers get for their goods.
 
like most wars this one could better be solved by fixing the core issue. That means increasing the standard of living of the people. If the people there got a decent price for their crops instead of a pittance they would not need to cultivate drugs. The EU is just as guilti to this as the US since both have protectionist policies designed to lower the prices third world country farmers get for their goods.

If third world farmers got better money for legitimate crops than they do for drug crops, all the cartels would have to do is offer them more money for coca and poppy they would continue to grow them. The ultimate result would just be slightly more expensive drugs for the end user.

People in places like the United States want their drugs and the drug cartels want their money. These are two market forces which cannot be stopped. It is foolish to try and causes much more harm than good.
 
Last edited:
From the department of nothing-ever-changes.... Many years ago, when I was in the army long about 1965, the base theater showed a little film called The Poppy Is Also A Flower.

This was an excellent film starring Yul Brynner, E.G. Marshall, and other luminaries and dealt with.... The opium trade out of Afghanistan. Set mostly in Europe, it went into some detail on the international nature of the trade and the deeply-rooted political corruption involved.
 
Let capitalism fix it. Legalize it, and some chemist will synthesize the product in huge vats, putting the farmers and their distribution systems out of business.

Or maybe keep it illegal, but 'bail-out' the mobs by sponsoring them to the technology that it would take? Let the NIH do the research, like gene-splice the heroin gene from the poppy, or the cocaine genes from the coca, into e-coli, and give vials of the germ to the mobs. Then we would eliminate the farmer form the loop. allowing Afghanistan, Columbia, other drug producing countries to have real economies.

My recombinant insulin retail cost is $2 per dose, and it's patented.
 
See my second post in this thread, and especially read the bolded text. Someones making a lot of money off this market, and it isn't the taliban or afghani's.

The source you provided doe NOT give a link stating that the United States has made a single dime off of drugs OR oil from Afghanistan. Do you have another source? Or is your claim that the United States government is actually an illegal drugs dealer based completely on the one article that gives not evidence of any links to America?

Also, address your claim that America only went to war in Afghanistan for oil. You really need to back that one up as well.
 
Let capitalism fix it. Legalize it, and some chemist will synthesize the product in huge vats, putting the farmers and their distribution systems out of business.

This is correct. Sadly though, many people are too stuck in their ways and drugs like marijuana have been made out to be some sort of evil substance. If the U.S. were to legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana, they would not only make a FORTUNE, but also eliminate a section of the illegal drug trade that leads to crime.
 
Of course it is a bust.

Just like the war on Prostitution was a bust.

Just like the war on homosexuality was a bust.

Just like the war on alcohol was a bust.

Just like the war on gambling was a bust.

You cannot win a war against a behavior a sizable number of people want to partake in and which (arguably) victimizes only those who partake.

To try to do that just pushes that behavior underground, and usually associates it with all manner of other crimes, harms people far beyond the harm that would pertain were the act decriminalized, and puts the money that chases that behavior into the hands of the criminal element.

We got smart with homosexuality, alcohol, and gambling. I wonder how long it will take before we get smart about drugs and prostitution?
 

Back
Top Bottom