The War on Drugs is as FAKE and as disasterous as the war on terror.
There are more drugs today on the streets than when the war on drugs started.
There are more terrorists today in Iraq and Afghanistan than when the war on terror started.
BOTH HAVE BEEN COMPLETE FAILURES and still with no-sign of things getting better ….only worse is on the horizon.
Either that OR they where LIARS from the start and this is theREAL results they always had intended.
Another simple fact is when Ronald Reagan started the “war on drugs” it was hippies selling lids of grass on street corners that was the problem. IMHO this was not a problem at all!
Thanks to Ronald Reagan ,today ,its gangs of crack dealers armed with guns , nice one Ronald ,now who can I sue?
This 1999 documentary from Dutch TV explains how the “War on Drugs” has led to a loss of civil liberties while at the same time it has become a cash generator for police departments (through asset seizure) and a source of prisoners needed by the growing, privatized “Prison Industrial Complex”. However, it has not had much of an effect at all as far as its supposed purpose of eliminating or, at least significantly reducing, the illegal drug trade.
Indeed, opium production in Afghanistan — much of it in the regions where Canadian and British troops are supposed to be in charge — shot up dramatically last year.
The 49 per cent increase in the opium harvest, right under the noses of NATO forces, represented a doubling of the crop from 2000, when the fundamentalist Taliban were still in control, and solidified Afghanistan’s position as the chief supplier of illegal opium to the world.
But the latest Afghan numbers are so large that the country now accounts for 92 per cent of the illicit global opium crop.
The Afghanistan province being patrolled by British troops will produce at least one third of the world’s heroin this year, according to drug experts who are forecasting a harvest that is both a record for the country and embarrassing for the western funded war on narcotics.
British officials are bracing themselves for the result of an annual UN poppy survey due later this summer. Early indications show an increase on Helmand’s 1999 record of 45,000 hectares (112,500 acres) and a near-doubling of last year’s crop.
“It’s going to be massive,” said one British drugs official. “My guess is it’s going to be the biggest ever.” UN, American and Afghan officials agreed.
“It could be over 50,000 hectares, or over 50% of the total [Aghan] crop,” said General Muhammad Daud, the deputy interior minister for counter-narcotics.
NICE ONE GUYS…NOW WHO CAN I SUE FOR THIS??
Another thing ,prohibition CREATES CRIME!!!! Do you think the alcohol prohibition was a good thing? It saw the rise of the Mafia ,which is still a strong force in crime today , all thanks to alcohol prohibition.
In fact while its “illegal” its a very good non-taxed revenue for those that can milk it!
“Afghan drug trafficking brings US $50 billion a year”
The US is not going to stop the production of drugs in Afghanistan as it covers the costs of their military presence there, says Gen. Mahmut Gareev, a former commander during the USSR’s operations in Afghanistan.
For more on this topic check this blog.
The Taliban had almost completely irradicated opium production in Afghanistan. The heroine production we see today has risen completley under the supervision on the US and UK. Heroine(refined opiates) was NEVER made in Afghanistan before the NATO invasion!
Who is Funding the Afghan Taliban?
You Don’t Want to Know
By Jean MacKenzie
August 16, 2009 “GlobalPost”
Up until quite recently, most experts thought that drug money accounted for the bulk of Taliban funding. But even here opinion was divided on actual amounts. Some reports gauged the total annual income at about $100 million, while others placed the figure as high as $300 million — still a small fraction of the $4 billion poppy industry.
Now administration officials have launched a search for Taliban sponsors. Richard Holbrooke, U.S. special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, told a press conference in Islamabad last month that drugs accounted for less of a share of Taliban coffers than was previously thought.
“In the past there was a kind of feeling that the money all came from drugs in Afghanistan,” said Holbrooke, according to media reports. “That is simply not true.”
The new feeling is that less than half of the Taliban’s war chest comes from poppy, with a variety of sources, including private contributions from Persian Gulf states, accounting for much of the rest. Holbrooke told reporters that he would add a member of the Treasury Department to his staff to pursue the question of Taliban funding.
But perhaps U.S. officials need look no further than their own backyard.
Anecdotal evidence is mounting that the Taliban are taking a hefty portion of assistance money coming into Afghanistan from the outside.
This goes beyond mere protection money or extortion of “taxes” at the local level — very high-level negotiations take place between the Taliban and major contractors, according to sources close to the process.
