War on Drugs: Cui Bono? Cui Pacat? Cui Patitur?

 Since the Nixon presidency, the U.S. government has poured almost a trillion dollars into the “war on drugs,” and what has it produced? More drugs. More inner-city violence, and the largest prison population in the world. Since Mexico's former President Felipe Calderon initiated a large scale "war on drugs" in 2006 funded by millions, perhaps billions, of dollars in U.S. aid, the death toll in Mexico is believed to have reached at least 60,000, possibly even $80,000, with more than 26,000 people missing. As the murder rate has dramatically increased, with Ciudad Juárez on the northern border recognised, not too long ago, pinpointed as the most dangerous city on the planet, the supply of cocaine, heroin, marijuana and methamphetamine from Mexico continues to increase.

So, without doing much research, it's easy to answer questions such as these when it comes to the "war on drugs," Although, to be sure, research will most definitely support the answers we can see right in front of our eyes: escalated race and class warfare--in effect, a new Jim Crow; mass incarceration of American citizens (1100% increase for drug law violations); unimaginable violence, especially in Mexico; more drugs than ever before; wealthier than wealthy banksters, politicians, CEOs, multinational corporations, etc.;  unprecedented wealth and power, and the list goes on  and on. 

In other words:

Cui bono? Who benefits? Why, the capstone elite, of course. No, I'm not talking Illuminati, I'm just referring to those few special people who reside at the top of the socioeconomic pyramid.

Cui pacat? Who pays? We, the taxpayers, as usual. 


Cui patitur? Who suffers? The people who reside at the bottom of the socioeconomic pyramid.

Another question you might want to ask yourself is, which kills more people? Marijuana? War on drugs?  To my knowledge, pure marijuana has never killed anyone, while the war on drugs is responsible for millions of deaths.  In fact, marijuana has numerous health benefits, but that's another story.

Let's take a look at Mexico for a clear cut example. Not only who gets what, that's fairly obvious; but are the results of this "war on drugs"-- that just so happens to coincide with neo-liberal "reform"--purely an accident, making the "war on drugs" a complete failure?  Or, was/is the "war on drugs" really quite successful when you dig a little deeper and discover the true motive/agenda?  Remember, Mexico's war on drugs is using the same model used in Columbia: Plan Columbia. 

Warning: If you believe everything is a coincidence, and that the predator ruling class, no matter what political party they attach themselves, are mostly benevolent creatures, who are only looking out for our best interest, there is no need to read any further.

While Carlo Slim Helu, world's richest man according to Forbes, takes in $27 million per day--yes, that's per day--half of all Mexican citizens barely take in $2 per day. In fact, it's so bad in Mexico-- innocent people are kidnapped, tortured and brutally murdered, then displayed for public consumption by viscous rivaling drug cartels on a daily basis--right now that many of its citizens have two choices: sneak into America, or work for what's turned Mexico into the the horrific war zone that it is: the drug cartels.  The cartels have gained so much power, they could be considered a de facto and/or "parallel government."  After all, in too many areas throughout Mexico, the heavily armed cartels are implementing their own brand of law and order.

As for defending oneself in this living hell, it's almost impossible because legally owning a gun  is nearly impossible, and most of law enforcement/military/government are corrupt, or indistinguishable from the cartels, leaving Mexican citizens to live their daily lives like pop-up figures in a shooting gallery.

Now if Mexico were solely responsible for this unimaginable tragedy, one could argue, "it's their problem...let them deal with it," and tough immigration laws might make sense.  However, not only are most of the drugs sold to Americans, and not only is America providing 90% of the estimated 15 million illegal assault weapons--an arsenal of highly sophisticated weaponry-- the U.S. participated in setting up the conditions that would facilitate the drug cartels' slaughter of Mexican citizens...from the very beginning--and conditions we continue to facilitate

While Mexico most certainly took part, the Clinton administration, and other western imperial powers pushed NAFTA, which accelerated the neo-liberal "reforms" widening the already huge wealth gap in Mexico, pauperizing the working class, and pushing the already poverty-stricken Mexicans into even deeper poverty. Of course, this ensured that the drug cartels would have a vast population from which to recruit foot soldiers

Moreover, Clinton  refused to allow the subject of narco-trafficking, in relation to NAFTA, into public debate, even though, for example, the DEA, voiced its concerns that by improving infrastructure (road/rail system, removal of tariffs for goods going northwards), for the increased trade from Mexico into the U.S. would make it that much easier for drug traffickers.

