The war on drugs was a proxy war!

OK we've been told that the war on drugs is paramount to the safety of the average person because of the criminal activities involved in drug abuse!

Now if this story is true, this "war" was a smokescreen to remove "undesirables" (in the US) off the streets.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nixon-drug-war-racist_us_56f16a0ae4b03a640a6bbda1

Journalist Dan Baum wrote in the April cover story of Harper’s about how he interviewed Ehrlichman in 1994 while working on a book about drug prohibition. Ehrlichman provided some shockingly honest insight into the motives behind the drug war. From Harper’s:

“You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

In other words, the intense racial targeting that’s become synonymous with the drug war wasn’t an unintended side effect — it was the whole point.

This story just smacks of another case of thought control to manipulate the general population into believing the "(US) government knows best!", a tactic that has been followed by most EU governments as well.

I don't support the (ab)use of drugs, but I do think that it is better to decriminalise their use to eliminate the current scourge of the drug gangs who are making real trouble in some parts of the country.

imme

poxy war you mean, surely

jamo2oo9

Ah jaysus, it's not like the government is gonna listen to Darren from Limerick saying "Legalise weed" and say "jesus lads, Darren is right. Legalise weed. 420 on lads"


You'll have to wait a few generations before we can see some sort of recreational drug legalisation in Ireland.

MacauDragon

iirc freeway ricky ross had something similar to say.

Sorry I can't be more specific but I don't normally pay attention to any conspiracy theory that doesn't involve the Jews.

ygolometsipe

I don't know about the Journalist you quoted but the idea is identical
to this Sundanese Winning Film

The House I live in

You might also find it interesting that the plot of the TV show the wire
demonstrates the same kind of narrative, well that's because David Simon the creator of the wire was also a writer on The House I live in.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/30/david-simon-americas-war-on-drugs

Junkyard Tom

It was a convenient method of criminalising anti-establishment types, minorities, and creating careers in the 'justice'-prison-industrial-complex for authoritarian types.

"Prison Industrial Complex" (PIC) is a term we use to describe the overlapping interests of government and industry that use surveillance, policing, and imprisonment as solutions to what are, in actuality, economic, social, and political "problems."

publiceye.org

ScumLord

The problem with this point of view is that it's totally US centric. It makes sense in America but did the rest of the world bring in prohibition because they also disliked Mexicans and African Americans? I remember stories that the likes of Egypt had similar racist reasons for supporting the global drug ban but there were real legitimate reasons for the control of drugs and it mostly surrounded doctors turning their clients into addicts under the guise of medical treatment.

I'm sure racism contributed but it's not the whole story. Hemp was also in competition with cotton which put the cotton industry at odds with cannabis.

But I think the real people behind the push are puritan Christians that were rampant at the time. They had a long standing disdain for drugs. A hatred for drugs is built into most the major religions since their inception because drugs were the original religion, you took drugs to commune with god and it detracted from the power of the priest. Now religion requires you use the hierarchy of the religious institutions to commune with god.

ScumLord

ScumLord wrote: »

But I think the real people behind the push are puritan Christians that were rampant at the time. They had a long standing disdain for drugs. A hatred for drugs is built into most the major religions since their inception because drugs were the original religion, you took drugs to commune with god and it detracted from the power of the priest. Now religion requires you use the hierarchy of the religious institutions to commune with god.

Interesting viewpoint and I can see the logic of this as most (all) religions require the flock to follow them and forsake all others. For me the main point is that most of these drugs used to be legal and there have been wars fought by sovereign nations over control of the supply of drugs.

Now there is a "war on drugs" and it has created an entire criminal empire.

melissak

I think lots of government s saw the logic of criminalising anti establishment types in this fashion and followed suit. A common tactic through the ages to be fair to the yanks.

ScumLord wrote: »

The problem with this point of view is that it's totally US centric. It makes sense in America but did the rest of the world bring in prohibition because they also disliked Mexicans and African Americans? I remember stories that the likes of Egypt had similar racist reasons for supporting the global drug ban but there were real legitimate reasons for the control of drugs and it mostly surrounded doctors turning their clients into addicts under the guise of medical treatment.

I'm sure racism contributed but it's not the whole story. Hemp was also in competition with cotton which put the cotton industry at odds with cannabis.

But I think the real people behind the push are puritan Christians that were rampant at the time. They had a long standing disdain for drugs. A hatred for drugs is built into most the major religions since their inception because drugs were the original religion, you took drugs to commune with god and it detracted from the power of the priest. Now religion requires you use the hierarchy of the religious institutions to commune with god.

