|
| News Groups Blog Forum Chat Video Audio Images Documents Wiki Home |
|
|||||||
| Register | Tags | FAQ n Rules | Mark Forums Read |
| Notices |
| Drug Policy Reform & Narco Politics The war on drugs, drug politics, how drugs influence politics & (inter)national conflicts. |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Reassigning Blame For Drug Commerce.
ALERT:
I just saw a "documentary" special on the History Channel about George Jung (Ref. movie: "Blow"-...and NO! That was not the documentary I'm referring to), and Pablo Escobar. It practically blamed origins of America's cocaine problem on these two people. THAT'S BULLSHIT!!! Now, I'm NOT going to tell you what my own piss-ass thoughts on this topic (at least not right now), but I DO want to know what other D/F members think about America's cocaine problem, and who caused/causes it. Any clues? |
|
#2
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Re: Reassigning Blame For Drug Commerce.
In the beginning - patent medicine. Then racism to make Black people work longer hours. Rolling up to the present day - the CIA was hauling it up to fund covert wars that would have caused "shock & awe" in the American public if they became known. I was involved in ferreting out one such smuggling operation back in 1990 - 1. They were hauling it off the St. Lawrence river through the Mohawk Nation. It was one fuck of a mess. The Mohawk just said no. The result of their refusal included the burning of their tribal museum - with artifacts going back over 10,000 years, the dynamiting of the tribal newspaper offices (Akwasasne Notes), the murder of the chief editors best friend (they had exposed it), and the setting up of the editor as the gunman who killed him. Want more?
|
|
#4
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Re: Reassigning Blame For Drug Commerce.
As with most commerce, black market or not, I see it as a problem of supply and demand. If there were no demand, there would be no supply. With that said, I believe that the users are to blame-or they should bare the majority of the blame.
No, I'm not trying to pick a fight, this is just how I see it. |
|
#5
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Re: Reassigning Blame For Drug Commerce.
Cause Is American....heh
Cocaine Importation Agency..... reagan did it.....not the liberals fault damnit! |
|
#6
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Re: Reassigning Blame For Drug Commerce.
Quote:
Hey, Policeman, who was Eugene Hasenfus working for when his plane got shot down over Nicaragua in 1986? ...and what was that plane carrying, anyway? Here you go, allyourbase: http://www.madcowprod.com/05252006.html |
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Reassigning Blame For Drug Commerce.
Quote:
, No seriously just kiddingI have a quick question in regards to your post above. actually two questions. 1. Meth is being now smuggled in from super labs in Mexico, that is made differently. It doesnt last as long and the euphoria isnt there, compared to the Meth that used to be available that was made here in America. The user is now having to spend more money trying to obtain something that is priced higher and isnt doing what they want it to do. Legalize the real clean potent form of Meth , so it isnt being brought in from Mex. and it wont be made in dangerous labs in the garage. Think outside the box 2. How many arrest can you get out of an ounce of cocaine. Lets take a hypothetical situation. Possession of cocaine I guess is a felony and possibly a jail sentence or prison or even just probation. How much does it cost to arrest, book , house, transport, feed , supervise, each person arrested for a possession charge? Then the cost of Judi cation, probation dept? Imagine if you will an ounce of any powder drug, take that and add a cutting agent so that you have three ounce of substance, just because its cut it is still test very positive for the substance, then divide the three ounces into small .25 gram packs, how many packs do you now have? 28 grams to an ounce X 3 = 84 grams multiply by four equals 334 quarter grams, Now give 334 people each a quarter gram, now if you could arrest each of those individuals for a felony , HOW much Money did the Government spend on catching and all the other cost an inmate puts on the system? including what is spent paying for the hours of time Law enforcement spent dealing with it? I could use pounds instead of ounces and the the numbers would be staggering, for this example I will stick to the lesson above. |
|
#8
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Re: Reassigning Blame For Drug Commerce.
And where is the harm in possessing and snorting a white powder?
Swim didn´t rape anyone nor was swim freaking out on pure coke, nor was he exhibitng tolerance or dose-increase inany way, if he´d been arrested for this, a lot of work couldn´t have been done for society (yes, he wants to contribute to the best of all people and make steps ahaead with his experience, but then he´s sitting here, disuccing legal issues while being half dead on the street for wrong accusations, like tryin´ to build a bomb and maybe one packet of shrooms). Last edited by stoneinfocus; 04-01-2008 at 20:45. |
|
#9
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Re: Reassigning Blame For Drug Commerce.
