LEAP co-founder, Peter Christ, discussing the US War on Drugs. Captain Christ is vice-chair of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition and makes a very powerful case.
Do you agree with his point of view or is he over simplifying?
Now there's an even better thought Al - think of the savings on transport and the Marketing chain. They say the marketing matrix is changing now and instead of seeking customeers the customers seek out what they want. I think your idea should be adopted forthwith by all Governments. Congratulations.
Catharine, I have found mine again - the cats have been using it for sleeping on! Maybe that qualifies for a 'Catwah' (as opposed to a Fatwah'?) I have put my copy of the Koran on it for purr-ification!
Norman - I have a very nice prayer rug currently for sale...PM me if you are interested!!
Well, there you go! Brilliant, all we need to do is to welcome the Taliban in and problem solved!
I knew someone would have the answer. Good old dose of Fundalmental Islam - now who would have thought it?
Now where DID I leave that Prayer Mat.......................,?
Al, so the story goes but actually again the desire to make a living made it become less visible and the amount of poppy production grew year on year. From the point of view of colleagues still working in child labour, we know that increased numbers of children did the work for 'invisible' employers/owners thus setting the scene for the post Taliban situation. The Taliban did not execute children. Anyway, given the amount of money the Taliban needed for weapons and munitions above what particular Arab nations were supposedly giving them we might also have good reason to doubt that 99% figure - but that is just a passing thought...
Norman, that is the big question. Climatically, Afghanistan and other poppy growing countries don't really have the climate and other conditions for much else, plus what you say is right about nobody seeing potential. So we are kind of stuck with it. But then we also condone it, the Bhutto dynasty in Pakistan used to be deeply involved a very few generations back and did the then 'ruling' colonial power do anything about it? I wonder if much has changed? Foreign drug barons or corrupt locals in control, there is probably not a very big distance between them.
You are quite correct Brian on all counts. Ref. Afghanistan, where I have only seen what everyone else has seen, is what other business is there in this sort of place? Can't see too much potential for any cash crops of any other description, and industry seems non-existent,and one would think unappealing for any investors and everything held in thrall by a pretty medieval form of living.
Al, the marketing chain for any product remains constant with those on the lowest level - usually producers or labourers getting the least reward. As I said I have no solutions, being an 'el-thicko' and just wondering why people more clever than me - (about 98% of the population I sometimes think) can't come up with a new solution instead of just banging away doing the same old thing and expecting a different result.
Al, the point about Afghanistan is that if the people had something else instead of their best paying cash crop, not justifying it one bit. The fact adults and children earn peanuts a day from it should tell you that. Also, replace that with something that raises their standard of living and the supply is reduced and will also put the price up at street level one presumes. That may, at least I would hope, not encourage as many people to start using. Stopping those already on and the effects are something else.
I agree with Mr. Christ--our prison system in the US is overcrowded: in California they have had to start letting people out because they can't afford to keep them in. And one drug-related conviction really can ruin a person's career prospects--forever. So much cost to society for a non-violent crime. And the drug-related violence would actually be reduced by making them legal--think about all the border locations in the US and Mexico that have been made into places that have become dangerous to live in due to the drug trade/drug cartels.
We (in the US at least) already have all the laws in place we need to keep people from being unrully in public or shooting-up in public--or from opperating forklifts, driving cars or working with children while under the influence. . .
Maybe we could then turn our efforts to prevention and rehab and general societal intollerance to get the number of users reduced. . .
What exactly are you trying to get across, Al? That we should continue on with failed policies? Have you any positive input to offer toward a solution to a currently untenable situation? Legislating against victimless human activities, as the officer in the clip points out, is and has always been throughout history a zero sum endeavor.
Al, legalization (or decriminalization) eliminates the black market and prices tumble to their intrinsic values. In places where these drugs are cheap and legal crime normally associated with drugs tumbles. No more turf wars. No more burglaries and petty crimes needed to support an expensive habit. The savings to law enforcement and the courts alone is impressive. Too many US law enforcement officers are stating their opposition the the ridiculousness of marijuana laws. They are bogged down with paperwork and court appearances, the time of which could be spent more productively combating more serious crime.
In the Pacific northwest of the US and Vancouver, BC, the biggest opposition to decriminalization is the cannabis growers themselves.