A shadowy office in Kabul houses the Taliban contracts officer, who examines proposals and negotiates with organizational hierarchies for a percentage. He will not speak to, or even meet with, a journalist, but sources who have spoken with him and who have seen documents say that the process is quite professional.
The manager of an Afghan firm with lucrative construction contracts with the U.S. government builds in a minimum of 20 percent for the Taliban in his cost estimates. The manager, who will not speak openly, has told friends privately that he makes in the neighborhood of $1 million per month. Out of this, $200,000 is siphoned off for the insurgents.
If negotiations fall through, the project will come to harm — road workers may be attacked or killed, bridges may be blown up, engineers may be assassinated.
The degree of cooperation and coordination between the Taliban and aid workers is surprising, and would most likely make funders extremely uncomfortable.
One Afghan contractor, speaking privately, told friends of one project he was overseeing in the volatile south. The province cannot be mentioned, nor the particular project.
“I was building a bridge,” he said, one evening over drinks. “The local Taliban commander called and said ‘don’t build a bridge there, we’ll have to blow it up.’ I asked him to let me finish the bridge, collect the money — then they could blow it up whenever they wanted. We agreed, and I completed my project.”
In the south, no contract can be implemented without the Taliban taking a cut, sometimes at various steps along the way.
One contractor in the southern province of Helmand was negotiating with a local supplier for a large shipment of pipes. The pipes had to be brought in from Pakistan, so the supplier tacked on about 30 percent extra for the Taliban, to ensure that the pipes reached Lashkar Gah safely.
Once the pipes were given over to the contractor, he had to negotiate with the Taliban again to get the pipes out to the project site. This was added to the transportation costs.
“We assume that our people are paying off the Taliban,” said the foreign contractor in charge of the project.
In Farah province, local officials report that the Taliban are taking up to 40 percent of the money coming in for the National Solidarity Program, one of the country’s most successful community reconstruction projects, which has dispensed hundreds of millions of dollars throughout the country over the past six years.
Many Afghans see little wrong in the militants getting their fair share of foreign assistance.
“This is international money,” said one young Kabul resident. “They are not taking it from the people, they are taking it from their enemy.”
Pot Is an Anti-Cancer Drug
The active ingredient in marijuana appears to target cancerous brain cells for destruction while leaving healthy cells alone, according to a study conducted by researchers from the Complutense University in Madrid, and published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation.
Cannabis may prevent osteoporosis
Researchers first conducted an experiment in mice that had been engineered to carry three different grafts of human brain cancer. They injected the mice daily with the molecule tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) near the site of the tumors once each day. The chemical appeared to stimulate the cancerous cells to engage in a process known as autophagy, in which cells initiate their own breakdown.
“These results may help to design new cancer therapies based on the use of medicines containing the active principle of marijuana and/or in the activation of autophagy,” researcher Guillermo Velasco said.
THC belongs to a class of chemicals known as cannabinoids, named after the cannabis (marijuana) plant in which they occur. It is the chemical responsible for the psychoactive effects of marijuana consumption.
Researchers looking at the effects of cannabis on bones have found its impact varies dramatically with age.
The study found that while the drug may reduce bone strength in the young, it could protect against osteoporosis, a weakening of the bones, in later life.
The results were uncovered by a team at the University of Edinburgh who compared the drug’s effects on mice.
Osteoporosis affects up to 30% of women and about 12% of men at some point in their lives.
The group found that cannabis can activate a molecule found naturally in the body that is key to the development of osteoporosis.
When the type 1 cannabinoid receptor (CB1) comes into contact with cannabis, it has an impact on bone regeneration.
However, until now, it was not clear whether the drug had a positive or negative effect.
Researchers, funded by the Arthritis Research Campaign, investigated this using mice which lacked the CB1 receptor.
The scientists then used compounds – similar to those in cannabis – that activated the CB1 receptor.
They found that compounds increased the rate at which bone tissue was destroyed in the young.
Despite this, the study also showed that the same compounds decreased bone loss in older mice and prevented the accumulation of fat in the bones, which is known to occur in humans with osteoporosis.
Stuart Ralston, the Arthritis Research Campaign Professor of Rheumatology at the University of Edinburgh, who led the study, said: “This is an exciting step forward, but we must recognise that these are early results and more tests are needed on the effects of cannabis in humans to determine how the effects differ with age in people.