Quote:
The responsibility for any collateral mayhem attendant to this powder-stuffing must be borne by the drug warriors. BTW Woody, great link! |
|
#10
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Re: Reassigning Blame For Drug Commerce.
Quote:
1. I dont really care if its more expensive. I know that theres less meth labs in the US. I know thats its harder for a user to get his meth. I will never say meth should be legalized. I have seen what it does to people, families, and communities. It is the root of most evil in many communities. I'm not trying to pick a fight. This is what I believe from my experience. As far as responsibly using meth-Ask any meth head if they ever planned on being a junkie/slave to the drug. Any junkie will tell you that they always thought that they had their "habit" under control until all of a sudden BAM! 2. Fighting the good fight is never going to be cheap. The easy solution is dont break the law. Imagine how much more money you, your family, your community, your state, your nation would have if people just didnt break the law and use illegal drugs. The numbers would be staggering. |
|
#11
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Re: Reassigning Blame For Drug Commerce.
Quote:
|
|
#12
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Re: Reassigning Blame For Drug Commerce.
PO I actually do agree with you on the meth subject, I think you are right about it.
But the second point, however, isn't how things should work. Laws shouldn't exist for the sake of having laws. Which is why their needs to be a policy overhaul, laws that were passed decades ago should be reviewed in time. If something isn't working, change it. Honestly what do you expect, we grow up for 18 or so years being told "dont do drugs, their illegal, their bad." AND THATS IT. Now think if people were told this instead of that... "Hey, these substances certainly have their uses, however, their are risks that go along with using them as well as rewards." Actually being honest with drug education would go a long way. now this buddy I have, cocaine did ruin his relationship. It wasnt because of the cocaine use though (maybe a personal gram every other week if that) It was because of the way the system is set up, kids grow up eating government fed propaganda that just is not true. Then whenever they encounter a user they go "oh my god you use cocaine, thats disgusting/itll kill you/whatever other bullshit they've heard growing up and have these assertions that they believe. This caused him not to be able to talk to her about these things, and eventually the communication just died. Using certain substances should not make one a criminal and in the eyes of the media/govt/mass society on the same level as a rapist/murderer. |
|
#13
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Re: Reassigning Blame For Drug Commerce.
http://www.usdoj. gov/oig/special/9712/index.htm
USDOJ/OIG Special Report THE CIA-CONTRA-CRACK COCAINE CONTROVERSY: A REVIEW OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT’S INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS (December, 1997) That makes for some interesting reading, though it doesn't answer the main question of course. I don't think you can attribute it to any one thing in specific. Various producers increased production, wanted a market for their product, and the nice and wealthy US was the place to go. Middle men in Miami and LA made vast amounts of money pushing the stuff and didn't care to see a decrease in business. It all spirals out of control from there. Quote:
With that said, it doesn't help any when the less harmful alternatives are made illegal and/or cracked down on hard. People freak out about Coca and Opium only to see them replaced by Cocaine and Heroin, to be replaced by Meth and Oxy, to be replaced by god knows what. The demand for drugs will always be there, and there is nothing you can do about it, but you can reduce the harm that comes from it by regulating production/use to a reasonable extent and not just making anything you don't agree with illegal, which generally brings about inherently more damaging or simply ill-prepared (dangerously) substances. |
|
#14
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Re: Reassigning Blame For Drug Commerce.