Norman, cocaine is a crystal tropane alkaloid that is obtained from the leaves of the coca plant which grows in South America in rich tropical forest areas. I think he meant heroin for Afghanistan where the poppies grow in absolute profusion and are often the only cash crop and income for people.
Anyway, my point is child labour and the fact that it is so often an important part of family income as you say. I am not an 'eliminationist' for that reason but if there was anything to substitute for children working for pennies a day to pick the poppies, then extract the resin from the flower heads to make the people higher up the chain richer by the minute, then I would cheerlead that for sure.
Phil and Don (wow, the Everly Brothers!) I think that between the two of you there is probably the truth. I don't know the drugs scene at all, have marginally scraped the edge. It is the fact that even countries who are otherwise no friends of the USA depend on training and support from the DEA but appear to achieve as good as nothing tells me that something needs to change. Perhaps the two of you are on the right track.
I once had a most interesting conversation with someone in the Far East and was apparently involved in some way in the business. It was almost surreal, but there was an interesting point in it when he told me that ONE American Drug user of Cocaine (his use of the word 'American' by the way) kept a small village in Afghanistan alive.
I was in no way able to validate the claim but there did seem to be something of note in the argument IF it is true. Bluntly put one junkie's life against a village. How's that for an interesting ingredient in the discussion?
I am sure Brian would know better than me that Child Labour is abhorrent, but for many Indian and Pakistani families it can be the ONLY source of income. So whilst we throw our hands up in horror, it seems to me that making these things illegal cannot be right - we need to have people who can find alternatives, and I haven't seen too many of these around.
Of all things it does seem to be a case of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result? As others have noted the existing laws don't seem to be getting the required result - and possibly even encourage the drug-taking part as it did with the alcohol prohibition.
I don't pretend to know an answer, but there are a lot of people out there with far more education and brains than me who must surely have some ideas?
Lessons were never learned from the repercussions of the Volstead act which criminalised alcohol and saw a huge leap in consumption of bootleg (often poor quality) alcohol and the alcohol trade passing into the hands of criminals. When repealed alcohol sales in the US then became controlled (and taxed) which deprived the criminals of a trade. The alcohol barons were not slow to seize on narcotics as their next target and subsequent law tightening has only served to reinforce their position. I often wonder if the criminals themselves are funding the politicians "war on drugs" in order to maintain their monopoly.
I think we can also see the results of the "war on terror" which has hardly seen a decrease in terrorist actions nor an increase in world stability.
It would be simple to say these are all the results of the law of unintended consequences but my age and growing cynicism lead me to consider that perhaps the consequences are not unintended but serve the needs of some group with influence. Perhaps all we need is less powerful governments.
When the US declares war on anything, one can rest assured that it will be a total cock up rife with graft and corruption. The sole beneficiary of the current war on drugs is the privatized prison industrial complex. The US apparently learned nothing from alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and 30s.
Al Winston, you might want to look into Portugal's recent drug decriminalization. It seems to working well for them. Amsterdam's tolerance is well known, with the only downside being the booming drug tourism and its attendant problems, but organized crime is not one of them. Uruguay's recent decriminalization of cannabis is also worth watching.
Investigative journalist Gary Webb's book, Dark Alliance, is an excellent read. It chronicles the activities of the DEA and CIA's involvement in the creation of the explosion of cocaine into the the US, the profits from which funded the Contras in Central America. For Mr Webb's efforts he was found found dead in a California hotel room, bound hand and foot with two gunshots to the head. It was ruled a suicide.
What an interesting interview, he makes a sound argument against prohibition while not advocating drug use. The war on drugs is only stopping a small percentage of product reaching the market and at great expense, perhaps we do need to take another approach.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Visits and/or work in too many countries and especially 20 years or so back when I did a lot in the child labour field where drug issues arose fairly often, there seemed to be a great reliance on the DEA providing solutions. In reality little seemed to happen. Even in China where they occasionally executed dealers and, for all I know, users a couple of my research assistants said that people simply took the risks and a few got caught. Whilst punishments were severe the attraction of drugs won over.
So perhaps that kind of thing suggests that prohibition does not work. On the other hand, how would a handle be kept on narcotic use if it was relaxed or completely stopped? The truth is probably that what is being tried now has floundered, simply does not achieve anything really and the world has to look again.