Clinton can't say he didn't know of the consequences NAFTA would create for the Mexican people because he had already created and implemented Operation Gatekeeper, aimed at halting illegal immigration at the United States–Mexico border. He knew NAFTA would not only impoverish Mexicans, but it could be said the U.S. government was well aware of the war-zone it would create. In fact, it could be said that is exactly what they wanted.

Crazy? Not so much. There is no doubt that preparing Mexico and laying the foundation for NAFTA were in the works a long time ago. In the 1980s, as Mexico was coerced to implement a more neo-liberal approach toward politics and government, abandoning the social arena, and creating, more or less, a social vacuum that the cartels were/are more than happy to fill, that is, along with the brutal violence.

“From 1980 to 1991, Mexico received thirteen structural adjustment loans from the World Bank, more than any other country. It also signed six agreements with the IMF, all of which brought increased pressure to liberalize trade and investment.”-- Tom Barry, Zapata’s Revenge.

NAFTA reshaped Mexico's  land ownership laws, slashed tarrifs on U.S. imports, and allowed subsidized U.S. corn to flood the country, devastating Mexico's agricultural sector.  Ironically, lured by the promise of work, border towns like Ciudad Juarez, now murder capital of the world,  attracted many of the Mexicans who could no longer find work after NAFTA was implemented.  The factories located there that provided cheap labor (equivalent of approximately $5/day) to foreign manufacturers offered employment, albeit, at slave wages.

The violence the drug cartels and the Mexican government have created is a bonus as it controls workers and displaces communities from territories of interest, that is, with valuable resources, to transnational corporate expansion. Corporatized conflict or disaster capitalism, where people are the collateral damage to keep capital moving through the feudal system.

"This notion of “security” calls up the Colombia model: paramilitarization in the service of capital. This model includes the formation of paramilitary death squads, the displacement of civilian populations, and an increase in violence. In the commercial sector, it is workers, small businesses and a sector of the local elite who are hit hardest by drug war policies.

Consider the links between the drug war and struggles around areas with natural resources:

• Residents of Ciudad Mier, a small community in Tamaulipas, left en masse because of paramilitary violence. The town sits on top of Mexico’s largest gas field, as does a large portion of the violence-ridden state.

• In the Juárez Valley, considered the most dangerous place in Mexico, killings and threats have forced many to leave, just as a new border crossing between the U.S. and Mexico is being constructed.

• In Santa Maria Ostula, a small Indigenous Nahuatl community in coastal Mexico, at least 28 people have been killed (and four others disappeared) by paramilitary and state violence since 2009. Their territory is in a mineral rich and strategically located area.

• In the Sierra Madre mountain range in northern Mexico, Canadian mining companies operate in areas where even government officials fear to enter because of the presence of armed narcotraffickers.

• In Petén, Guatemala, government officials militarized the area and declared a state of emergency because of the presence of Zetas that lasted eight months, ending in early 2012. Recent announcements indicate that a new oil rush is taking place in the same region.

 The "war on drugs" is not about drugs; rather, it's a smokescreen. It "may be better understood as being about increased social and territorial control over lands and people, in the interest of capitalist expansion."

“In this context, the current offensive follows the neo-liberal manual on indigenous territories. It is about sowing terror with a baseline of murders and disappearances until families abandon their lands…”--columnist and indigenous rights activist Gloria Munoz Ramirez

Cartel Kidnapping in Chihuahua Mexico

Read more...

Time to End Government War on Drugs?

Toxicity of Recreational Drugs - Alcohol is more lethal than many other commonly abused substances

Does anyone still believe that marijuana prohibition is working — or that all of the people currently behind bars deserve to be there? Have the hundreds of billions of dollars devoted to educating, persuading, pleading and frightening us away from drugs done the job?

After more than 70 years of criminal prohibition, 41% of the American population report having used marijuana in their lifetime.

Keep in mind that the "federal government's annual drug use survey uses fuzzy math to get their results"

"Conducted by the Federal Government since 1971, the survey collects data by administering questionnaires to a representative sample of the population through face-to-face interviews at their places of residence."

How many chronic and heavy drug users have a consistent residence? That is, if they have any residence at all. It's highly unlikely that SAMHSA's pollsters will reach these people. Not to mention, that most of the people who do use drugs, that they do catch at home, will not truthfully admit to a federal employee that they engage in an activity that could land them in prison for years.