ScumLord

Deleted User wrote: »

Now there is a "war on drugs" and it has created an entire criminal empire.

There's no doubt, prohibition made things much worse. There are problems with drug use. You have short term problems of people doing stupid stuff while inebriated, and then the long term problem of abuse and addiction. Neither of these problems compare to well funded organised crime. We can deal with the problems caused by drugs, recklessness and addiction, we have no solution for organised crime. The only way we could maintain prohibition and eradicate organised crime is to live in an extremely monitored society where personal freedom no longer exists.

But you could say that organised crime is the direct result of the application of strict religious dogma on society. It's just another example of how religious dogma just doesn't work in the real world.

beach_walker

ScumLord wrote: »

But I think the real people behind the push are puritan Christians that were rampant at the time.

And what about the Soviet Union and its harsh treatment of drugs? The puritan Christians and religious right would be doing very well there alright.

BalcombeSt4

A proxy war is a war fought by one or more military or paramilitary forces on behalf of someone else. Like the UVF & UDA terror caampaigns fought for the British Army.

Jayop

Of course it was and anyone with half a brain could see that the "war on drugs" itself has caused more problems than the actual drugs themselves would ever cause. It's created these cartels and probably millions of deaths.

I wouldn't be pro drugs at all, while working in security during my teens and early twenties I dealt with addicts every day and more than once just missed being stabbed with a syringe. Dublin city centre being more a like a village it doesn't take time to get to know most of the regular addicts nicking stuff from shops and from handbags to feed their habit and I found most of them grand to talk to, the women being the ones who were usually the more violent.

Seeing some of them die on their feet was quite sad and worse was seeing the younger sisters and brothers getting hooked when they knew what exactly what heroin did to their older siblings and parents. I'm not about to say why they did start up and I'm not about to judge them for doing so.

I would be in favour of a minimum of life without parole (and I mean life) for dealers or those caught importing drugs, but I would however be in favor of the government providing free heroin to registered addicts as methadone is a waste of time and money for long term addicts.
Not only has its been shown to reduce crime rates and improve health in other countries, it would take the money out of the hands of the gangs.

It'll most likely never happen here given the backlash that TDs would face due to narrow minded and anti social welfare people in the country. Also its a profitable business for those involved in the law which would mean them earning less so there would be resistance from this section also to this.

Jayop

DubInMeath wrote: »

I wouldn't be pro drugs at all, while working in security during my teens and early twenties I dealt with addicts every day and more than once just missed being stabbed with a syringe. Dublin city centre being more a like a village it doesn't take time to get to know most of the regular addicts nicking stuff from shops and from handbags to feed their habit and I found most of them grand to talk to, the women being the ones who were usually the more violent.

Seeing some of them die on their feet was quite sad and worse was seeing the younger sisters and brothers getting hooked when they knew what exactly what heroin did to their older siblings and parents. I'm not about to say why they did start up and I'm not about to judge them for doing so.

I would be in favour of a minimum of life without parole (and I mean life) for dealers or those caught importing drugs, but I would however be in favor of the government providing free heroin to registered addicts as methadone is a waste of time and money for long term addicts.
Not only has its been shown to reduce crime rates and improve health in other countries, it would take the money out of the hands of the gangs.

It'll most likely never happen here given the backlash that TDs would face due to narrow minded and anti social welfare people in the country. Also its a profitable business for those involved in the law which would mean them earning less so there would be resistance from this section also to this.

Rather than locking people up for life at huge expense to the state why not just legalise the drugs trade, have legal dispensaries selling everything to adults with a doctors cert and remove the entire illegal drug trade in one go.

Jayop

Jayop wrote: »

Rather than locking people up for life at huge expense to the state why not just legalise the drugs trade, have legal dispensaries selling everything to adults with a doctors cert and remove the entire illegal drug trade in one go.

I'm talking about the gangs who have no problems killing people for the vast amount of money they make. I'd have no problem with my taxes going to the cost of them being jailed as their scum,

There would/should be less addicts etc in jail if their receiving their fix for free hence less cost. However if they decide to continue nicking purses, mugging etc after that then they deserve to be in jail.

Jayop

DubInMeath wrote: »

I'm talking about the gangs who have no problems killing people for the vast amount of money they make. I'd have no problem with my taxes going to the cost of them being jailed as their scum,

There would/should be less addicts etc in jail if their receiving their fix for free hence less cost. However if they decide to continue nicking purses, mugging etc after that then they deserve to be in jail.

