'Lost war' sabotaging American economy

E-llusion

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Nov 3, 2002
Messages
5,975
Location
ALASKA
Failed 'War on Drugs' policies undercutting our 'War on Terror'.

"Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder," said Arnold Toynbee, whose 12-volume "Study of History" traces the rise and fall of civilizations. Get it? The "fall" is an "inside job." Attitudes, behavior and values die first. The soul is left for dead

Oh, some outside force may push the button, pull the trigger or, as in ritualistic hara-kiri, some stranger may bring the sword down upon our neck. But we set the ball in motion. We create the world around us, including our enemies, as individuals and as nations -- we are totally responsible for our karma, our fate, our destiny, our demise.
"Suicide, not murder:" Toynbee's chilling warning came to mind as I read recent reports of three dangerous economic trends, all tied directly to America's addiction to drugs and how they are destroying us from within, rendering our borders vulnerable, giving our enemies billions to buy weapons and attack us from without.

These three reports highlight threats far more ominous than any threats from terrorists, nuclear war, energy shortages, entitlement failures, global warming or government deficits, as bad as they all are. Why? Because we are creating an inner world that is far darker, far more lethal. The reports cover these three areas:
"The lost War on Drugs." America's failed 30-year "War on Drugs" that's now sabotaging our "War on Terror."
"Weakening defenses." America's leaky borders that expose us not just to terrorists but openly invite transnational drug syndicates, mobsters, criminals.

"Prescription addiction." America's out-of-control addiction to prescription drugs, with Big Pharma as the main pusher.
The three trends have been exposed in recent media reports as three separate trends with significant economic impact. However, they are very much linked together in the inner workings of the American soul. So why does the media treat them separately?

Very simple: The media (like people in general) is also trapped in America's ubiquitous state of denial, denial of a disease so cunning and powerful that most Americans refuse see the underlying malaise, either as individuals or as a nation: Noted psychotherapist Anne Wilson Schaef aptly describes America as a "Nation of Addicts." Once "in" the disease we can no longer see ourselves objectively, we become zombies, like pod people in "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers."

The burden of addiction

For the record, I researched the addictive brain for years. A couple decades ago I took time out of the business world and worked professionally helping addicts, alcoholics and their families deal with their problems. A few hundred of them went through the Betty Ford Center, including executives, doctors, royalty, rock stars, actors, government officials, professional athletes and others celebrities. I traveled nationwide and overseas to do interventions.
Behind the insanity I saw painful self-destructive behavior: Throwing away hundred-million-dollar careers, successful businesses, mansions, beautiful families, destroying health, killing people, going to prisons, dying horrible deaths. Once in their private hell, nothing matters. Many, like my parents, never make it out, they become trapped, blind to the havoc they leave in their wake. I'm lucky, in recovery now 34 years.
So yes, I am biased: as a journalist what I see and write about is admittedly affected by my experience. That I can't deny. The fact is that 12% of Americans, roughly 36 million, are chemically dependent, addicts or alcoholics. But worse yet, their self-destructive behavior has a hug negative impact on another 100 million or more Americans, their children, spouses, parents, loved ones, friends, co-workers ... their accident victims.

Moreover, the burden on the American economy is staggering, hundreds of billions. That's why these three reports hit me square in the face. They are disturbing enough each by itself. But taken together it's like watching an NFL quarterback being hit by three blitzing 300-pound tackles, simultaneously. Thud, whack, crack!

1. America's 'Lost War on Drugs'
Today America's 30-year "War on Drugs" is a miserable failure. But worse yet, it's now undermining our "War on Terror."
In its latest issue, Foreign Policy magazine released the "Third Terrorist Index," based on the collective opinions of 100 experts. It concluded that "instead of treating the demand for illegal drugs as a market, and addicts as patients, policymakers the world over [including the Pentagon] have boosted the profits of drug lords and fostered narcostates that would frightened Al Capone."

Afghanistan is one example. According to the United Nations' Office on Drugs and Crime, Afghanistan now supplies 95% of the world's poppy crop and opium production. According to the BBC News, it has "soared to frightening record levels," largely because we took our eye off the Taliban and marginalized Afghanistan to attack Iraq.
Illegal narcotics traffic from Afghan's cash crop exploded 57% in 2006. Our politicians and our military are virtually helpless to stop this expanding contagion that matches America's addiction for illegal drugs (demand) with the entrepreneurial spirit of Afghan farmers, politicians, war lords and the Taliban (supply).

