War on Drugz - Politicians smoke Amerika

The War on Drugs is a miserable failure. What is it? How did it come into being? And why is it such a huge waste of time and money?

For hundreds of years, drugs were perfectly legal in this country. Bayer, the makers of Aspirin, also invented heroin. Bayer sold heroin as a magic cure-all drug. Heroin made huge profits for the company and helped to insure its dominance for over a century in "the drug industry".

During the war between Britain and China, the British took opium, from their poppy fields in India (which was a British colony at the time) and sold it to the Chinese. After getting at least 1/3 of the Chinese population addicted to the substance, Britain was able to achieve victory in the war. None of the Chinese heroin addicts could form a viable military. In the peace treaty, the Chinese government had to make opium possesion a capital offense punishable by death, while at the same time Britain had to be allowed to continue selling it. Hmmmm.....

During the 1980's Soviet-Afghan war, CIA operatives working with the Taliban turned Afghanistan into a Narco-State, essentially one big opium producing poppy field. They lured the Soviets in to Afghanistan to create a costly "vietnam type war" for the soviets. Covert operations made sure the Soviet troops had plenty of access to the drugs flowing out of Afghanistan, to turn them into addicts and hurt the Soviet military operations.

After the war, the CIA continued using Opium as an "energy source" for many other covert operations. The CIA used this money to train more mujahadeen during the 1990's to fight in the Philippines, New Zealand, Middle East, Balkans, and Africa. As well as the 1993 world trade center bombing, which an Egyptian Intelligence agent was able to record FBI and NYC D.A. operatives discussing the bombing and confirming the bomb was built under government supervision and with government support, supposedly to entrap the men involved. For some reason the government failed to act to stop the bomb that they knew well in advance about...

Profits from drugs were used in Iran-Contra, as well as providing vital support to the CIA puppet known as the Pakistani ISI. Pakistani ISI insiders have been tied to financing 911 hijackers. Pakistan is "the most important ally in the War on Terror" even though they WERE involved in 911.

CIA - Cocaine Importation Agency
NSA - Narcotix Smugglin' Agency
DIA - Drug Industry Analysts
FBI - Foreign Bureau of Intoxicants
DEA - Drug Enforcement Agency

For more information, please see these excellent videos:

*Black Ops Drug trafficking - How the US govt runs drug operations in Amerika, for phun and profit!! Explores MENA, Ak and Clinton's involvement

*Truth and lies of 911 - Mike Ruppert, former narcotics officer, exposes War on Drugs and ties it to 911...

*The Clinton Chronicles - He inhaled

*War on Drugs is Big Federal Business - Explores who's behind the curtains pulling the strings on the war on drugs. Who gains? and Why?


If drugs were legal, drug dealers would; loose massive profits, be forced to pay taxes, be forced to submit to government regulations, compete with competition...

[edit on 19-11-2006 by sp00n1]

During the war between Britain and China, the British took opium, from their poppy fields in India (which was a British colony at the time) and sold it to the Chinese. After getting at least 1/3 of the Chinese population addicted to the substance, Britain was able to achieve victory in the war.

From what I understand, the British wanted Chinese goods, but the Chinese had no desire or need for British goods.
So they got them hooked on opium, thus establishing a product the Chinese now wanted.

They created demand for a good the British could supply.

For hundreds of years, drugs were perfectly legal in this country. Bayer, the makers of Aspirin, also invented heroin. Bayer sold heroin as a magic cure-all drug. Heroin made huge profits for the company and helped to insure its dominance for over a century in "the drug industry".

Isnt that why heroin is illegal? Should we continue to let people take it whenever they want?

or, are you trying to say the government dilliberately let Bayer sell the product, knowing it was dangerous?

I am pretty sure the government thought it was fine and dandy back then as well.

During the war between Britain and China, the British took opium, from their poppy fields in India (which was a British colony at the time) and sold it to the Chinese. After getting at least 1/3 of the Chinese population addicted to the substance, Britain was able to achieve victory in the war. None of the Chinese heroin addicts could form a viable military. In the peace treaty, the Chinese government had to make opium possesion a capital offense punishable by death, while at the same time Britain had to be allowed to continue selling it. Hmmmm.....

What does this have to do with American drug policies? I don't get how this is relavent to current state of affairs.

During the 1980's Soviet-Afghan war, CIA operatives working with the Taliban turned Afghanistan into a Narco-State, essentially one big opium producing poppy field. They lured the Soviets in to Afghanistan to create a costly "vietnam type war" for the soviets. Covert operations made sure the Soviet troops had plenty of access to the drugs flowing out of Afghanistan, to turn them into addicts and hurt the Soviet military operations......

