The universally unconstitutional war on drugs

by Jacko Mon Jun 13, 2011 02:52

Supplying or offering to supply a controlled drug – Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (section 4 [UK](3))
This offence occurs when an offender supplies, or offers to supply, another person with a controlled drug. This includes distribution of a drug. The offence does not require proof of payment or reward, nor does it require proof that the offender intended to produce the drugs or had the drugs in his/her possession when making the offer to supply. An offender can be sentenced to a maximum of life imprisonment for supplying a Class A drug, and to a maximum of 14 years’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine for supplying Class B or C drugs.

This in effect means someone can be sentenced to 14 years or life for a hypothetical 'offence'.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Mon Jun 13, 2011 15:21

compiled by Kofi Annan, Richard Branson and a collection of pillars of their establishment once again finds the 'war on drugs' to be farcical failure.

i was trying to provide a link, but my general ineptitude stepped in again(no excuse, I'm not even smoking any more), so just google 'war on drugs, june 2011 if you want details.

by curious Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:19

You are correct Diablos. The report does indeed make interesting reading. Why are none of the socialist groups or parties or Sinn Fein speaking out against this insane and wasteful 'war on drugs' ? They have the courage to campaign against the equally insane and wasteful 'the war on teror' So why the silence ?

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:24

..is the estimated half-trillion annually generated from the trade, which feeds into the slush-funded invisible hand of the swiss/cayman/offshore laundry system along with the oil/arms/fabricated-financial instruments to create the cyber-cash hoard in the REAL dragon's dens where the 'players' run their game; and OUR planet, our resources and US(me 'n' you, not the big U.S.) become chips for their entertainment.
That leaves a lot of tips for the lobbyists to bestow as largesse for political obedience and silence, to say nothing of actual overt rabid moral grandstanding.
And then you have the vast revenues generated from taxpayers to fund the micro-imperialists keeping their bureaucratic security pyramids and careers ticking towards comfortable pensions.

On top of that there is almost a century of propaganda from the moral right who first set up the US Prohibition on alcohol and, when that was reversed because of its disasterous results in creating decades of gangsterism, switched horses onto the less electorally leveraged Negro and Mexican social drug of recreation, marijuana,(which had the advantage of including the race card, it being fueled by ye ol' bible belters)for the forementioned rationale of keeping their careers off the reduncancy ramp.

Like the war on terror, it has attained a momentum that decades of logical argument fail to penetrate because this raft of vested interest and ignorance.

One of the main CRIMES OF OMMISSION is the silence of the scientific community, who allow this flywheel of ignorance and disinformation to keep on SPINNING its threadbare yarns of 'just say no', pumped by such media-elevated saints as Mrs Ronny Regan.

Maybe we should launch 'JUST SAY KNOW'. Lotsa cultivated conviction to overcome. We're up against the bigotry of articulate ignorance led by such paragons of balance as Pat Kenny, Marian Finucane, Joe Duffy et al, who know better, but even better know which side their bread is well fucking bUttered. And they are, after all, moolah-addicts. Now THATS a hard habit to crack. In fact, thats the drug that fuels the now ubiquitous gangsterism driving the collection of crises coming down the tracks and blinding our political train-drivers. They just dont take the necessary TIME to THINK it through. It might damage their careers, so on we career.

by Curious Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:11

I am in agreement with you Opus about the wider context that explains the illogical policies and the waste of huge amounts of money in pursuing these unworkable policies and 'wars' etc. But where are the progressive voices that put their necks above the wall to make the points you make above? Has any Irish political group even got a policy on the issue? Is there any musician with a profile campaigning to change these laws? If they frighten everyone into silence nothing will change and the policies and the 'war' goes on and on.....

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Wed Jun 22, 2011 14:43

Thats what I mean by the silence of the scientific and medical professions.

