Poppies were the first thing that British army Capt. Leo Docherty noticed when he arrived in Afghanistan’s turbulent Helmand province in April 2006. “They were growing right outside the gate of our Forward Operating Base,” he told me. Within two weeks of his deployment to the remote town of Sangin, he realized that “poppy is the economic mainstay and everyone is involved right up to the higher echelons of the local government.”

Docherty was quick to realize that the military push into northern Helmand province was going to run into serious trouble. The rumor was “that we were there to eradicate the poppy,” he said. “The Taliban aren’t stupid and so they said, ‘These guys are here to destroy your livelihood, so let’s take up arms against them.’ And it’s been a downward spiral since then.”

Thirty-six years and hundreds of billions of dollars after President Richard M. Nixon launched the war on drugs, consumers worldwide are taking more narcotics and criminals are making fatter profits than ever before. The syndicates that control narcotics production and distribution reap the profits from an annual turnover of $400 billion to $500 billion. And terrorist organizations such as the Taliban are using this money to expand their operations and buy ever more sophisticated weapons, threatening Western security.

In the past two years, the drug war has become the Taliban’s most effective recruiter in Afghanistan. Afghanistan’s Muslim extremists have reinvigorated themselves by supporting and taxing the countless peasants who are dependent one way or another on the opium trade, their only reliable source of income. The Taliban is becoming richer and stronger by the day, especially in the east and south of the country. The “war on drugs” is defeating the “war on terror.”

Supply is so plentiful that the price of a gram of heroin is plummeting in Europe, especially in the United Kingdom. According to the UNODC, the street price of a gram of cocaine in the United States is now less than $70, compared with $184 in 1990. Adjusted for inflation, that’s a threefold drop.

In Washington, the war on drugs has been a third-rail issue since its inauguration. It’s obvious why — telling people that their kids can do drugs is the kiss of death at the ballot box. But that was before 9/11. Now the drug war is undermining Western security throughout the world. In one particularly revealing conversation, a senior official at the British Foreign Office told me, “I often think we will look back at the War on Drugs in a hundred years’ time and tell the tale of ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes.’ This is so stupid.”

As much as this article offers, it only scratches the surface. Corporations profit from fighting the War on Drugs – organized crime profits from the logistics. The response from our political hierarchy of hypocrites and reactionaries continues to be grounded in moralizing and prohibition. We know how well they work.

Some folks actually work at resolving questions like this.



  1. bobbo says:

    32–Scott, with all your excellent postings on our continuing yet still looming energy crises, how can you support someone ( ie #31, The Selector) who wants to take perfectly good gasoline that can be put in a gas tank of a car to shuttle about here and there and turn it into jelly just to be dumped on the ground?

    Seems more than wasteful to me.

  2. Misanthropic Scott says:

    #34 – bobbo,

    I think you missed my point about what a messiah would do. According to scripture, which you know I find not only silly but abhorrent and violent, when the messiah comes, there will be peace. There is peace on the moon. “The Selecter” [sic] is advocating a start along the way to making this planet as peaceful as the moon. Therefore, “The Selecter” [sic] may actually be the messiah out to create a nice peaceful lifeless world.

    OK, I admit, my logic was a bit obscure and far out there.

  3. The Selecter says:

    Re: 35.

    Way out there, but at least there is no drug problem on the moon…

  4. tallwookie says:

    i dont see what the problem is.

    well ok I can see one problem – the USA govmt cant tax certain semi-legal agricultural products that are smuggled into this country – products which are only consumed by completely willing individuals, i might add – that seems to be the major thing that each of the “substances” that the govmt has a War against have in common.

    I cant blame em, the’ve got a two front war to fund, but they’re looking at this all wrong.

    what the govmt needs to do is leagalize the shit – all of it – and then make it legaly available, sold for essentially the same prices & regulated & taxed.
    This allows the powers-that-be to have their tax without disrupting the economical ebb and flow that the distribution and sale/usage of drugs have; in addition to negating a large consumer-base for the various crime syndicates that are involved in the growing and/or distribution of the drugs in question.

    thats not to say that smuggling wont exist after that happens, but if it is more economically viable for the average guy on the street to buy legally from a govmt regulated grower/chemist instead of going to Joey up the street, then it’d work & kill 2 birds with one stone.

