Who really benefits from the War on Drugs?

bornnraisedoffCMR
bornnraisedoffCMR Members Posts: 1,073 ✭✭
edited March 2010 in The Social Lounge


....................................
«1

Comments

  • Swiffness!
    Swiffness! Members Posts: 10,128 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2010
    prison industry
  • elhuey
    elhuey Members Posts: 156
    edited March 2010
    some really good points are made here.
  • musicology1985
    musicology1985 Members Posts: 4,632 ✭✭
    edited March 2010
    aww man, too many to name. too many.
  • shootemwon
    shootemwon Members Posts: 4,635 ✭✭
    edited March 2010
    the dude who makes those "above the influence" commericals
  • MonkeysBanana
    MonkeysBanana Members Posts: 22
  • LUClEN
    LUClEN Members Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I'd add the pharmaceutical industry
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    let just sum up with "too many groups to end this ? , apparently"
  • Focal Point
    Focal Point Members Posts: 16,307 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Gotta convince the ppl who then will demand change
  • cobbland
    cobbland Members Posts: 3,768 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Worth reading:
    The Spoils of War: Afghanistan’s Multibillion Dollar Heroin Trade

    Washington's Hidden Agenda: Restore the Drug Trade


    The headlines are “Drugs, warlords and insecurity overshadow Afghanistan’s path to democracy”. In chorus, the US media is accusing the defunct “hard-line Islamic regime”, without even acknowledging that the Taliban –in collaboration with the United Nations– had imposed a successful ban on poppy cultivation in 2000. ? production declined by more than 90 per cent in 2001. In fact the surge in ? cultivation production coincided with the onslaught of the US-led military operation and the downfall of the Taliban regime. From October through December 2001, farmers started to replant poppy on an extensive basis.

    The success of Afghanistan’s 2000 drug eradication program under the Taliban had been acknowledged at the October 2001 session of the UN General Assembly (which took place barely a few days after the beginning of the 2001 bombing raids). No other UNODC member country was able to implement a comparable program:

    “Turning first to drug control, I had expected to concentrate my remarks on the implications of the Taliban’s ban on ? poppy cultivation in areas under their control… We now have the results of our annual ground survey of poppy cultivation in Afghanistan. This year’s production [2001] is around 185 tons. This is down from the 3300 tons last year [2000], a decrease of over 94 per cent. Compared to the record harvest of 4700 tons two years ago, the decrease is well over 97 per cent.

    Any decrease in illicit cultivation is welcomed, especially in cases like this when no displacement, locally or in other countries, took place to weaken the achievement” (Remarks on behalf of UNODC Executive Director at the UN General Assembly, Oct 2001, http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/speech_2001-10-12_1.html )

    ^^^^^(Link is broken)^^^^^

    United Nations’ Coverup

    In the wake of the US invasion, shift in rhetoric. UNODC is now acting as if the 2000 ? ban had never happened:

    “the battle against narcotics cultivation has been fought and won in other countries and it [is] possible to do so here [in Afghanistan], with strong, democratic governance, international assistance and improved security and integrity.” ( Statement of the UNODC Representative in Afghanistan at the :February 2004 International Counter Narcotics Conference, http://www.unodc.org/pdf/afg/afg_intl_counter_narcotics_conf_2004.pdf , p. 5).

    In fact, both Washington and the UNODC now claim that the objective of the Taliban in 2000 was not really “drug eradication” but a devious scheme to trigger “an artificial shortfall in supply”, which would drive up World prices of heroin.

    Ironically, this twisted logic, which now forms part of a new “UN consensus”, is refuted by a report of the UNODC office in Pakistan, which confirmed, at the time, that there was no evidence of stockpiling by the Taliban. (Deseret News, Salt Lake City, Utah. 5 October 2003)

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-spoils-of-war-afghanistan-s-multibillion-dollar-heroin-trade/91
  • jono
    jono Members Posts: 30,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    You could write multiple volumes of a book on this subject and each book can look at different industries and many of them somehow have ties to the drug market.
  • LUClEN
    LUClEN Members Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
    jono wrote: »
    You could write multiple volumes of a book on this subject and each book can look at different industries and many of them somehow have ties to the drug market.

    Stealing your idea
  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2015
    Pharmaceutical companies, prison industry and state governments benefit the most. Crooked cops too, especially the ones who steal from dealers
  • Stiff
    Stiff Members Posts: 7,723 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Politicians who exploit the "War on Drugs" as a part of their "tough on crime" message to secure votes from right wing white voters..
  • Stiff
    Stiff Members Posts: 7,723 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Stiff wrote: »
    Politicians who exploit the "War on Drugs" as a part of their "tough on crime" message to secure votes from right wing white voters..

    Oops nevermind just watched the video he covered that
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    Stiff wrote: »
    Politicians who exploit the "War on Drugs" as a part of their "tough on crime" message to secure votes from right wing white voters..
    is there a reason why you skipped over the Democrats who do the same thing but theoretically don't target right-wing white voters?

  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    janklow wrote: »
    Stiff wrote: »
    Politicians who exploit the "War on Drugs" as a part of their "tough on crime" message to secure votes from right wing white voters..
    is there a reason why you skipped over the Democrats who do the same thing but theoretically don't target right-wing white voters?

    Democrats aren't great on this issue either but it does seem (lately) that at least Democrats are making more efforts to get rid of the draconian laws that exist compared to Republicans. Here in NY, some Democrats are pushing to legalize medical marijuana and even decriminalize it in small amounts but the state Senate Republicans in NY are *surprise surprise* against it. And you know I'm not big on either party
  • Stiff
    Stiff Members Posts: 7,723 ✭✭✭✭✭
    janklow wrote: »
    Stiff wrote: »
    Politicians who exploit the "War on Drugs" as a part of their "tough on crime" message to secure votes from right wing white voters..
    is there a reason why you skipped over the Democrats who do the same thing but theoretically don't target right-wing white voters?