HAHAHAHHAHAA...that is hilariuos, but highly unlikely.

After the war, the CIA continued using Opium as an "energy source" for many other covert operations. The CIA used this money to train more mujahadeen during the 1990's to fight in the Philippines, New Zealand, Middle East, Balkans, and Africa. As well as the 1993 world trade center bombing, which an Egyptian Intelligence agent was able to record FBI and NYC D.A. operatives discussing the bombing and confirming the bomb was built under government supervision and with government support, supposedly to entrap the men involved. For some reason the government failed to act to stop the bomb that they knew well in advance about........

Better watch out then. You just broke a major conspiracy, that the government would definetly not want us to know about. Seriuosly, I'd hide.

If drugs were legal, drug dealers would; loose massive profits, be forced to pay taxes, be forced to submit to government regulations, compete with competition........

So are you trying to say that we should legalize ALL drugs? Nothing like having kids running around, doing any drug they want. There is no way this a realistic and logical plan. If you legalize weed, drug dealers will deal coke. Legalize both of those, dealers will run something else. Its not possible to take all drug dealers out of the picture.
Don't get me wrong, I am an advocate of some drugs, like weed and maybe the occasional mushroom, but I don't know where you are going with all of this. I think sending people to jail for small possesions of drugs is ridiculous, especially marijuana. Could we maybe legalize small amounts of marijuana and allow shops to sell it under government restrictions? Or have government stores that would sell it themselves, much like the LCBO in Ontario, Canada.
Its a tough subject to argue, and I myself am cautious to make any kind of arguement since its a bit of a slippery slope.




[edit on 22-11-2006 by asala]

Isnt that why heroin is illegal? Should we continue to let people take it whenever they want?

or, are you trying to say the government dilliberately let Bayer sell the product, knowing it was dangerous?

I am pretty sure the government thought it was fine and dandy back then as well.

Yes, the government didnt care. They got huge lobbying gifts from Bayer and the other drug peddlers. The question is, why did they change their policy? The constitution does not authorize congress this type of control in our personal lives...

The FDA's operations today are heavily influenced by politics, just look at vioxx.

What does this have to do with American drug policies? I don't get how this is relavent to current state of affairs.

I am illustrating past examples of government drug peddling, in an attempt to demonstrate the drugs are big business, and just bigger business when they're illegal. You make more money and squeeze out competition.

HAHAHAHHAHAA...that is hilariuos, but highly unlikely.

Well-documented facts reported by many major newspapers around the world in the 80's and 90's

So are you trying to say that we should legalize ALL drugs? Nothing like having kids running around, doing any drug they want. There is no way this a realistic and logical plan. If you legalize weed, drug dealers will deal coke. Legalize both of those, dealers will run something else. Its not possible to take all drug dealers out of the picture.
Don't get me wrong, I am an advocate of some drugs, like weed and maybe the occasional mushroom, but I don't know where you are going with all of this. I think sending people to jail for small possesions of drugs is ridiculous, especially marijuana. Could we maybe legalize small amounts of marijuana and allow shops to sell it under government restrictions? Or have government stores that would sell it themselves, much like the LCBO in Ontario, Canada.
Its a tough subject to argue, and I myself am cautious to make any kind of arguement since its a bit of a slippery slope.

Illegal drugs means HUGE profits go to some really bad people.... I dont think we really have any choice. Either we can let people exercise self control over what they put into their bodies without government intervention, or we can let bad people get money and power selling drugs to people who will use them whether they are legal or not. Even though Pot is illegal, its easier for kids to get it then it is for them to get alcohol. Prohibition doesn't work. Prohibition = Al Capone

I certainly agree our current drug policies need to be re-alinged towards the drug king pins, but dont count on it... Everybody knows you get the little guys and leave the middle men alone, they have lots of money for political contributions. Why dont we go to war with the Drug Kingpins in Columbia? (Columbia is an Illuminati - Cult name, District of Columbia, Columbia Space Shuttle, Columbia Tri-star Pictures)

The Drug Kingpins work for the CIA, just look up Manuel Noriega!


[edit on 19-11-2006 by sp00n1]

Originally posted by Toadmund

During the war between Britain and China, the British took opium, from their poppy fields in India (which was a British colony at the time) and sold it to the Chinese. After getting at least 1/3 of the Chinese population addicted to the substance, Britain was able to achieve victory in the war.

From what I understand, the British wanted Chinese goods, but the Chinese had no desire or need for British goods.
So they got them hooked on opium, thus establishing a product the Chinese now wanted.

They created demand for a good the British could supply.