“We plan to conduct further trials soon and hope the results will help to deliver new treatments that will be of value in the fight against osteoporosis.”
The results are published in Cell Metabolism.
Cannabis treats prostate cancer, study finds
Following the growing interest in medical benefits of cannabis, a new study finds that the compound can help fight prostate cancer.
According to the study published in the British Journal of Cancer, chemicals found in cannabis can stop prostate cancer cells from growing in the laboratory.
Its active chemicals known as cannabinoids — methanandamide and JWH-015 — are also reported to be effective in reducing the size of the tumor in mice.
The compound is believed to block CB2 receptors on the surface of the cancerous tissue, preventing the division and growth of the tumor cells. It is reported to be more effective in treating aggressive prostate cancer cell types, which do not respond to existing hormone treatments.
Scientists hope that cannabis-based medicines could help fight prostate cancer in the near future.
Marijuana Is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink?
For 35 years the federal government has been well aware – yet publicly denied – that cannabis possesses potent anti-cancer and anti-tumor properties. Even under the Obama administration, which promised to “base [their] public policies on the soundest of science,” the myth that pot promotes cancer persists. In fact, the White House’s website, whitehousedrugpolicy.gov, presently warns, “Marijuana has the potential to promote cancer of the lungs and other parts of the respiratory tract.”
In a clinical abstract published online on journal of Cancer Prevention Research website in July, a team of U.S. investigators reported – with absolutely no mainstream media fanfare – that lifetime marijuana use is associated with a “significantly reduced risk” of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.
Investigators at Rhode Island’s Brown University, along with researchers at Boston University, Louisiana State University, and the University of Minnesota assessed the lifetime marijuana use habits of 434 cases (patients diagnosed with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma from nine medical facilities) compared to 547 matched controls.
Authors reported, “After adjusting for potential confounders (including smoking and alcohol drinking), 10 to 20 years of marijuana use was associated with a significantly reduced risk of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNDCC).”
Perhaps even more notably, subjects who smoked marijuana and consumed alcohol and tobacco (two known high-risk factors for head and neck cancers) also experienced a reduced risk of cancer, the study found.
“Our study suggests that moderate marijuana use is associated with reduced risk of HNSCC,” investigators concluded. “This association was consistent across different measures of marijuana use (marijuana use status, duration, and frequency of use). … Further, we observed that marijuana use modified the interaction between alcohol and cigarette smoking, resulting in a decreased HNSCC risk among moderate smokers and light drinkers, and attenuated risk among the heaviest smokers and drinkers.”
Of course, this isn’t the first time that U.S. investigators have documented an inverse association between pot use and cancer. A separate 2006 population case-control study, funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health and conducted by the University of California at Los Angeles, also reported that lifetime use of cannabis was not positively associated with cancers of the lung or aerodigestive tract, and further noted that certain moderate users of the drug experienced a reduced cancer risk compared to non-using controls.
Predictably, the federal government’s goal when green-lighting the UCLA study was to conclusively establish just the opposite result, as explained recently by its lead researcher Dr. Donald Tashkin.
In an interview with the McClatchy newspaper chain in June, Tashkin admitted that he expected his study would find that pot was associated with “increased health effects.” Instead, he summarized, “What we found instead was no association (between marijuana smoking and cancer) and even a suggestion of some protective effect.”
Perhaps that explains why Tashkin’s study, the largest trial of its kind, is inexplicably absent from the White House’s website.
Tashkin added, “[A]t this point, I’d be in favor of (marijuana) legalization. I wouldn’t encourage anybody to smoke any substances. But I don’t think it should be stigmatized as an illegal substance. Tobacco smoking causes far more harm. And in terms of an intoxicant, alcohol causes far more harm (than marijuana).”
Indeed it does. In fact, according to the findings of a study published online August 3 in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, even moderate alcohol consumption (defined as six drinks or less per week) is positively associated with an elevated risk of various cancers – including stomach cancer, rectal cancer, and bladder cancer. The study is the second to be published this year indicating that those who consume even minor amounts of booze are at increased risk for cancer. In February, a British study of some 1.3 million women age 50 to 64 reported that imbibing in as little as one alcoholic beverage per day significantly elevated females’ risk of cancer, particularly breast cancer.