    When Democrats take the stance of "Tough on Crime" they're not exactly targeting liberals... they do so because that's a perceived weakness of the democrat's platform that the right loves to exploit along with foreign policy.

    Don't get me wrong though democrats ain't ? either and haven't been ? for a long time.
  • CracceR
    CracceR Members Posts: 4,346 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Police and the feds can LEGALLY STEAL from you, even if you haven't been charged with a crime. Got 100K from a good night out gambling and you happen to get pulled over by cops? They can by law take all 100K, just for simple suspicion you may be a dealer. Again, you don't have to be charged with anything.....what a crooked system we Americans live in lol

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/21/us/asset-seizures/index.html

    It's called Civil Asset Forfeiture, and it was started in the early 1980s by the Justice Department. It has since migrated to thousands of state and local jurisdictions nationwide. The program, when it originated, was meant to target and take money authorities believed was connected to crimes.

    A legal advocacy group based in Washington called the Institute for Justice has been battling Civil Asset Forfeiture for years.

  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    Democrats aren't great on this issue either but it does seem (lately) that at least Democrats are making more efforts to get rid of the draconian laws that exist compared to Republicans. Here in NY, some Democrats are pushing to legalize medical marijuana and even decriminalize it in small amounts but the state Senate Republicans in NY are *surprise surprise* against it. And you know I'm not big on either party
    i surely do not approve of Republicans playing the "? social conservatism" game with marijuana. but often i think that's just about what things each group likes and dislikes; both are pushing for state power and being tough on crime for their own reasons.
    Stiff wrote: »
    When Democrats take the stance of "Tough on Crime" they're not exactly targeting liberals... they do so because that's a perceived weakness of the democrat's platform that the right loves to exploit along with foreign policy.
    perhaps... but they still do it in Democrat strongholds where you'd think they'd be safe to act on their true convictions. which is perhaps the point: if you're tough on crime, fine, but be that way because it's your belief, not because you're playing the game.
  • Stiff
    Stiff Members Posts: 7,723 ✭✭✭✭✭
    janklow wrote: »
    perhaps... but they still do it in Democrat strongholds where you'd think they'd be safe to act on their true convictions. which is perhaps the point: if you're tough on crime, fine, but be that way because it's your belief, not because you're playing the game.

    This kind of gets into that governmental philosophical question: As a politician are you supposed to advocate the policies that you believe in or the policies that your constituents believe in?

    The tone for "Tough On Crime" was set in the 80's so it's pretty much ingrained in the minds of the American voter. Reagan for whatever reason got a lot of people to buy what he was selling and he turned many a Democrat during his era.
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    Stiff wrote: »
    This kind of gets into that governmental philosophical question: As a politician are you supposed to advocate the policies that you believe in or the policies that your constituents believe in?
    which is a good question. and it's fair to say if you ran on a "tough on crime" stance, you should PROBABLY keep your word or explain why. my objection may be more about people wanting to play both sides of the issue without acknowledging it.
    Stiff wrote: »
    The tone for "Tough On Crime" was set in the 80's so it's pretty much ingrained in the minds of the American voter. Reagan for whatever reason got a lot of people to buy what he was selling and he turned many a Democrat during his era.
    being "tough on crime" definitely predates Reagan and, to be honest, i don't see blaming him for ? Clinton did. i mean, we've got millions of educated people who throw up their hands and say, "i can't espouse anything else to the public because Reagan talked a lot in the 1980s?"

  • cannonspike1994
    cannonspike1994 Members Posts: 1,509 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Old Rich Crackers benefit.
  • Stiff
    Stiff Members Posts: 7,723 ✭✭✭✭✭
    janklow wrote: »
    Stiff wrote: »
    The tone for "Tough On Crime" was set in the 80's so it's pretty much ingrained in the minds of the American voter. Reagan for whatever reason got a lot of people to buy what he was selling and he turned many a Democrat during his era.
    being "tough on crime" definitely predates Reagan and, to be honest, i don't see blaming him for ? Clinton did. i mean, we've got millions of educated people who throw up their hands and say, "i can't espouse anything else to the public because Reagan talked a lot in the 1980s?"

    On a state level, tough on crime/ law and order was a republican platform since the 60's largely in response to the racial riots of the time. But on a national level Reagan is the one who drove it home and he used the "? epidemic" as his fuel for it. You could argue that Nixon laid the groundwork for it with his administration,but Reagan was the more impactful of the two.

    At the bolded : you know good and well that the average American voter doesn't vote based on actual policy and platform, but on slogan and branding. It's all about emotion. So in the post-Reagan, War on Drugs era, coming out and saying "I'm 'tough on crime' and support a strong police force and heavy handed criminal justice system because I want to protect you from the criminals and scumbags!" was going to resonate more to the general public than "well crime is a symptom of many systemic ills that segments of our society face, including poverty, high unemployment rates, school funding inequalities etc. So I have outlined some policies that in the long term will reverse the effects of crime" People didn't want to hear that. Prior to Reagan coming in Jimmy Carter was talking about decriminalizing marijuana.

    Starting with the Reagan era the whole national conversation shifted to the right and continued under the first Bush. Clinton's legacy shouldn't be forgiven for his role in continuing and escalating the War on Drugs but he probably figured he didn't want to waste the political capital going against the tide on the issue. The Drug issue is only now starting to move back to the left in the eyes of the general public.
  • Stiff
    Stiff Members Posts: 7,723 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Also, War on Drugs was and is a "dog whistle political phrase". War on Drugs has and always has meant War on the Drugs that Black People are Involved With.