I had an aticle on the issue in Hot Press back around 1988(they were offering a record voucher and T-shirt in conjunction with Rock Against Drugs/MTV)and I used to get the odd letter in the Irish Times on the topic(especially if their was some kid being threatened with expulsion for smoking a joint).
I've argued on Joe Duffy and Jerry Ryan and possibly Kenny also.
Ryan played the moral outrage card(hows that for irony) on one occasion when I tried to hilight the absurdity of nicotine and alcohol vs cannabis legislation. I've had several doctors agree with me in private after I raised the head over the parapet, but refused to add their professional public support(why do you think my party has the name it does?). I can understand the reticence, given the shit and accusations I drew. No doctor wants to sacrafice his career(despite the Hippocratic injunction and the harm the silence does).

You called it with 'frighten everyone into silence'. All these fuckers know cannabis is more therapeutic than toxic(research also shows that psilocybin can be effective in treatment of psychological disorders)but they fear the same persecution that hounded the likes of Timothy Leary, former head of Psychology at Harvard(google him if unfamiliar). Recent research confirms his ideas. Reading his accounts back in sixties when I was in secondary stimulated my own interest in the field, and after a few years self-experimentation I did an academic degree in psychology, but ran into the usual obstructions for heretical attitudes( in the US a large number of psychology graduates get hoovered into the pentagon networks for psyops. I reckon they control they 'field').

Musicians/artists/writers to a certain extent get the blind-eye poetic-licence dispensation, but any kid exploring the psychosphere runs the risk of criminal record(especially if he aint middle/upper class)with all its consequences.
I've read some of the 'research papers' used to discredit weed, and a five year-old could puncture their clumsy efforts at propaganda. But MSM is addicted to fear mongering(it sells). And alcohol/nicotine needs diversionary targets to keep public attention deflected. I also suspect the big 'clean' money players are involved in the illegal trade.
Ming is about the only one prepared to stand and defend, but he's safely inside the political tent thanks to family background. Even still, credit where its due, at least he has the balls to call shite shite.

by John Fri Jun 24, 2011 21:06

It is nonsensical to lump all 'drugs' into the same category when discussing this. Cannabis is not the same as heroin and crystal meth etc.

Hard drugs should be decriminalised. In that if you are caught with drugs for personal use or are an addict you should receive treatment and never a prison sentence. That doesnt mean we should stop targeting the people trafficking drugs. How could you justify a society where the state willingly let people people buy and sell a product as addictive as heroin? (please let nobody be so stupid as to comapre heroin to cigarettes). I bet you'd still expect all the associated healthcare expenses to be paid for also.

In anticipation of the usual alcoho/cigarettes being legal arument and the damage they do - that surely does not justify opening up another column of harmful cosequences caused by different substances.

Also, addicts will be no better placed to hold down a steady job no matter who they buy their drugs off and crime that results from addiction such as burglary and muggings would continue, if not rise, if it was traded without any degree of censure.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Sat Jun 25, 2011 11:59

I dont think anyone is comparing heroin to cannabis, except the MSM obfuscators and the political moral right.

As for '..how could you justify a society where the state willingly lets people buy and sell a product as addictive as heroin..'.

Some reckon nicotine more addictive than heroin, and alcohol is cumulatively addictive, in that we tend to increase our dosage if we become hooked, until, like smack, a blood transfusion from an addict would kill most novice users. I know people that can polish several bottles of whiskey in a day. One would kill me, if the emetic effect didn't kick in.
Both are sold by licenced dealers, tobacconists and public houses or off-licences.

Then there are the pharmacutical retail outlets, all licensed to sell and distribute toxins. All medicines are poisons, all poisons medicine, it all depends on dosage. Enough water will kill you.

Plenty of addicts hold down regular jobs, not least in the medical and related professions, where access allows controlled use, and education and income ensure no descent to criminal activity is necessary.