More or less, yes. This is correct but its a little simplified. China tried to stop the drug trade and it blew up into a war. Britain used drugs as a sort of "chemical weapon" to suck up Chinese wealth and waste away the military. China lost the war miserably and Britain gained control of Hong Kong, as well as crazy imperial powers over China. The drug business flourished under British control...

But the costs to keep the mujaheddin fighting were staggering, with estimates ranging between $6 billion and $40 billion. [New York Times, 8/24/98, Nation, 2/15/99] While a substantial portion of this amount came from the CIA and the Saudi Arabian government, who were both funneling the money through the ISI, much of the cost was deferred by Afghanistan’s opium trade. The Sydney Morning Herald notes, “Opium cultivation and heroin production in Pakistan’s northern tribal belt and adjoining Afghanistan were a vital offshoot of the ISI-CIA cooperation. It succeeded in turning some of the Soviet troops into addicts. Heroin sales in Europe and the US, carried out through an elaborate web of deception, transport networks, couriers and payoffs, offset the cost of the decade-long war in Afghanistan.” [Sydney Morning Herald, 9/27/01] Afghan opium production ballooned from 250 tons in 1982 at the start of the war to 2,000 tons in 1991 just after its end. The Minneapolis Star Tribune observed, “If their local allies were involved in narcotics trafficking”—the ISI and their allies in Afghanistan—“it didn’t trouble CIA.” [Star Tribune, 9/30/01]

Although the Afghan war has ended, the ISI has continued to profit from opium. In 1999, the United Nations Drug Control Programme estimated that the ISI was making around $2.5 billion annually from the sale of illegal drugs. [Times of India, 11/29/99] The drug trade helped unite the ISI and Osama bin Laden, who was said to have taken a 15% cut of the Afghan drug trade money in exchange for protecting smugglers and laundering their profits. [Star Tribune, 9/30/01]

maybe those hippies had it right...

Peace not War..
Love not War..

The penis mightier than the sword

lol

The penis is mightier than the sword? ... the phallick symbol of love is mightier than the sword? lol
Maybe those hippies weren't so crazy.. maybe they were.. guess we'll never know, we took the killing and hating route.. lol guess we'll give love a chance next time.. or no?

Originally posted by PuRe EnErGy


The penis is mightier than the sword?

That all depends on who you are pointing it at. Some will react to one better than the other, depending on who they are.

I came across this really, really old Dateline story about the CIA drug smuggling. Of course they try to whiewash the whole thing....

Too bad more people weren't paying attention to this back then....


video.google.com...




кино

I believe all drugs should be legalized.

People are going to do drugs either way, might as well collect taxes on them. Plus if there was a legal market for drugs people would be able to get better educated about different drugs and the risks they take by using them. Not only that, but people would know what they are getting. Buying drugs off the street is a risky business.

Between the money spent on incarcerating these people, paying the police officers who arrest them, and the propoganda, the government would be saving bundles. That is if the system wasn't set up so that they profit from all of this, but unfortunately that's the way it is and that's the way it will stay.

I don't believe drug usage would have a significant increase, but I do believe that crimes related to drugs and death's related to drugs would significantly decrease.

The reason there was a pandemic of drug addiction early last century was because people dind't know what they were doing. They were buying these medicines wiht no active ingrediants listed, and take them and giving them to their children. I think in today's society we are responsible enough to make drugs legal.

There should be a recreational substance education class in public schools. People are going to get #ed up, might as well tell them how to do it safely.

Originally posted by DirtyPete
I believe all drugs should be legalized.

People are going to do drugs either way, might as well collect taxes on them.

What government? ... you really think there will be a government after drugs are legalized? .. heck no .. thats part of the governments largest agenda... its like taking legs away from a human... it couldn't walk anymore.. (see what I'm saying?)
Oil (gas/cars/trucks) are the blood ... take the Oil away, theres no more blood... no drugs to walk to the oil either..


Mod Note: Trim Those Quotes - Please Review this link

[edit on 22-11-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

I wonder how many people would still be for the legalize ALL drugs would stand if they lost a loved one due to drug abuse?

My mother died of a heroin overdose at the ripe old age of 36!This happened over 20 years,and my siblings and myself are still traumatized by this to this day!

Thats all we need is more parentless children in the world.This notion that 'they are only hurting themselves' is pure crap.There are also alot of innocent victims out there who suffer greatly due to drug abuse by a family member/spouse/loved one.

You think the 'slums' are bad now?I can only imagine the mass graves we would have to dig due to drug overdoses/related deaths,with everyone getting a free pass at using dope.

All that being said,I am for the legalization of pot,mushrooms,mescaline and other 'harmless' drugs.