America has had a "War on Drugs" since the Nixon administration, based on prohibition and criminalizing drugs. That policy has drained hundreds of billions from our economy, driven drug traffic underground, and raised the price on a commodity that otherwise would cost pennies. Domestically and internationally our "War on Drugs" policies are not only a dismal failure, they produce the exact opposite result.
Worse yet, our failed drug policies are sabotaging our "War on Terror" in Afghanistan. As the Washington Post reported, "The drug war has become the Taliban's most effective recruiter in Afghanistan," reinvigorating Muslin extremists. Thanks to our obstinate adherence to failed drug policies plus minimal alternatives for Afghan farmers, we are playing into the Taliban's hand and they're "becoming richer and stronger by the day."

2. America's 'weakening defenses'
America's leaky borders expose us not just to terrorists, but also to international drug mobsters, cartels and war lords. The Post's Misha Glenny has been "traveling the world researching a book on the jaw-dropping rise of international organized crime" in recent years.
"The problem starts with prohibition, the basis of the war on drugs," says Glenny. "The theory is that if you hurt the producer and consumers of drugs badly enough, they'll stop doing what they're doing. But instead, the trade just goes underground," into a "shadow economy" where "the state's only contact is through law enforcement."
Moreover, the American drug economy offers such lucrative payoffs, involving huge margins on a turnover of $400 billion to $500 billion sales annually, that the criminals simple don't care if they lose a $1 million investment now and then in police raids, because billions do get through our open borders, both north and south.

At the same time the "expansion of world trade and financial market has provided criminals ample opportunity to broaden their activities," with no comparable increase in police to deal with this surge. So one of the consequences of our failed "War on Drugs" is that while "international mobsters, unlike terrorists, don't seek to bring down the West; they just want to make a buck ... these two distinct species breed in the same swamps" conspiring against American police, military and political policies.

3. America's 'prescription addictions'

In addition to the illicit drugs, prescription drugs are also rapidly becoming a favorite for America's addicts. Don't get me wrong, Americans may be "living in a world of pain and they are popping pills at an alarming rate to cope with it" for legitimate reasons, but the truth is, medical doctors and drug companies indulge our weaknesses, like the Taliban.
Recently the Associated Press analyzed U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration data. The news agency concluded that: "More people are abusing prescription painkillers because more are available," and while doctors are "spooked" by high-profile celebrity arrests, patients have become more and more enterprising and driving greater distances to find known "pill mills" that "dispense prescription medications without verification."
Another reason America's prescription addiction is exploding; Big Pharma's ratio of two reps for every five docs, plus relentless advertising. Between 1997 and 2005 drug company ad costs nearly tripled from $11 billion to $30 billion, while the "amount of five major painkillers sold in the nation's stores nearly doubled, an alarming trend."

Yes folks, "civilizations do die by suicide, not murder." First death within ... perhaps a failed "War on Drugs" policy backfires ... addicts indulge, multiply ... our enemies get the money... then complete the ritualistic hari-kari for us ... and another civilization falls.

----------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL B. FARRELL
'Lost war' sabotaging American economy
Failed 'War on Drugs' policies undercutting our 'War on Terror'

By Paul B. Farrell, MarketWatch
Last Update: 7:27 PM ET Sep 3, 2007

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...x?guid={598FC5EE-1320-492E-B6DD-B91F8BC822EC}
 
First death within ... perhaps a failed "War on Drugs" policy backfires ... addicts indulge, multiply ... our enemies get the money... then complete the ritualistic hari-kari for us ... and another civilization falls.
It seems like this guy's generalizing about the war on drugs being a war on illegal opiates. There is no way that some guy smoking a joint is going to bring down our civilization. Even if everyone was using all kinds of drugs, I think at that point policies would change to accommodate our habits and we'd start production of our own.
 
Some of the replies in that link are very good.

Dear Paul,

Loved your article. But drugs alone has not been the beginning of the downfall of the United States. Drugs is a money machine, and in a capitalist system such as the United States, drugs are money, and money corrupts politicians. In addition to drugs, the credit drug over the last 10 years with the stock market bubble and now the housing bubble, has shown the ineptitude of Americans to understand the responsibility of money. Most believe it grows on trees since everyone I have spoken to, including real estate agents, always thought home prices would continue to rise, and never fall. Having experienced the Japanese bubble in Tokyo, what goes up eventually comes down. But everything comes to an end, and if you are not prepared, you may get what you justly deserve rather than what you wish.


