Tchort
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,390
It makes more sense if you look at the position of the DEA as a whole, in a global context. DEA agents operate around the world. For nearly a century, American drug policy has been used and abused for geopolitical reasons and public relations (such as the Nixon administration convincing the Turkish government to curtail then ban the growing of poppies, troops in Afghanistan being ordered not to disrupt, destroy or in anyway impede the poppy crop in Afghanistan as a way to cut off support for the Taliban insurgency, allowing the Kosovo Liberation Army to traffic Afghani smack to Europe and Russia to fund their part of the NATO effort in the Yugoslavian civil war/breakup/ethnic cleansing, etc). Drug policy is both a moral and public relations effort (as this bill largely is, just as the scheduling of MDMA and BZP were big public relations shows) and a bully pulpit.
As others have noted, if private persons can mailorder grey-area or completely legal chemicals directly to their homes on the internet (bypassing a middleman, bypassing a syndicate, bypassing legislation and taxation), and those drugs include variaties of all the drugs currently listed under the Controlled Substances Act (stimulants, hallucinogens, depressants, dissociatives, opioids etc), it completely negates the arguments for prohibition and has become a sort of global-invisible commune where drugs are legal that exists outside the physical world where you have nation-states, natural resouces, rich and poor, standing armies, insurgencies, etc. Wasn't it that documentary on the History Channel "Killing Pablo" where a former DEA agent talked in disgust at being told to allow Air America planes full of powder into the US since they were working for/with the CIA, while they were to stop all other operations? Without geopolitics and moral bully pulpits to demonstrate dominance, the invisible commune where drugs are legal operating off the internet anonymously makes it impossible to fund insurgencies against Marxist-Leninist guerillas in Colombia, to prop up military dictatorships in Myanmar/Burma, to drain the financial and volunteer pool for the Taliban insurgency, to show the British that 'we' run shit now, etc.
As others have noted, if private persons can mailorder grey-area or completely legal chemicals directly to their homes on the internet (bypassing a middleman, bypassing a syndicate, bypassing legislation and taxation), and those drugs include variaties of all the drugs currently listed under the Controlled Substances Act (stimulants, hallucinogens, depressants, dissociatives, opioids etc), it completely negates the arguments for prohibition and has become a sort of global-invisible commune where drugs are legal that exists outside the physical world where you have nation-states, natural resouces, rich and poor, standing armies, insurgencies, etc. Wasn't it that documentary on the History Channel "Killing Pablo" where a former DEA agent talked in disgust at being told to allow Air America planes full of powder into the US since they were working for/with the CIA, while they were to stop all other operations? Without geopolitics and moral bully pulpits to demonstrate dominance, the invisible commune where drugs are legal operating off the internet anonymously makes it impossible to fund insurgencies against Marxist-Leninist guerillas in Colombia, to prop up military dictatorships in Myanmar/Burma, to drain the financial and volunteer pool for the Taliban insurgency, to show the British that 'we' run shit now, etc.