As for 'the people trafficking the drugs..', follow the money and you might be surprised at how far up the political ladders the trails can lead. Read up on the opium wars of the nineteenth century for a primer on the operations, and the long marriage of banking and crime has yet to be annulled. And our political pillars are not beyond standing in as groomsmen. Its dirtier and deeper than most suspect. Consider the increase in production in Afghanistan over the last ten years, and its use to destabilise Russia, China, and other contenders in the resource wars of the American century. Coke has been, and is being, used by and for the same forces. If you think thats paranoia, you haven't read enough history. It is actually documented if you search. Just think of the machinations of Big Tobacco over the last half-century to maintain their 'legitimate economic activities'. Or read the nearest medical dictionary on the subject of la grande dame ethyl alcohol.

by W. Finnerty Sat Jun 25, 2011 14:37

The following excerpt appears about half way through the EIR article in question:

"The fascist connections were most flagrant in the case of Banco Ambrosiano, the founding Italian bank in the Inter-Alpha Group, which was tightly integrated with the Propaganda Due (P-2) Masonic Lodge in Italy. The P-2 Lodge was run by former Mussolini 'Black Shirt' Licio Gelli, and was modelled on the earlier 'universal fascist' Propaganda Uno (P-1) Lodge of Giuseppe Mazzini. Italian police investigations into the activities of P-2 found that both the lodge and its bank, Banco Ambrosiano, were involved in arms and drug trafficking, terrorism, neo-Nazi assassination groups, and the fascist paramilitary groups of NATO's Operation Gladio. Control over P-2 was exercised through the Alpina Lodge of Switzerland, the Monte Carlo Lodge, and ultimately the "Mother Lodge," the United Grand Lodge of England, headed at the time by HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, of the British royal family."

The full EIR article can be viewed at: http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2010/3736inter-alpha_g....html

by John Sat Jun 25, 2011 16:44

Opus -

As I predicted, part of your response and argument simply amounts to an argument for banning the sale of alcohol and nicotine, not legalising another addictive substance.

I realise these substances are addictive and harmful to some people, but plenty of people can go for a relaxing pint and a chat. The same can't be said for heroin. It is widely regarded as being one of the most addictive substances.

As for the jobs issue, sure there are some people in positions of responsibility who use drugs. It is fair to say though that if their addiction to a drug like heroin takes hold, which is very likely, they not have those jobs for long. You need only look at all the addicts who are homeless/jobless and without any prospects as a result of drugs. Obviously, their educational and welfare needs should be addressed early in life and disadvantaged families should receive adequate support services. However, not all of them come from disadvantaged backgounds and there are plenty of examples of careers and families being devastated by drug addiction.

Finally, of course you may well find people in high places who are at least restricting meaningful action on drug trafficking. I suggest that we focus on doing as you say, and follow the money and corruption trail to them. That will entail targeting traffickers and dealers.

As I have said all along, your average user should never be imprisoned. Intervention should be in the form of treatment and support. But legalising drugs would have some horrendous copnsequences.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Sun Jun 26, 2011 11:05

Where do i advocate '..banning the sale of alcohol and nicotine..'??
Your prediction is blinkering your reading.

I'll be out for a few pints and to watch the match at 4. I'm only three weeks off the smoking. I usually do a month, but the lungs are getting to the stage when I should really get serious and act me fucking age and dump it for good. Its a dumb, dirty, unhealthy, asocial addiction. But I'm hooked since I was in school. That I can now enter a pub without being immersed in smoke is good enough.

Education, and opening of oppertunity is the way out of addiction. The VISIBLE addicts are homeless, unemployables. But which came first, the poverty and alienation, or the self-medication? Think on that before you bounce a prediction back half-cocked.

' Legalising drugs would have some horrendous consequences..'. Making them illegal has already had such results. from Mexico to Afghanistan to Ballymun and all points of your compass. Making them illegal does what prohibition did for bootleggers. America woke up to that eventually, counted the collateral damage and got a grip on the alcohol trade. Otherwise the thugs control it if we dont through some attempt at enlightened and EXPERIENCED balance. I know plenty of '..careers and families wrecked...' by alcohol. Not many by weed. In fact I'd say if more people could smoke(and I lived in Netherlands for a few years)they might not slide down the drink tube so far and fast. Britain had less problems with heroin when the addicts were treated as sick, than now they are methadoned and criminalised.

