Who really benefits from the War on Drugs?

[Swiffness!]

prison industry

 

[elhuey]

some really good points are made here.

 

[musicology1985]

aww man, too many to name. too many.

 

[shootemwon]

the dude who makes those "above the influence" commericals

 

[MonkeysBanana]

#WHITEY

 

[LUClEN]

I'd add the pharmaceutical industry

 

[janklow]

let just sum up with "too many groups to end this shit, apparently"

 

[Focal Point]

Gotta convince the ppl who then will demand change

 

[cobbland]

Worth reading:

The Spoils of War: Afghanistan’s Multibillion Dollar Heroin Trade

Washington's Hidden Agenda: Restore the Drug Trade

The headlines are “Drugs, warlords and insecurity overshadow Afghanistan’s path to democracy”. In chorus, the US media is accusing the defunct “hard-line Islamic regime”, without even acknowledging that the Taliban –in collaboration with the United Nations– had imposed a successful ban on poppy cultivation in 2000. Opium production declined by more than 90 per cent in 2001. In fact the surge in opium cultivation production coincided with the onslaught of the US-led military operation and the downfall of the Taliban regime. From October through December 2001, farmers started to replant poppy on an extensive basis.

The success of Afghanistan’s 2000 drug eradication program under the Taliban had been acknowledged at the October 2001 session of the UN General Assembly (which took place barely a few days after the beginning of the 2001 bombing raids). No other UNODC member country was able to implement a comparable program:

“Turning first to drug control, I had expected to concentrate my remarks on the implications of the Taliban’s ban on opium poppy cultivation in areas under their control… We now have the results of our annual ground survey of poppy cultivation in Afghanistan. This year’s production [2001] is around 185 tons. This is down from the 3300 tons last year [2000], a decrease of over 94 per cent. Compared to the record harvest of 4700 tons two years ago, the decrease is well over 97 per cent.

Any decrease in illicit cultivation is welcomed, especially in cases like this when no displacement, locally or in other countries, took place to weaken the achievement” (Remarks on behalf of UNODC Executive Director at the UN General Assembly, Oct 2001,http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/speech_2001-10-12_1.html )

^^^^^(Link is broken)^^^^^

United Nations’ Coverup

In the wake of the US invasion, shift in rhetoric. UNODC is now acting as if the 2000 opium ban had never happened:

“the battle against narcotics cultivation has been fought and won in other countries and it [is] possible to do so here [in Afghanistan], with strong, democratic governance, international assistance and improved security and integrity.” ( Statement of the UNODC Representative in Afghanistan at the :February 2004 International Counter Narcotics Conference,http://www.unodc.org/pdf/afg/afg_intl_counter_narcotics_conf_2004.pdf , p. 5).

In fact, both Washington and the UNODC now claim that the objective of the Taliban in 2000 was not really “drug eradication” but a devious scheme to trigger “an artificial shortfall in supply”, which would drive up World prices of heroin.

Ironically, this twisted logic, which now forms part of a new “UN consensus”, is refuted by a report of the UNODC office in Pakistan, which confirmed, at the time, that there was no evidence of stockpiling by the Taliban. (Deseret News, Salt Lake City, Utah. 5 October 2003)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-spoils-of-war-afghanistan-s-multibillion-dollar-heroin-trade/91

 

[jono]

You could write multiple volumes of a book on this subject and each book can look at different industries and many of them somehow have ties to the drug market.

 

[LUClEN]

You could write multiple volumes of a book on this subject and each book can look at different industries and many of them somehow have ties to the drug market.

Stealing your idea

 

[kingblaze84]

Pharmaceutical companies, prison industry and state governments benefit the most. Crooked cops too, especially the ones who steal from dealers

 

[Stiff]

Politicians who exploit the "War on Drugs" as a part of their "tough on crime" message to secure votes from right wing white voters..

 

[Stiff]

Politicians who exploit the "War on Drugs" as a part of their "tough on crime" message to secure votes from right wing white voters..

Oops nevermind just watched the video he covered that

 

[janklow]

Politicians who exploit the "War on Drugs" as a part of their "tough on crime" message to secure votes from right wing white voters..

is there a reason why you skipped over the Democrats who do the same thing but theoretically don't target right-wing white voters?

 

[kingblaze84]

Politicians who exploit the "War on Drugs" as a part of their "tough on crime" message to secure votes from right wing white voters..

is there a reason why you skipped over the Democrats who do the same thing but theoretically don't target right-wing white voters?

Democrats aren't great on this issue either but it does seem (lately) that at least Democrats are making more efforts to get rid of the draconian laws that exist compared to Republicans. Here in NY, some Democrats are pushing to legalize medical marijuana and even decriminalize it in small amounts but the state Senate Republicans in NY are *surprise surprise* against it. And you know I'm not big on either party

 

[Stiff]

Politicians who exploit the "War on Drugs" as a part of their "tough on crime" message to secure votes from right wing white voters..

is there a reason why you skipped over the Democrats who do the same thing but theoretically don't target right-wing white voters?

When Democrats take the stance of "Tough on Crime" they're not exactly targeting liberals... they do so because that's a perceived weakness of the democrat's platform that the right loves to exploit along with foreign policy.

Don't get me wrong though democrats ain't shit either and haven't been shit for a long time.

 

[CracceR]

cops

 

[kingblaze84]

Police and the feds can LEGALLY STEAL from you, even if you haven't been charged with a crime. Got 100K from a good night out gambling and you happen to get pulled over by cops? They can by law take all 100K, just for simple suspicion you may be a dealer. Again, you don't have to be charged with anything.....what a crooked system we Americans live in lol
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/21/us/asset-seizures/index.html

It's called Civil Asset Forfeiture, and it was started in the early 1980s by the Justice Department. It has since migrated to thousands of state and local jurisdictions nationwide. The program, when it originated, was meant to target and take money authorities believed was connected to crimes.

A legal advocacy group based in Washington called the Institute for Justice has been battling Civil Asset Forfeiture for years.

 

[janklow]

Democrats aren't great on this issue either but it does seem (lately) that at least Democrats are making more efforts to get rid of the draconian laws that exist compared to Republicans. Here in NY, some Democrats are pushing to legalize medical marijuana and even decriminalize it in small amounts but the state Senate Republicans in NY are *surprise surprise* against it. And you know I'm not big on either party

i surely do not approve of Republicans playing the "OMG social conservatism" game with marijuana. but often i think that's just about what things each group likes and dislikes; both are pushing for state power and being tough on crime for their own reasons.

When Democrats take the stance of "Tough on Crime" they're not exactly targeting liberals... they do so because that's a perceived weakness of the democrat's platform that the right loves to exploit along with foreign policy.

perhaps... but they still do it in Democrat strongholds where you'd think they'd be safe to act on their true convictions. which is perhaps the point: if you're tough on crime, fine, but be that way because it's your belief, not because you're playing the game.