One day the American public will wake up and realize that all the money and time we have wasted on this so called drug war is just that; wasted. We have people sitting in prison doing more time for having some marijuana or cocaine in their car or house than they would be if they went out and shot someone in cold blood. How stupid is that? When the first time the slogan "Say No To Drugs" was used, it should have been a voluntary solution, not a mandatory one. Billions of dollars and lives later, where are we? Any closer to saying no? Not a fat chance in h***. All our government has done is make criminals out of pot smokers, and drug cartels richer than the government. Makes you wonder how intelligent the powers that be are that are running this country. My vote is not very much. By now, somebody, somewhere in government should have said enough is enough, this is a lost cause, let's legalize this and regulate it so this country can make some of the money back that it has thrown away on this idiotic war.


It's important to remember as well, that the unauditable large cash transactions which the drug trade throws off is a powerful force for subversion of the government itself. It is absolutely irresistible for the intelligence community to leverage these cash flows to finance covert operations, as is well documented in the works of Gary Webb (San Jose Mercury, dead of 2 self-inflicted bullet wounds to the head) and Michael Ruppert (freelance, ex-LAPD). If I could go long DIA-heroin or CIA-cocaine on the open market, I'd be all-in in a trice. Still looking for a proxy on that trade, I am.


I admire your bravery to speak out in land of blind conformity. Our drug policy is intimately related to our national security. This is a national security issue. We have prisons as far as the eye can see filled with madatory Rockefeller sentences, draining our resources better spent on infrastructure and education. We have a "drug czar" spending tens of millions of dollars warning of the danger of "marajuana addiction" while the FDA is peddling drugs by the billions for "off label " uses.

Why is it so hard to just admit we will win the war on drugs the day after we win the war against prostitution. This is a lost cause. By decriminalizing drugs, and respecting the value of education (not propaganda), we could take the profit out of the drug business overnight. Pop. Over. Street crime plummets and international drug rings teeter on the brink of collapse. And then collapse.

Thank you Paul for speaking the obvious.


Well-written, but did not touch upon the human proclivity to get high on something. Many of the social problems come from self-righteousness, capitalism, and the politics of contraband. Each chemical has its own marketing channels. Cut the power of the cartel by interrupting the pricing structure. Marijuana is easy - change the law to allow adults to grow a few plants in their own yard - would immediately end a lot of Mexican smuggling. Someone needs to honestly challenge those who preach that their choices, such as alcohol, caffein, or paxil - are morally superior to illegal drugs. Then maybe we can find new ways to reduce the use, and social damages of these substances.
 
pocket393 said:
It seems like this guy's generalizing about the war on drugs being a war on illegal opiates. There is no way that some guy smoking a joint is going to bring down our civilization. Even if everyone was using all kinds of drugs, I think at that point policies would change to accommodate our habits and we'd start production of our own.


it would be pointless to start our own production for poppies or for coca leaf, it's sooo much cheaper to grow in other countries.

And that's not really the point the author was trying to make, that 'some guy smoking a joint is going to bring our civilization down'. You're hyper-oversimplifying his point. He's essentially saying that we're sabotaging ourselves by continuing the drug war, and it's hard to disagree with that. We're allowing much higher profits to go to terrorists (whether it's the taliban in afghanistan or 'terrorist' groups in columbia) by keeping prohibition alive, and these terrorists could end up being powerful enough to put us down. If we legalized heroin tomorrow, it'd certainly nail the taliban's financial resources a bit.
 
Yes, good article.

If you agree, vote.

Vote this January in the Republican primary.
Vote for Ron Paul.
 
South American countries get run over by drug cartels with prohibition fueled resources that cannot be matched by the U.S. or the countries themselves. I'm not saying the drug cartels are any where close to the scale of the U.S. government, but something that well funded cannot be stopped by any government.

I'm sure the people of South America would love to live peaceful lives growing whatever they want at the true market price. For many, that can't happen so long as half their country is owned by drug suppliers.
 
No, but seriously, it's good to see that people are beginning to gather up the courage and sense to publicly speak (or write) against our government's conceeded bullshit. I believe I am seeing a trend, and the public is atleast getting a chance to read some truth on the topic of our "war on drugs."
 
Well it seems the drug cartels are winning in Mexico. Good thing? Maybe, maybe...
 
The drug cartels are winning everywhere. I dislike coke, but its easy to get.
 
kong said:
South American countries get run over by drug cartels with prohibition fueled resources that cannot be matched by the U.S. or the countries themselves. I'm not saying the drug cartels are any where close to the scale of the U.S. government, but something that well funded cannot be stopped by any government.