And the ones who do get busted are usually sprats thrown to the law by the hammerheads at the top of the global food-chain(big moolah, into the trillion dimension annually). The drug 'problem' is just a symptom of a sick social model, not the cause it is misrepresented as by the vested interests who use it to keep alienated victims from THINKING their way through to solutions on a collective scale. Its ye ol' divide 'n' conquer on the micro level. Keep em strung out and at each others throats, or they might turn on the mismanagers. Do not underestimate the bastards. They may be ignorant and thick, but they are shrewd and canny as a wolf pack with parasitic worm infestations. They are just the most successful of the surviving alienated.

by John Sun Jun 26, 2011 18:44

We are clearly in agreement on many things. Especially education etc. and provding real and meaningful assistance to overcome addiction instead of criminalsising addicts.

But my 'prediction' relates to this - "they got a grip on the alcohol trade". You are using the prohibition example as evidence that legalising hard drugs is the way to go. My point is that it was a lot safer and a much easier decision to make alcohol legal. They got a grip on the trade by allowing people to sell it freely. This can and should not be done with heroin and other hard drugs. The addictive properties are far greater than alcohol and the effects more damaging.

Regards cannabis, i already made a clear distinction between it and other hard drugs in my first post.

So to recap, my suggestion would be to decriminalise drug use and to educate and provide assistance to addicts. This after having taking measures to prevent drug use in the first place. However, i would continue to target those responsible for importing drugs into ireland. If anything, i would come down harder on them than we currently do.

by John Sun Jun 26, 2011 18:48

Also, i never said you wanted to ban alcohol and nicotine.

On the contrary, i predicted that you would never condone such a move. What i sais was that you talk about alcohol and cigarettes being addictive, potentially moreso than drugs, as if that is a justification for legalising drugs. It is not. Those are simply arguments against alcohol and cigarettes.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Mon Jun 27, 2011 12:19

Once more

' As I predicted part of your response and argument simply amounts to an argument for banning the sale of alcohol and nicotine...'(Your comment above,26/6,16.44)

' Also I never said you wanted to ban alcohol or nicotiine..'(Directly above, 26/6 ,18.48).

The defence rests. You represent my arguments inaccurately, at best. YOU posted the evidence. I'll leave it to anyone interested to make their own decision. I'm not into false polemics for the sake of argumentation.

I think you need to clarify your thinking. Or do you think I am arguing for a ban I do not want????I made no such argument. You distort my comments.

by John Tue Jun 28, 2011 01:17

Yes exactly!

'As I predicted part of your response and argument simply amounts to an argument for banning the sale of alcohol and nicotine...'

As in many of your points, while you are making them to highlight the fact that these harmful substances are legal while drugs are not, are in fact arguments to be made for banning these substances as opposed to also legalising other harmful substances whether you know it or not. People could easily use the same points you make about the addictive properties of alcohol and cigarettes to call for them to be banned.

I am not saying YOU want this. I am saying that you want alcohol and cigarettes to be legal yet you advance problems with them (ie their addictive properties) to substantiate your call to leaglise drugs.

Your misinterpretation.

Also, as far as i knew this is a place to discuss. 'the defence rests'?? You clearly see it as a place to simply argue rather than have a meaningful discussion.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Tue Jun 28, 2011 11:55

...does not mean open a counter in the supermarket. It means licence and control appropriate to the dangers. As with alcohol and tobacco. Please stop projecting unconsidered opinions onto my comments.

When I write 'the defence rests', it means I think your contradictions are obvious to a fair-minded and reflective reader. It means I believe your own comment visibly defeats your argument, and that semantic nit-splitting serves no-one, least of all the communities wrestling with the results of criminalising and thus handing the control to gangsters.

Chasing down the gangsters will still be necessary, but that is a side issue, gangsters will always find products, not least politicians and journalists, to trade. They did so when it was moonshine, slaves(that hasn't gone away either)and other contraband. Prohibition handed them alcohol. When America woke to the damage, the same bureaucracy transferred its career-formation to weed. Its a matter of depriving them of this lucrative market, and getting some kind of political and social CONTROL over the trade rather than 'just say no' and give the global dealers(with mega-buck leverage)FULL control over the trade. Ditto heroin, coke, et al.

Which is what they HAVE now.

by Gavin R. Putland Fri Aug 12, 2011 08:51

This article is up to its third edition: http://atlanta.indymedia.org/local/universally-unconsti...rd-ed .