Absolutely lock people up who commit crimes.

ScumLord

DubInMeath wrote: »

I'm talking about the gangs who have no problems killing people for the vast amount of money they make. I'd have no problem with my taxes going to the cost of them being jailed as their scum,

The problem is, as long as there's big money in selling illegal drugs then people are going to sell drugs, it's not a poverty issue, it's not a scumbag issue. Laws getting harsher just pushes the people making money from drugs to get even harsher themselves. It's a downward spiral feed by prohibition. Chemicals are never going away, they will always be there and that's never going to change. The law has to accept that fact.

ScumLord

ScumLord wrote: »

The problem is, as long as there's big money in selling illegal drugs then people are going to sell drugs, it's not a poverty issue, it's not a scumbag issue. Laws getting harsher just pushes the people making money from drugs to get even harsher themselves. It's a downward spiral feed by prohibition. Chemicals are never going away, they will always be there and that's never going to change. The law has to accept that fact.

The sentences here in this country are not harsh. I can't remember anyone but Feloni getting the twenty year stretch, but the gangs now are more dangerous than he was.

People want to **** themselves up on chemicals that's their choice but they shouldn't be accepted as harmless no more than the cigarettes I enjoy aren't considered harmless. But no one to my knowledge mugs a pensioner for the price of a packet of fags.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

DubInMeath wrote: »

I wouldn't be pro drugs at all, while working in security during my teens and early twenties I dealt with addicts every day and more than once just missed being stabbed with a syringe. Dublin city centre being more a like a village it doesn't take time to get to know most of the regular addicts nicking stuff from shops and from handbags to feed their habit and I found most of them grand to talk to, the women being the ones who were usually the more violent.

Seeing some of them die on their feet was quite sad and worse was seeing the younger sisters and brothers getting hooked when they knew what exactly what heroin did to their older siblings and parents. I'm not about to say why they did start up and I'm not about to judge them for doing so.

I would be in favour of a minimum of life without parole (and I mean life) for dealers or those caught importing drugs, but I would however be in favor of the government providing free heroin to registered addicts as methadone is a waste of time and money for long term addicts.
Not only has its been shown to reduce crime rates and improve health in other countries, it would take the money out of the hands of the gangs.

It'll most likely never happen here given the backlash that TDs would face due to narrow minded and anti social welfare people in the country. Also its a profitable business for those involved in the law which would mean them earning less so there would be resistance from this section also to this.

You can't be pro-drugs or anti-drugs. Alcohol is a drug which causes addicts to destroy lives and hurt people. Caffeine is a drug. Nicotine is a drug. Morphine is a drug.

DubInMeath wrote: »

I'm talking about the gangs who have no problems killing people for the vast amount of money they make. I'd have no problem with my taxes going to the cost of them being jailed as their scum,

There would/should be less addicts etc in jail if their receiving their fix for free hence less cost. However if they decide to continue nicking purses, mugging etc after that then they deserve to be in jail.

You realise that the very laws you want enforced are the very laws causing the problems? If you legalise drugs, then you at least present a scenario where people don't have to turn to illegal sources to get their fixes.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You can't be pro-drugs or anti-drugs. Alcohol is a drug which causes addicts to destroy lives and hurt people. Caffeine is a drug. Nicotine is a drug. Morphine is a drug.



You realise that the very laws you want enforced are the very laws causing the problems? If you legalise drugs, then you at least present a scenario where people don't have to turn to illegal sources to get their fixes.

Very aware that these are drugs, but we're discussing illegal narcotices that the 'war on drugs' is waged against, so yes I can be anti drugs because the people who import and distribute are scum.

I can't see how my supporting free heroin for users then calling for long jail times for those importing and selling drugs and for those addicts that would continue to break the law despite having their free fix is not presenting a scenario where they have to turn to illegal sources for their fix.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

DubInMeath wrote: »

Very aware that these are drugs, but we're discussing illegal narcotices that the 'war on drugs' is waged against, so yes I can be anti drugs because the people who import and distribute are scum.

Ok, so it;s narcotics, not drugs. But how do you define a narcotic? Morphine and Codine are narcotics.

On the face of if, your comment above makes no sense: the only reason you're against drugs is because they're illegal. So, by logical conclusion, it could be (wrongly) assumed that you'd be in favour of illegal drugs if they were suddenly legalised.