Quote:
It's probably better just to make it available to adults and also offer free top-notch treatment options to those who lose control. An approach such as this would likely reduce the collateral damage to levels similar to that we see with alcohol and tobacco addictions. I don't really see the fight being "good" or "evil," just stupid. Why can't 40 years of failure convince the nation that drug laws are useless and more destructive than the effects of the chemicals these laws proscribe? Take for example the former national highway speed limit of 55 MPH. Since no one was abiding by it, lawmakers had two options: 1. Increase penalties. If we were to use drug law as an analogy, this could have eventually resulted in a 20-year sentence for going 70 MPH, seeing how driving so fast can "ruin lives" and "threaten the children." Or 2. Raise the fucking speed limit. In Germany they've taken the concept to its most sensible conclusion with the Autobahn, and society certainly hasn't ground to a halt because of it. But since Amerika gives out a license to almost any idiot who applies for one (after a road test anyone can pass), maybe it's best to keep the limit at 65 MPH--and save those 20-year sentences for driving over 80. Quote:
And I bring this up again out of necessity: The founding fathers of this country began their revolutionary careers as lawbreakers. They also had long hair and smoked pot. They weren't perfect people and I disagree with some of the ideals some of them held, but in the end it was probably a good thing they didn't consider the easy solution of following King George's laws. Please don't misconstrue that I think your points are stupid. On the contrary, it's hard to imagine being exposed to insanity on a daily basis and not coming to similar conclusions. But the "obey the law because we know what's good for you" gives me an unsettling feeling in my gut and I think you'd lose whatever respect you have left for me if I started wearing a sheep-suit and said BAAH... ![]() |
|
#15
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Re: Reassigning Blame For Drug Commerce.
Quote:
Last edited by FuBai; 31-10-2007 at 09:30. |
|
#16
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Re: Reassigning Blame For Drug Commerce.
This thread is off track.
Let's revisit the topic: Are Pablo Escobar & Gorge Jung responsible for the war on drugs? Is this just media misinformation intended to deflect culpability to protect more obvious participants with deeper pockets? Could the American Government be held accountable in any way? Have they NOT been culpable of drug trafficking in the past? |
|
#17
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Re: Reassigning Blame For Drug Commerce.
It get's repeated here over and over again, and I will repeat it yet another time. By keeping drugs illegal, you keep it alive. If you keep marijuana illegal, you'll have to get it from a dealer, who could possibly sell heroin or crack as well, which raises the changes of trying it, and possibly getting addicted a lot. This would not be the case if it would be legal, or in a grey zone, like in the Netherlands. By keeping it illegal, you also hand the business over to organised crime, who make a huge profit on it, and in this way also supports their other businesses like arms trade and prostitution, and keeps politicians, lawyers and cops corrupt, because of the huge amounts of cash involved. Drug dealers and gangs get violent because they often have a lot of money to lose when deals go wrong, these things would not happen if drugs were legal, and sold in goverment controlled pharmacies, they can't compete with the low prices the pharmacies can sell it for, so they'll soon be out of business, and if drug trade is the only thing their income relies on, they'll have to find something else, for example a normal job.
Making something illegal won't deter people from doing it, rather the opposite. This has been proven by statistics over and over again. Here in the Netherlands, even though cannabis use is not prosecuted, and can be bought in small amounts at coffeeshops, not many people smoke it, even though they can, without any consequences. In the UK it is still illegal, and more people smoke cannabis in the UK. In the US, penalties for possesion and use are even worse, and coincidentally even more people use cannabis. The murder rate in the US is dozens of times higher than in any other Western country, even though they still have the death penalty in the US, while all Western-European countries have abolished the death penalty. This clearly means that heavier penalties don't cause less people to commit certain acts, statistically, rather the opposite. In the Netherlands we have had liberal laws regarding personal usage of drugs, and the Netherlands has the lowest percentage of drugs fatalities in Europe, as well as other drug related problems. People will always use drugs, it's just a fact. Free heroin is supplied in several Dutch cities, and also by the NHS in the UK, and in Zwitserland, to heavily addicted heroin addicts. Because they didn't have to steal anymore to get the money for their expensive dope, crime plumitted in those areas, and some are even able to fulfill a normal function in society again, working from 9 to 5, instead of living on the streets. Those people are addicted, most of them would do anything they can to prevent them from going into hellish withdrawl. You can force them to detox, but they will probaply relapse again. You can put them in jail, but the money they cost in jail is enormous, and one day you'll have to let them free anyway, and they would relapse again. Only one option remains to get rid of junkies, execute them. I think you can remove the last one as an option. Also, many junkies got on the streets because they got addicted, and had to sell everything they had for their expensive dope, untill they had to sell their homes. This wouldn't happen if they had to pay the money for it which it actually costs to produce, which is less than it costs to support a heavy nicotine addiction, and you never see nicotine addicts on the streets due to their addiction. By keeping it illegal, you can't regulate drugs, so you often don't know what's actually in the stuff you buy. If ecstacy wouldn't be illegal, people wouldn't die because the sometimes dangerous adulterants in it, like PMA, or cocaine cut with the lethal atropine. One would know the strength and purity of the drugs they bought, if they got it from a pharmacy, instead of a dodgy dealer. Less overdoses, less fatalities. Last edited by Psych0naut; 06-11-2007 at 20:07. Reason: Typo's |
|
#19
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Re: Reassigning Blame For Drug Commerce.
