Home | About | Donate

Despite U.N. Treaties, War Against Drugs a Losing Battle


#1

Despite U.N. Treaties, War Against Drugs a Losing Battle

Thalif Deen, IPS News

As the call for the decriminalization of drugs steadily picks up steam worldwide, a new study by a British charity concludes there has been no significant reduction in the global use of illicit drugs since the creation of three key U.N. anti-drug conventions, the first of which came into force over half a century ago.


#3

Exactly right but just to add to your point: the War On Drugs also comes in quite handy for sending millions to arm puppet governments police forces that are bent on decimating environmental and labor activism in the Global South.


#4

I've said for many years, as I watch the policies of many nations, especially the US Fourth Reich, that this whole thing could be turned around at the farm level. Instead of burning and destroying the Opium crops, money could be saved by purchasing the crops at a decent price, to be turned into morphine, etc., that could be dispensed legally at low cost. The cartels that the farmers farmed for would lose out, and those addicted could be dosed safely and get counseling to overcome their addiction.
* The only drawback to this is that "law enforcement" would lose most of those many billions currently drained into the "drug war." Then, of course, the cartels are wealthy and have been buying politicians to maintain the war. Like all wars, the drug war is immensely profitable. Also, of course, the CIA is a major player as drug sales have been used for many years to finance the CIA's other illegal activities.
* But, I hope this act of sanity and humanity will survive and flourish and the "war on drugs" will finally be laid to rest.
;-})


#5

"The international treaties to curb drug trafficking include the 1961
Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic
Substances and the 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit
Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances."

There needs to be a war on naming conventions.


#6

The people want to end the WOD but politicians don't. Obama could end it with a stroke of his pen. but that would end the bribes politicians get from Drug War Profiteers. Which begs the question, what are politicians good for?


#8

War! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing. And my brother is in jail for it, becoming the pariah of our family. Norml-ize drug laws.


#9

The racial component is PART of the issue. I find it interesting that protocols liberalizing drug use/law enforcement are taking place now when the whole spy-surveillance-Terrorism ruse is in full operation. What if the War on Drugs was the rationale used to justify the building of 2.2 million prison bed (set of) provisions inside the "land of the free" so that when political dissidents became the next enemy du jour (as befitting the now entrenched inverted totalitarian state), lots of beds would be waiting?

The war on drugs provided lots of black budget money to the shadow government. it funded black budget assassinations.

It was used to foster conservative values, mostly those I equate with a man-over-nature value system. It's all about control.

Marijuana, which mind control survivors explain works against mind control conditioning is often treated--via sentencing--with more punitive response than some homicides (in certain regions).

When you pigeon hole the drug war as if it's mostly about racism, a lot of other important factors remain unexamined and thus lost.


#12

Drugs are good for police at all levels. Corporate prisons are making a fortune. Politicians don't have the balls to halt it - and immediately. The gun lobby would soil their britches trying to cook up some paranoia to sell more guns and ammo. The media would go bankrupt without the Drug War, to say nothing about media's financial relationships. This country doesn't fire cops. You think the DEA is going to vaporize?

Sheeesh! How's it going to go, particularly when the federal government still considers marijuana an illicit drug?


#13

The DEA is not only enforcing such policies that dictate a patients care, but there are thousands of cases whereby the DEA is literally bullying the senior level physicians. They use threats such as, "Make your staff cut way back on the narcotics prescriptions or we will start revoking doctors licenses to practice". Once a doctor hears this they immediately quit prescribing any new prescriptions and they immediately start tapering or cold turkeying the patients that they have been prescribing too. Being its too much a risk to lose their license and all that schooling they dont stop prescribing narcotics all together and refer patients to pain specialists. This is now at epidemic proportions whereby many of our veterans with years of documented chronic pain are being completely cut off their pain meds and many going cold turkey. And with so few chronic pain mgt specialists there are now thousands living a life of suffrage without their due right to livelihood.

Most vets and people in pain who have been through this never ending abuse of our care realize they can no longer attain the medicine they need in order to function in life and in more cases than not they either give up (As in die), or they seek out their medicine at the street level. <---- THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE DEA WANTS! And do you know why that is, why the DEA wants us to buy our drugs on the streets? Because then we are funding their jobs, and at the same time we are funding the cartels, terrorists and ISIS's. This in turn produces what I am coining, "The perpetuation of endless war". And so long as another 3 letter agency continues to control the production points of those drugs, and the maritime routes of distribution, they will ALL continue to be deeply funded as they pray upon their own to insure that war will be endless, and their society will be on a continuous tail chase.