For those of us who have closely studied the physiological effects of pot and alcohol the two substances contrasting association with cancer isn’t surprising. Ethanol, the psychoactive ingredient in booze, is converted by the body to acetaldehyde, a known carcinogen. By contrast, the active components in marijuana – known as cannabinoids – are relatively non-toxic and actually mimic chemicals naturally produced by the body (so-called endocannabinoids) that are necessary for maintaining one’s proper health.
Of course, that’s hardly where the differences between marijuana and alcohol end. As I write in my new book Marijuana Is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink (Chelsea Green Publishing, 2009), alcohol consumption is toxic to cells and healthy organs, can depress the central nervous system (inducing unconsciousness, coma, and death), and is strongly associated with increased risks of injury and acts of violence. The use of marijuana, on the other hand, is incapable of causing fatal overdose – cannabinoids do not act upon the brain stem – and its use is inversely associated with aggression and injury.
Naturally, none of these differences should imply that America should return to the days of alcohol prohibition. Rather, they should spark a long-overdue dialogue in this country asking why our laws target and prosecute those adults who choose to make the rational choice to relax with a substance that is objectively safer, both to the user and to society as a whole, than alcohol. Perhaps when the President finishes his beer, he can provide an answer.
August 12, 2009
Recommended Reading: Much Of Afghan Drug Money Going To ‘Our Friends’
By Steve Inskeep
One of the most revealing things we learned this week about the war in Afghanistan came in a Los Angeles Times report headlined “Taliban Drug Proceeds Lower Than Thought.”
We’ve been told again and again for years on end that the Taliban were running their operations off the opium trade, clearing as much as $400 million per year. Now, a Senate Foreign Relations Committee investigation says the proceeds are closer to $70 million.
But that’s not the real news. The real news is what’s missing: If our enemies aren’t taking as much money as we thought to provide protection to the source of raw material for 90% of the world’s heroin, then who is providing that protection?
Apparently, the answer is: our friends.
The Times goes on to say:
In one of its most disconcerting conclusions, the Senate report says the United States inadvertently contributed to the resurgent drug trade … by backing warlords who derived income from the flow of illegal drugs. … These warlords later traded on their stature as U.S. allies to take senior positions in the new Afghan government, laying the groundwork for the corrupt nexus between drugs and authority that pervades the power structure today.
The cost of this may well go beyond the effect on the heroin shipments.
When we sat down this week with Amin Tarzi, director of Middle East Studies at the Marine Corps University and a native Afghan, he said that the United States has lost credibility with the Afghan populace by allying itself with warlords who have been known across Afghanistan for many years as criminals. We have, he says, handed a golden issue to the Taliban. They first took power in the 1990’s by charging that the existing government was corrupt. Now they can say it again.
The drugs law have more to do with government mass control ,big business profits and financing “black-ops” than any beneficial effect to your average person or society in general.
OIL INDUSTRY WANTED HEMP DESTROYED AS DID THE PAPER AND TEXTILE INDUSTRIES.
It is because of these “lobby groups” and corrupt government officials , nothing much changes in politics, that we have Peak Oil , and de-forestation as issues today. BUT IN REALITY WHAT FUEL CRISIS?
Has no-one heard of a diesel engine?
The first cars where made and ran on hemp!
Hemp grows like a weed, requires no fertilizer and pesticides (truly organic), reduces the use of our forests–the lungs of our planet—, replenishes rather than depletes the soil and its fiber is strong and beautiful. The new hemp particle boards are rock solid. The French build entire houses out of hemp!
Industrial hemp/cannabis sativa has been an important element in cultures around the world for thousands of years. The first paper was made of hemp. Levi Strauss made the first jeans in hemp. Our ancestors crossed the frontier in wagons covered in hemp canvas. My grandfather, John G. Crusius, and my father, Lowell Crusius, were “Hemp for Victory” farmers during World War II. After the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was passed, the US Navy stopped using industrial hemp for its rope source and began importing manila hemp(musa textilis) from the Philippines.
Also Hemp can be grown on Fallow land , thus 30% of argocultural land is waiting for hemp production of FUEL , PAPER , CLOTH etc.. all without loosing 1 piece of argocultural land that we use for food production!
As a final pointer for American , when Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492 , he did so with hemp sails ,held up by hemp ropes on ships waterproofed by hemp tar following hemp maps under hemp oil lamps ,while wearing hemp clothing!!!
America would not have been descovered without hemp!
The American constitution is WRITTEN ON HEMP!!!