Sorry to keep this way off track, but...I just dont think that regulation and a type of rationing would work. Meth is a perfect example. Every meth user I have ever talked to will tell you that there is no such thing as a recreational meth user. Crack users tell me the same thing.
As far as rationing and regulating-I have lived in places where things were rationed. It didnt work and it was extremely easy to get around. You would still have meth heads and drug dealers who would pay their friends and connections premium prices to get the drugs. Realistically, thats what I see happening. Man, this is a good thread. If I knew how to subscribe to a thread then I would subscribe to this one. |
|
#20
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Reassigning Blame For Drug Commerce.
law man
, I have a question. No one I know has a prescription for desoxyn 5mg , the generic name for this medicine is methamphetamine. The pharmacy charges some hundreds to fill this without insurance. Jack the rabbit got injured at work and is off and not earning his normal wage, in fact he is self employed and not recieving any assistance. Ok Jack is a big boy , he can handle it, but the cost of his meds are not in the budget, Why shouldnt Jack be able to turn some of his psuedoephedrine into the methamphetamine that his doctor knows he needs to combate his condition? |
|
#21
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Re: Reassigning Blame For Drug Commerce.
Quote:
|
|
#22
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Re: Reassigning Blame For Drug Commerce.
Quote:
You say you've lived in places where things were rationed, police officer. I doubt those places where outside the US, I doubt you've ever been to the Netherlands, Great-Brittain or Switzerland. You should take a look at real rationalisation, something you lack in the US. You can't deny it that goverment controlled pharmacies could deliver drugs much cheaper than organised crime and dealers can. So if it would be supplied to drug users by such pharmacies, all the dealers would go out of business, as well as most of the organised crime, which is very dependent off the drug trade. It there would be much less organised crime, and no dealers, the police could spent much more time on other, important things. Also, don't forget the fact that many people have died because of drugs related shootings, both civilians, dealers and police officers. No father, mother, husband, wifer or child should be taken away from their family, just because of drugs. Things like that wouldn't happen if drugs were legalised and dispensed by pharmacies. You wouldn't have any drive-by's by gangs because of competition, no police raids that got out of hand, where dealers, innocent bystanders or police officers where shot an killed. No people would die of overdoses because they didn't know the purity of their drug, because of the unreliabillity of street drugs. In the second half of previous year, 750 people died because their heroin was cut with Fentanyl, or was cut Fentanyl on it's own. Police officer, please be honest and say what you think of each individual argument I made, both in my previous post, and this one, not in a way of discussion, but what you truly think. I would appreciate it if you would take the effort to reply on it. Ow, and at the top of the screen, you see a blue bar above the first post of the thread. Click on Subject options(or whatever it is, I view the page in Dutch), and the option of subscribing will be in the list. Last edited by Psych0naut; 19-12-2007 at 21:42. Reason: typo's |
|
#23
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Re: Reassigning Blame For Drug Commerce.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I really don’t have any opinion on needle exchange programs. I guess if I had to have one I would be for it rather than against it. Anything that helps to prevent the spread of diseases like aids and hepatitis is good in my book. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#24
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Re: Reassigning Blame For Drug Commerce.