For too long, advocates of prohibition have framed their arguments on the false assumption that the continued enforcement of said laws “protects our children.” As the numbers above illustrate, this premise is nonsense. In fact, just the opposite is true.

The government’s war on cannabis and cannabis consumers endangers the health and safety of our children. It enables young people to have unregulated access to marijuana — easier access than they presently have to alcohol. It enables young people to interact and befriend pushers of other illegal, more dangerous drugs. It compels young people to dismiss the educational messages they receive pertaining to the potential health risks posed by the use of “hard drugs” and prescription pharmaceuticals, because kids say, “If they lied to me about pot, why wouldn’t they be lying to me about everything else, too?”

Most importantly, the criminal laws are far more likely to result in having our children arrested, placed behind bars, and stigmatized with a lifelong criminal record than they are likely to in any way discourage them to try pot.

Table of types of illicit drug use in a lifetime for 2007/2008

Full results from the 2008 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Detailed Tables

Brief history of the war on drugs:

Timeline: 30 years of America's drug war

History of Marijuana Legislation

Harrison Narcotics Act - - 63rd US Congress 1914. Restricted the sale of heroin and was quickly used to restrict the sale of cocaine.

Marijuana Tax Act - - 75th US Congress April 14, 1937, signed August 2, 1937
Attempted to tax marijuana into oblivion Marijuana had not been shown to be dangerous, but the perception that it might be a "gateway drug" for heroin users--and its alleged popularity among Mexican-American immigrants--made it an easy target.

The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act - 91st US Congress October 27, 1970. The federal government took a more active role in drug enforcement and drug abuse prevention. Nixon, who called drug abuse "public enemy number one" in a 1971 speech.

Reagan-era drug policy legislation:

Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" anti-drug campaign becomes a centerpiece of the Reagan administration's anti-drug campaign. The movement focuses on white, middle class children and is funded by corporate and private donations.

By portraying drugs as a threat to white middle-class children, the administration was able to pursue more aggressive federal antidrug legislation.

Greater emphasis was put on military and criminal punishments rather than treatment solutions. Mandatory minimum sentencing were implemented and a competition between politicians to see who could be "toughest" on crime and drugs escalated to the point where the incarceration rate started to spiral out of control until today when the rate is far beyond any previous time in history

More prisoners today are serving life terms than ever before — 140,610 out of 2.3 million inmates being held in jails and prisons across the country — under tough mandatory minimum-sentencing laws and the declining use of parole for eligible convicts

The passage of the 1986 crime bill, notable for the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences also created the federal Sentencing Commission and the current system of federal sentencing guidelines, which did away with parole in the federal system, ensuring that prisoners would serve at least 85% of their sentences. And it included asset forfeiture.

Passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, which established a federal death penalty for "drug kingpins." Reagan signed that bill in his wife's honor.

"Reagan just swept the country along with him. It was that the country was in a state of hysteria, Democrats and Republicans alike. He tapped into this hysteria and drove it to incredible heights. Everybody jumped on the bandwagon. We forget the extent to which everyone was into this. There was a phrase both parties used, 'no one to the right of me on the drug issue

...in the drug policy arena, he was just horrible. If you want a taste of the hysteria and the fear, read my book. You had kids turning in their mothers for smoking pot and people like Joyce Nalepka saying that was the right thing to do. You had Reagan pushing to get rid of Posse Comitatus so he could use the armed forces in the drug war. He was for freedom, but like so many people, not when it came to drugs. The Reagan era spawned all sorts of nasty innovations, and while not all of them came from the White House, they were all part of that same intrusive spirit. We are still suffering from that to this day," Arnold Trebach, author of "The Great American Drug War" and a pioneer in American drug reform and founder of the Drug Policy Foundation in 1988.

Read more...

One American Arrested Every 38 Seconds for Marijuana.

Possible Clinical Applications for Cannabis:

Our current marijuana laws cost US taxpayers $42 billion dollars a year.

Could it be that the reason the government is trying so hard to make us believe marijuana is our most dangerous enemy is because it may be a cure for most of what ails us? Just think...doctors would cease to be gods; our pharmaceutical and health insurance industries might collapse, and "we the people" might be healthy enough to take our country back if we discovered natural, cheap methods of healing.

Read more...