I'm sure the people of South America would love to live peaceful lives growing whatever they want at the true market price. For many, that can't happen so long as half their country is owned by drug suppliers.
quoted for truth, nice summation!
 
mulberryman said:
Well it seems the drug cartels are winning in Mexico. Good thing? Maybe, maybe...
Bad thing. Let's say the cartels get stronger and stronger, and eventually mexico is just theirs. Not that the cops are just afraid of them, but mexico becomes the new narco empire. I feel like if we envisioned it in that extreme, it would make it *harder* for our government to do the sensible thing and end prohibition. If they ended it then, far too much control would have to be given to a group right across a tiny border who are insanely large/powerful and don't play by our rules. Our gov would want to end prohibition even less imo. I'd like to think 'they'd see just how much demand there is here, as evidenced by the supply side swelling, so it'd be more likely they'll end prohibition', but I just can't see it happening like that.
 
definitely! I dunno, I'm not privy to exactly how polices work and are made, but it seems the longer we wait, the harder it'll be.
 
bingalpaws said:
Bad thing. Let's say the cartels get stronger and stronger, and eventually mexico is just theirs. Not that the cops are just afraid of them, but mexico becomes the new narco empire. I feel like if we envisioned it in that extreme, it would make it *harder* for our government to do the sensible thing and end prohibition. If they ended it then, far too much control would have to be given to a group right across a tiny border who are insanely large/powerful and don't play by our rules. Our gov would want to end prohibition even less imo. I'd like to think 'they'd see just how much demand there is here, as evidenced by the supply side swelling, so it'd be more likely they'll end prohibition', but I just can't see it happening like that.

Yes, I think we'd be much more likely to go to war with Mexico, a war that would quickly spread to Arizona, New Mexico, Southern California and large parts of Texas. In an even more worst-case scenario, a true all-pervasive, domestic insurgency could then erupt, especially in urban areas. Such would make the crime and urban violence of today pale in comparison.
 
...Of course, upon further consideration such events may not be all that likely. Cosidering that a fair amount of cartel money surely finds its way to the pockets of American senators. Not to mention the current profitability the status quo brings to the government via the DEA, and other law enforcement agencies. Then again, when contemplating the military possibilities of a war with Mexico, and moreover within American borders; The profit potentials of such military action are endless for those in power. True, unrivaled military capilalism, unheard of in America since the 1860's.

...And of course there's the possiblilty, that maybe, just maybe, in the end, the real good guys could win.
 
....or the possibility ron paul will become our president and stop this tarded probition of <some> drugs! (stops dreaming...)
 
bingalpaws said:
Bad thing. Let's say the cartels get stronger and stronger, and eventually mexico is just theirs. Not that the cops are just afraid of them, but mexico becomes the new narco empire. I feel like if we envisioned it in that extreme, it would make it *harder* for our government to do the sensible thing and end prohibition. If they ended it then, far too much control would have to be given to a group right across a tiny border who are insanely large/powerful and don't play by our rules. Our gov would want to end prohibition even less imo. I'd like to think 'they'd see just how much demand there is here, as evidenced by the supply side swelling, so it'd be more likely they'll end prohibition', but I just can't see it happening like that.

Prohibition is precisely what gives the cartels their power. Cocaine, if legal, would cost only a small percentage of what it costs today. It would not be possible for underground cartels to take control of its distribution and make huge profits. It would become a normal commodity like coffee or bananas and be bought and sold almost entirely through legal channels.

When the money runs out the cartels disappear.

Governments love problems. They can always offer the solution, even if that solution will never work. Spending money is the government version of making money. So for government, cartels existing is profitable. They get to spend billions of dollars "fighting" them, with little or no oversight.
 
fucking a! I agree with you totally, and do think we like to just keep fighting an unbeatable enemy (drugs, cartels, the whole game) to keep things rolling for the DEA et al., but there will come a point where the cartels start becoming stronger (well, it's already happening) and stronger, and at some point something will need to be done. Just recently on here I was reading something about how journalists abroad are now being targetted by cartels - the more power they have, the more they'll exercise it (pretty basic to mankind). So they're just gonna keep growing in power, strength, cash, sophistication, etc, until something needs to be done. I just hope it's us being smart and ending the prohibition of some drugs now, instead of letting it go too long and potentially having to go to war later.
 
Last edited:
Top