Quote:
What he means is you have singled out very powerful and potentially damaging drugs to discuss and, if only by inference, expanded the conclusions you have reached from this unrepresentative sample to all drugs. Quote:
Yes, this is a misunderstanding - you see rape, murder etc etc are violent crimes which inherently necessitate harm upon another human being. Fraud and theft likewise, even if the harm is only caused to the person's possessions. However we are discussing a crime of personal morality - an individual who harms not others but themselves. What the other poster was trying to say was that the question is not "is it against the law?" but "who owns a person's body and what does that concept of ownership entail?" Secondarily the point is that not only does the law fail to achieve it's own stated objective it actually makes things worse. If a law against rape caused a massive increase in the the harms and frequency of rape incidents then why should we not think about reversing it? Laws are there to provide social cohesion and protect individuals within the state, and thus if they do not do this then they should be seriously reconsidered. Quote:
The drugs may have been outlawed for a reason, even if the reasons are dubious, however the premise that they turn people into animals is patently untrue because you have made it an absolute statement. Do drugs really turn everyone who uses them into animals? You only have to look around these forums to find examples of drug users who are as distinct from animals as any other human. Do you mean that a certain percentage of people become violent or aggressive under the influence of drugs? Of course this is true but consider that 34% of the UK population 16-59 have used an illegal drug, rising to 45% in those aged 16-25. So indeed we do have a small group of irresponsible people who do cause crime or become animals, just as there are those who go precisely the other way, reforming aggressive tendencies through even casual recreational drug use - LSD and marijuana users have often reported this effect, but both of these groups are in the minority. In truth you are saying that some people sometimes become aggressive or animalistic, just as I could say that some people, when given a position of power, such as a police officer is, may sometimes abuse their power or become corrupt; however I know that only a minority of officers ever do and that to criticise all officers for being corrupt simply because one or two amongst their ranks are is a great injustice. Exactly the same type of thinking applies to drug use. In any case you talk about it as if it were as simple as cause and effect - you use drugs, therefore you become an animal; again this statement is untrue, not only do different people react differently to the same drug, but the same person on a different occasion may react differently to the drug. The prime example of this is LSD, and I imagine that this analogy needs little explanation. Quote:
Something which the legalisation of heroin would help with. There are two reasons why - injection is a common form of administration because of the low purity of heroin which forces users to squeeze all the bang for their buck they can, whilst under a legalised system of higher purity smoking and snorting would be far more common and thus the problem of needle sharing massively reduced. Secondly the legalisation of heroin need not be a free for all - in fact I suspect that the legalisation of heroin, at least initially, would be conducted upon the lines of the highly successful Swiss system. In fact I would probably advocate this system both for heroin and methamphetamine. In any case he can be forgiven for not fully understanding your position - I myself am still waiting for you to elucidate your own position on drugs as you previously promised me and, until you do, your own position remains slightly hazy and difficult to engage with. Quote:
Not only this but swift fiscal rewards are a big pull for prospective members of these sorts of gangs and removal of said fiscal rewards would decrease the attractiveness of gang membership. Think also about the way drug dealing works - it encourages territorial gangs because drug dealing is all about maintaining a large customer base. Territorial gangs tend to be unsubtle because they are looking to control a specific area and work hard through violence to maintain their area, because that area is their source of revenue, much like feudal lords. ID theft gangs, fraud gangs etc etc don't work like that because it's not a territorial crime. Even if all of the above on gangs is absolute rubbish in your eyes it is hard to deny that drug gangs encourage violence because of the relationship between competing gangs and often the desperation of the addicted consumer creating problems of debt etc which have to be enforced if the gang is to retain power. Other forms of organised crime do not require this. I agree with you that organised crime will not go away altogether, however is is hard to doubt that it will be significantly reduced as will the violence that goes with it. Last edited by FuBai; 02-01-2008 at 19:04. |
|
#25
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Re: Reassigning Blame For Drug Commerce.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As you might know from your own youth, when something is forbidden, it only makes it more attractive. You would say that making highly addictive drugs legal, the use of those drugs would skyrise. But this is just how many people rationalise it. But when you take a look at the facts, you'll see this is not true. Quote:
Sorry, I wasn't very clear with this, what I meant was you probaply haven't experienced their policies in person, like for example having a look at the methadone clinics were they supply free Heroin to long time addicts, the kind of things locals are usually more informed about, like what the results were of the trials with free Heroin for addicts. It's something most inhabitants of those countries don't even know about, mostly because they don't care, drugs aren't their business for the most part anyway, which I can understand. Quote:
![]() Quote:
A lot of your reactions seem to be based on your rationalisations, and I know that once your mind is certain of it's self, it's hard to convince it otherwise, but you should really be more open to the results of drug studies, which can be of great value. I'm thankful for your reply though, an open discussion can clear up a lot, and make people more open to new idea's, so thanks for taking the effort to reply. |
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
| Sitelinks: | Site Functions: |