The bottom line is that if I want to drive a hummer filled with dynamite into my vain, and that's what allows me to function in life and gives me my livelihood back, there is no one that should stop me from doing so. Quite simply put, the drug war is a violation of human rights. It violates the fundamental laws of freedom and an individuals free will of choice. What, you think it is right and just to have a government, a 3 letter agency, or anyone else for that matter dictate what I can and cannot put into my body? Next up will be the insertion of the chip, and since we are allowing policy to dictate what drugs we can and cannot put into our bodies the chip will be mandatory policy. You see where this goes? IT VIOLATES MY BODY, OR TEMPLE, WHICH IS SACRED. NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO DO SO! THE DRUG WAR IS A VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS TO CARE AND LIVELIHOOD.


#14

The primary purpose of the "war on drugs" was to set up a police state, including a global police state run by the UN.

In the US, the various government "agencies" claim that trafficking in drugs runs in the hundreds of billions of dollars annually. The only institution with the infrastructure, boots on the ground, disciplined troopers, with a right to shoot to kill, are ... the police themselves. The idea that kids with drop down pants and loose shoes, lost souls and tattoos are running a multi hundred billion dollar operation running cash and contraband is ... both beyond ludicrous, and beneath contempt.

We are now seeing a move to "loosen" drugs laws by making a basic food into a prescribed medicine. But for millions of years before 1933, it was a common herb that that did nothing but strengthen the immune system and heal a variety of diseases, by vitalizing the endo-cannabinoid system. When a mother nurses her child, her breast milk contains the same endo-cannabinoids, which build the child's immunse system, all to the chagrin of the MDs and their big pharma mafia. If a common food that prior to 1933 was widely consumed and never hurt anyone is made a prescribed medicine, beecause it strengthens the immune system, then then soon after, it will be unlawful for a mother to nurse her child, without a doctor's prescription. MDs in the US are misogynous demons or mad dogs or both, huffing and puffing, and barking and quacking for their host, big pharma.

Sad ...


#15

There never has been a war on drugs.
There always has been a drug war on the competition.

The premeditated collateral damage are the nonviolent prisoners by the hundreds of thousands who work for corporations while in prison for .20 cents an hour.

Win - win for the anti-human neo-fascists.


#18

absolutely nothing.


#21

The Elite are also involved in this most profitable of enterprises and likely with the protection of our own corrupt government.

What came before the War on Drugs was immense profit for private individuals, including Elites (and corrupt politicians) who have always been closely connected to organized crime, as has been our own CIA. CIA exists to protect private interests; those who control natural resources, for one; not the interests of average citizens.

Clearly, Nixon Administration saw and exploited people of color in their "War on Drugs" as proven by Gary Webb and his investigations of CIA involvement in supplying drugs to people of color in Los Angeles.

After Gary Webb, no one in our "free press" would try again to expose Elite involvement, nor CIA involvement. Just as they will not expose the immense profits made by our "banks" laundering drug money. Nor the corrupt officials who protect Elites, Banks and CIA.

Most of this is recognized by citizens and state governments.
We need to legalize marijuana state by state.


#22

In general, the war on drugs criminalizes vast numbers of people. Criminalization can be applied selectively and has been applied for political advantage.

The linkage of minorities to drugs is racist. Now that hillbillies are getting more into heroin and meth, people want to talk more about saving individuals from this scourge versus locking them all up and throwing away the key.

The right to grow, process and transport drugs has been a financial quid pro quo, a way for the CIA to pay off their friends for favors received. Our nation's invasion of Afghanistan resulted in the country once again becoming dominant in the opium trade, plus at least a million Afghans became addicts. We have often seen how the CIA couldn't pick America's real friends with a random number generator.

In war, truth is the first casualty. Lots of reasonably normal people have smoked pot. We like to point to politicians that have gotten stoned, but politicians aren't considered to be a great example of normal people.


#23

For the few. The ones who happily profit from both sides of the nominal "war".


#24

Crystal meth is unremittingly destructive, but millions of people, some of them quite famous and productive, have lived with opium, coke, and morphine addictions. All it really does is take some of them out of the labor pool. While an overdose can kill, careful use doesn't destroy people the way alcohol overuse does.


#25

Drugs winning war, demand unconditional surrender.

Police, prison/military industrial complex vow to fight to the last free minority person/country.

Ultra-rich wavering, think legalization at the state level would help prevent popular uprisings while allowing the targeted prosecution of high profile rabble rousers by the federal government.


#27

Just think what legalization would do to the profits of the privatized prison system. They'd probably sell their franchises back to the respective municipality.


#28

I believe it's considered to be artificial-only, yes. I've been unable to discover why it has such a terrible physical effect on those who over-use it, since both the Axis and the Allies handed it out during WW2. My inability to discover what's going on has started to make me wonder whether it's all propaganda, the bad effects due to individuals getting addicted and failing to care for themselves rather than to chem effects that would apply to any usage.