@ Bootyac
You bring up some good points. I think that maybe legalization isn't the key, but decriminlization. And in a lot of cases the punishment for the drugs does more damage to a person's life than the drugs themselves, so maybe instead of throwing people in prison we should come up with a way to treat these people.

Maybe all that money we're giving to the federal reserve board in income tax could help....

Mod Note: Trim Those Quotes - Please Review this link

[edit on 22-11-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

Originally posted by Bootyac
I wonder how many people would still be for the legalize ALL drugs would stand if they lost a loved one due to drug abuse?

My mother died of a heroin overdose at the ripe old age of 36!

I'm sorry to hear that, ..

but did you think of the reason why drug addicts exist? ..

-its a lucrative business (for government and street dealers alike)
-it causes people to need pharmaceutical drugs, to ween off of..
-it keeps the war on drugs going.
-it creates unstable families..
-it keeps the war on oil going .. (war on oil? lol)
-it keeps the war of terror going.. (go borat!)

I am truly sorry that people in-charge wanted to take advantage of you family.
But the truth is.. with drugs legal, there will be more people who understand (especially) heroin and its interaction with our brain and cells.. the way it produces peptides etc.. etc...

It's a #e load easier to find help for something when you don't feel like a criminal to begin with for doing it..
not to mention people won't be 'hiding' because they would feel quite a bit more accepted..
My mother is an alcoholic (drinking, no lie, a 60oz straight between herself and her boyfriend everyday.. give or take a mickey or two) so I totally understand addiction and its horrible effects on family.

but the REASONS stand out..
Alcoholics exist because its advantageous to alcohol producing factories
they exist because of treatment centers and REHAB (which is the WORST thing EVER!) Especially religious REHAB centers, that pervert GOD and CHRIST to no end.

People are addicted because theres no one there to help them dream better, because they are surrounded by turkeys and you can't fly with eagles if you surround yourself with turkeys..

You know the only thing thats worked AT ALL in my whole life of trying to get thru to my mother? ... ACCEPTANCE AND UNDERSTANDING... because if my mother (who obviously doesn't) accept or understand herself, can't do it for herself.. someone has to be an example to show that it is possible to LOVE such a twisted human mind.

You have to truly understand addiction... people are addicted because they don't love themselves.. especially people who went to war.. (like my grandfather) who also died because of alcoholism who just couldn't deal with the actions he carried out on 'other humans' .. People cannot deal with themselves so they pollute themselves.
People are missing something.. People are craving comfort and acceptance.
it just so happens that most drug users will accept and understand other drug users..

If you were to look at the drugs that are legal and the ones that aren't you'll understand a bit more.. if you look at it practically..
Legal:
Alcohol - causes violence, bad decision making
Cigarettes/Cigars - almost useless, an excuse to be angry (when u don't have it), takes up a lot of energy and time.
Pharmaceuticals - creates foreign peptides, replaces no-longer generated peptides, generates billions of dollars... to create / legal addictions

and the illegal drugs.
xtc - bad for you? .... affects seretonin etc.. (don't anti-depressants) I understand the mechanism is different..
coc aine - bad for you? affects seretonin and dopamine (don't phramaceuticals?) I understand the mechanism is different.
heroin - bad for you? opiates are extracted FOR phrama companies. chemicals extracted etc...

okay so really whats the big deal with drugs? ... CONTROL.

Mod Note: Trim Those Quotes - Please Review this link

[edit on 22-11-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

I kinda like Mexico's approach. After being pushed around by the US for years to crack down on small time peddlers, Mexico finally grew a sack. US drug policy in Mexico is a joke, political favors get handed out to bad people, who support bad politicians. The corruptian runs in circles.

Mexico recently took a radical approach by legalizing small quantities of all drugs deemed to be for personal use. I think its something like; one ounce of marijuana, a few grams of coke, a few ectasy pills, tiny quantities of heroin, etc...

The idea is that police resources go to busting the drug kingpins that make and smuggle the drugs, instead of wasting all of this time and money on non-violent, end-of-the-line users.

However, if drugs are totally legalized; the prices go way down, crime rate go way down, government regulations go way up, support for addicts gets better funding, and etc...

People will not be as likely to go broke on an addiction. People dont need to kill and steal to feed their need. Drug kingpins loose all of their power and money. Government regulations make it harder for kids to get. Tax revenues on drug use go to fund education and rehabilitation.

And if Drugs were leagl, the CIA would stop pumping it onto our streets!

We're between a rock and a hard place. Its hard to know the right course to take. What we know is that this "get tough" crap only seems to make the problem worse. We cant let such a socially charged issue be used for cheap political tactics and profiteering. We need a real solution to this problem. "Stay the course" does not work!