  5. Mike Voice says:

    28 Did the entire world treasury market collapse when Bush declared that they were worthless IOUs? I thought not. The reason is because everyone is quite confident that there is not (yet) any hint of the U.S. government defaulting on treasuries.

    And it is that “(yet)” part which bothers me.

    The markets didn’t respond because we still have surplus payments from Social Security payroll taxes coming in.

    Bush’s argument was that when the surplus trickles down to non-existence – and that file cabinet of securities needs to be redeemed – where is the money going to come from?

    Possible answers:
    1. Higher payroll taxes
    2. Slashing budgets for other programs
    3. Reduced payments to retirees
    4. All of the above

    Bush’s argument was that any/all of those choices would be so unpopular as to not be politically feasible.

    We’ll know if that’s true, or not, in a few years…

    I still remember Bush coming into office with that Grover Norquist-style idea of “Starve the Beast”.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve-the-beast

    All of our deficit-spending to support the “War on Terror” will make it that much more difficult to balance the books – won’t it?

  6. Misanthropic Scott says:

    #38 — Mike Voice,

    But, that still doesn’t mean that the gov’t can default on the $2T in Soc Sec without also defaulting on the rest of the $6T in its debt. (Or, is it another $8T? I’m never sure whether the debt to Soc Sec is included in the $8T national debt.)

  7. nightstar says:

    “In Washington, the war on drugs has been a third-rail issue”

    What a great line!

  8. Mr. Fusion says:

    #33, green,

    In #1, you wrote:
    The British East Indies company had and will always have control of the heroin trade in Afghanistan. Troops are there to ensure that continues.

    Why don’t you google the British East India Company and see if they are still in business. Then google how much heroin actually comes from Afghanistan. Then check to see when was the last time British troops were stationed in Afghanistan before NATO went after the Taliban.

    Now to quote from the site you provided.
    1830

    Jardine-Matheson & Company of London inherit India and its opium from the British East India Company once the mandate to rule and dictate the trade policies of British India are no longer in effect.

    You’re own effen cite disagrees with you !!!
    You are a moran.

  9. Mr. Fusion says:

    #30, bobbo,

    Tell your fat ass lazy stupid cop friend to look for violations of law/safety rather than a “presumption” based on chemical testing?

    Uummm, if it is illegal to drive under the influence of drugs then that would be a concern to law enforcement. It is also quite accurate that people driving under the influence are a safety hazard. Just because you disagree with the law does not make the cop fat, lazy, or stupid. Basing a moranic comment upon a stereotype is pure lazy, disingenuous, and not very bright either.

    Bobbo, sometimes you just outdo yourself.

  10. green says:

    #41: You are a moran.

    I think you meant moron.

    NVM… you probably didn’t :D.

  11. Misanthropic Scott says:

    #43 – green,

    Mr. Fusion is generally quite capable of speaking for himself. In case he doesn’t check back on this thread though, I’m pretty sure he meant moran. For the reference, check this image.

    http://tinyurl.com/25ven3

  12. RBG says:

    5 LtG. So instead of being in prison, they’d be on the streets until they die from addiction. Good plan. But at least you get your billions out of the deal.

    17. Subsection 6(2) of the Canadian Television Broadcasting Regulations held a ban on spirit advertising until challenged on the grounds of free speech. Even so, heavy restrictions and mandatory educational initiatives are in place. Total ban on cigarette advertising continues.

    “All of the fourteen comments received from federal, provincial and municipal governments opposed broadcast advertising of spirits. Of these, a majority suggested a total ban and the remainder preferred the status quo” (some outright bans). But to no avail.

    Never-the-less, scores of Canadian Northern towns have saw it necessary to enforce a current total ban or heavy restrictions on alcohol use – as in you can’t even bring your own bottle into town without official permission.

    RBG


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 10220 access attempts in the last 7 days.