Sunday, September 11, 2011

Losing Votes

My friend Frank sent me an e-mail with a link to the following analysis of the Drug War.

Mexico, which neither produces nor uses a lot of drugs, lies between Colombia, which produces vast amounts of drugs, and Americans, who want vast amounts of drugs. Washington does not want Americans to have vast amounts of drugs. Neither did it want to lose votes by imprisoning white users of drugs, such as college students, high-school students, professors, Congressmen, lawyers, and blue-collar guys driving bulldozers. The answer was to make Mexico fight Washington's wars.

But Mexico couldn't fight the narcos, because the United States was actually on the side of the traficantes. Does this sound counter-intuitive? What happened was that the narcos gave the Americans the huge quantites of drugs they wanted, and in return Americans gave the narcos huge amounts of money and military-grade weaponry: chiefly AKs, but also grenades and the occasional RPG. The Mexican police, lightly armed, barely paid, and utterly corrupt, could do nothing against these odds. The narcos had a further argument: Do what we say, and we will give you money. Otherwise, we will kill your family.

You figure it out.
So we have a program designed to kill Mexicans because the government fears arresting white drug users in any great quantity. Of course this is incredible information. Until you read Under Cover of Privilege: College Drug Dealing in the United States on page 17 of the pdf.
However, as our research on college drug dealers reveals, the war on drugs in the United States has not been waged with an even hand. Instead, despite the unyielding “zero-tolerance” zealotry accompanying U.S. drug policy, the illicit drug-using and drug-dealing behaviors of the most vulnerable and marginalized members of U.S. society have been more heavily scrutinized by the drug war hawks than similarly illicit behaviors of those with more social, political, and economic capital.
Vulnerable and Marginalized? I believe what this academic means is Blacks. I guess saying that Blacks (and to a lesser extent Hispanics) are the target of the Drug War is not done in academic circles. Although the previous section of the pdf is entitled Getting the Message: Hip-Hop Reports on the Drug War. Well everyone has their own style. And each section was written by a different set of authors.

So let me give you the bottom line:

The Drug War is a racist enterprise
It will not stand.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

1 comment:

REDFORD said...


"Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice." (Hearst newspapers nationwide, 1934)

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana can cause white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others."
- Federal Bureau of Narcotics Director Harry J. Anslinger,

"...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races"
- Federal Bureau of Narcotics Director Harry J. Anslinger, 1930

"Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality and death." -Federal Bureau of Narcotics Director Harry J. Anslinger, 1937

"Marijuana is the most violence causing drug in the history of mankind."
-Federal Bureau of Narcotics Director Harry J. Anslinger

"[Smoking] one [marihuana] cigarette might develop a homicidal mania, probably to kill his brother." (see US Government Propaganda To Outlaw Marijuana - )

Anslinger kept the focus on blacks and Mexicans and used White kids as victims. It was a perfect strategy. Racism was very much alive and overt in the 1930s.

The drug crusaders have followed Anslinger's lead down to this very day.

Incidentally, a good deal of the history of drug prohibition is found in Harry Anslinger's perjury to Congress. Anslinger is the FATHER of modern drug prohibition. Harry the liar was the responsible party in creating the penalties, set the drugs to be banned and as a parting gift saddled the world with the Single Convention Treaty. Ansligner had marijuana classed as a "narcotic" to include it in his drug war plan.

Ansligner was a master propagandist and was well trained in the art of deception. His major interest was to preserve the Commission on Narcotic Drugs he ran. Later he seemed to want to leave a legacy of lies by expanding his lunatic schemes world-wide.

When the history of drug use in the US is examined, it is quickly discovered that there was no crime, no social disruption and no need to outlaw opiates and cocaine. It is very difficult to find a single crime connected to drug addiction until after the Harrision Narcotics Act (1914) went into effect. Before the Harrision Narcotics Act there was no such thing as drug crime.

Here's a challenge for the drug crusaders. Find a single real crime (i.e. robbery, assault, rape, murder etc) caused by drug addiction before cannabis was outlawed in the 1930s. Cannabis was known in the US at least from 1770 on; so where were all the murders etc during the 160+ years before it was banned. Drug prohibition was always a sham and a fraud.