The question then becomes: on what grounds should a drug be legal or illegal? Addictiveness? Then alcohol and nicotine would go. Danger? Again, nicotine. Causes cancer.

What you appear to be against, based on your posts, is not the drugs, but the smuggling of drugs.

I can't see how my supporting free heroin for users then calling for long jail times for those importing and selling drugs and for those addicts that would continue to break the law despite having their free fix is not presenting a scenario where they have to turn to illegal sources for their fix.

It does. But if there is a demand, there will always be a supply. Make the supply legal and the illegal supply lessens. Users are more likely to go to legal sources than illegal ones, as you point out.

It's similar to the point i made above: you want to ban the sale of illegal substances? Legalise the substance. Done.

Of course, people smuggle legal substances into the country all the time, but this is a side issue.

melissak

DubInMeath wrote: »

The sentences here in this country are not harsh. I can't remember anyone but Feloni getting the twenty year stretch, but the gangs now are more dangerous than he was.

People want to **** themselves up on chemicals that's their choice but they shouldn't be accepted as harmless no more than the cigarettes I enjoy aren't considered harmless. But no one to my knowledge mugs a pensioner for the price of a packet of fags.

They might if the price of a packet of fags was 100 euro and the longer you were smoking the more your tolerance went up and you needed more fags to provide pain relief to cover the fact that because of the price of fags and the nature of addiction you have not had money for food etc and are basically falling apart. If the only place you could get your fags was off a shady character down a back alley and due to smoking most of society wrote you off as a useless junky. Then you might..

melissak

DubInMeath wrote: »

The sentences here in this country are not harsh. I can't remember anyone but Feloni getting the twenty year stretch, but the gangs now are more dangerous than he was.

People want to **** themselves up on chemicals that's their choice but they shouldn't be accepted as harmless no more than the cigarettes I enjoy aren't considered harmless. But no one to my knowledge mugs a pensioner for the price of a packet of fags.

Off topic but I always thought Tony Feloni was a very makes uppy sounding name for a felon. Like fat Tony in the Simpson or something. I wonder is this why he took up crime. Or was it genetic?

Mark Tapley

I think there is historical precedent for drug laws targeting " undesirables " . In 1875 a law was passed in the USA banning the smoking of opium ( A predominantly Chinese method of taking the drug). At the same time there was no such ban on laudanum a tincture of alcohol and opium used by mainly white Americans.

Jayop

Mark Tapley wrote: »

I think there is historical precedent for drug laws targeting " undesirables " . In 1875 a law was passed in the USA banning the smoking of opium ( A predominantly Chinese method of taking the drug). At the same time there was no such ban on laudanum a tincture of alcohol and opium used by mainly white Americans.

Even the difference in sentences for Crack vs coke are purely targeted at the poor and minorities. Both essentially the same drug but one is cheaper than the other so it gets punished more severely.

DEFTLEFTHAND

beach_walker wrote: »

And what about the Soviet Union and its harsh treatment of drugs? The puritan Christians and religious right would be doing very well there alright.

I don't think they would have fared too well considering the persecution which existed in the Soviet Union. Their end goal was to eradicate all religion.

The harsh treatment of drugs existed because they could see the harm it causes to society. Look what drug addiction does to people and the areas they inhabit. You couldn't have that in a country where every citizen's duty was to serve the State.

DEFTLEFTHAND

melissak wrote: »

Off topic but I always thought Tony Feloni was a very makes uppy sounding name for a felon. Like fat Tony in the Simpson or something. I wonder is this why he took up crime. Or was it genetic?

Son of Italian immigrants to Dublin, instead of opening up a chip shop he turned to crime.

melissak

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Son of Italian immigrants to Dublin, instead of opening up a chip shop he turned to crime.

I know but Feloni Being an Italian felon, a bit of a coincidenc..

DareGod

If this had been pointed out back then, you'd have been called a crazy conspiracy theorist.

Always the way.

ScumLord

DubInMeath wrote: »

The sentences here in this country are not harsh.

They are in the US, they're harsh in mexico too. Those two countries are prime examples of how going harsher just makes the problem worse. Criminal gangs in those countries see spending time in jail as a badge of honer. It just becomes part of the lifestyle.

As long as drugs remain illegal there will be an illegal trade. The harder the government tries to stop it the more profit they drive into the pockets of criminal gangs. That's an undeniable fact. It's what happened and continues to happen every day.