I have read into the topics, but not I would think not as lengthy as you teological, and top post as always D_M. But I don't think the majority of people who join groups like the CIA have corruption in their mind when they start. Wide spread corruption is far less likely then less corruption who have risen to power and then give promote other corrupt people to powerful positions. But if it was the CIA's interests to sell drugs to criminals opposed to CIA individuals/criminal groups of the CIA they would surely be whistle blown. I know that the recent high profile cases like Assange/manning/snowden are all likely to be brought down and hunted for whistle blowing. But these were people against the Military, the US have a long long history of supporting whistle blowing. If corruption was widespread throughout the CIA surely there would be more people whistle blowing. I'm not questioning the fact that their were was 100% corruption and selling of drugs to criminals and overseas but I don't believe that it is fair to say that the whole organisation is corrupt, I simply do not see anywhere near enough evidence to see otherwise.
Manuel Noriega was the former president of Panama who had ties to Oliver North who was one of the main orchestrators of this affair (as well as other high level CIA officials), he later served considerable time in US Federal Prison for numerous charges, including cocaine trafficking.
Considering the 10's of millions of dollars he had squandered a two year sentence, whilst ridiculous, top criminal lawyers get people to have minor sentences. I'm not saying I at all agree with this notion, but it is a reality of the world we live in.
I don't think teological was trying to say that the US Government created the mujahadeen in the 80s just so 20 years later they could turn around and start a war in the middle east, more just pointing out that the US will chew up and spit out fucking anybody for their own agenda, they trained them 20 years ago when it suited their anti soviet agenda and now that going to war with them suits their oil grabbing agenda they have done just that.
In that case I agree, but alot of people do have the naive' view which I rebutted against.
This is why deep inside, I really have no hope for drugs ever becoming legal. The US, the unilateral world leader, will not allow it. The obvious front used is "health reasons", but militant groups, mobs, gangsters etc all need drugs to remain illegal to keep the prices up and provide them large amounts of primary income. The US needs these militant groups to flourish in foreign countries, it is part of their foreign policy, and the only way these type of groups survive and buy arms is through drugs. The police/dea etc need criminals to arrest. Again, the prison system is full of drug users/sellers. Drugs make the world go round, therefore they will never be legalized.
militant, groups mobs and gangsters need drugs to remain illegal, well I'm sorry but they shouldn't be the focus of what makes any grounds of common sense. Creating revenue would be a far more effective tool for helping militant groups and re-enforcing where neccessary. Instead we have a mess where Drugs fuel both sides of the same wars. The Police/dea need criminals to arrest because they've created a business behind it. If the drugs were legalized you instantly have 10,000's of people looking for jobs, they should be focused on creating jobs opposed to imprisoning because they don't have them.
To keep people in prison it costs $31,000 US to keep someone in prison every year. As there is currently 219,000 people in prison
http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/02/u-s-prison-population-seeing-unprecedented-increase/
that equates to 6.8billion dollars every year spent not on creating something, of wasted money. Why do you think California started releasing prisoners in 2009-11(cant remember specifically), because it was too expensive to do otherwise. Furthermore the private prison industry is thriving, but they are paid by the government, so it's not generating money for them, they lose money just to keep people imprisoned. There's no doubt that some industry's depend on the drugs trade and imprisoning people, but it's on a slope that will cost them billions in the long run. The only answer is drug reform. This is why I can't see any option other then eventual reform. I don't think Drug Law reform is only important I think it's essential for the future of the US to survive. The military I can understand (whilst not agree with) in the sense that why they spend 100's of billions of dollars on it annually, it gives them a sense of security and power that they can use against the rest of the world, this couldn't be less true for the drug trade. Instead they have people imprisoned, dying and losing money that if implemented in the right way would see less harm across the board.
Not only do I believe this to be true, the more I read on the topic the sooner I think change will happen. One problem is that America is still majority Republic, and most (certainly not all) still have the belief that fear of punishment is still the best deterant when statistics certainly oppose this. I think we're still decades off any kind of real reform, but the recent legalisation of Marijuana in America is definitely a major first step to breaking down these barriers and fear mongering that has been thrown out for nearly half a fucking century.
I'm sorry, but I'm not gonna continue in this discussion as I'd actually prefer this thread stay on the topic of Australian drug reform and I'm too busy with uni studies to be spending time rebutting. But if in two months time one of you guys wants to open a new thread about this topic more in depth I'd love to get involved. My opinion on this topic is not unmovable, if I'm given enough evidence and reasonable thought I would change my mind, but with all the time I've spent looking into the topic I am as of yet to be persuaded.
Lovely talking with you gents.