Have you ever wondered why some drugs are 'prohibited' whereas alcohol and tobacco (the two most dangerous drugs in existence) are freely available? The explanation is simple: the so-called 'War on Drugs' is not in any way related to preventing and reducing substance-related harm. It is solely an economic system based on intentionally-created crime. The crime consists merely of an association with drugs other than alcohol, tobacco and caffeine. What we know as the 'War on Drugs' was devised prior to a US presidential election in the early 1970s and its worldwide application is enforced with the assistance of the United Nations. This system of intentionally-created crime results in mass imprisonment, fining, unregulated manufacture of substances, execution, wars and many other circumstances which collectively constitute a gross worldwide human-rights abuse.
A disturbingly large proportion of the world's population mistakenly believe that the strategy is related to preventing and reducing substance-related harm. This is how the atrocity is deceptively portrayed by politicians and others benefiting from it. People remain largely ignorant of its true nature: an economic system based on intentionally-created crime utilising a criminalised majority as the resource to be exploited. It constitutes possibly the greatest political fraud in modern history.
The abhorrence of what has been happening worldwide for over fifty years cannot be understated.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (with the assistance of the UNITED NATIONS) AND THE ENFORCING OF A CATASTROPHIC AND BRUTAL REGIME ON THE ENTIRE WORLD.
The US has introduced and enforced a worldwide environment of intentionally-created crime on the entire world under the deceptive guise of protecting health and welfare.
Since the early 1970s the US has prosecuted and enforced a policy based on a deception that creates a world-wide environment of intentionally-created crime. This involves mass imprisonment, fining, asset forfeiture, execution, wars, corruption and the trampling of human rights etc in order to facilitate financial gain and political advantage.
MODERN DAY BRUTALITY ON A WORLDWIDE SCALE
The policy (the so-called 'War on Drugs') is built on a gross deception: that drugs other than alcohol, tobacco and caffeine comprise a unique group of substances that present an unacceptable risk to health and welfare. This is wholly incorrect: alcohol and tobacco are the most dangerous drugs in existence. The criminalisation of associations with substances other than alcohol, tobacco and caffeine creates a criminal underclass that is the resource for the strategy.
The so-called 'War on Drugs' has absolutely nothing to do with drug use or drug-related harm of any kind: it is purely a worldwide economic system based on intentionally-created crime.
It results in mass imprisonment, fining, asset forfeiture, execution, wars, state-sanctioned murder and endemic violence etc. It provides the pretext under which huge sums of public money are allocated and sustains a massively profitable black market in substances other than alcohol, tobacco and caffeine.
The regime sustains a huge industrial complex based solely upon intentionally-created crime.
The US oppresses its own citizens under the name of the policy and this oppression extends worldwide, with governments forced to oppress their own citizenry or be chastised and threatened by the US through the United Nations.
Those who profit from or otherwise wish for the so-called 'War on Drugs' to continue constantly proffer the falsehood that the strategy is related to substance use and the prevention and minimisation of drug-related harm. Those who profit from the oppression of others include but are not limited to enforcement organisations and the prison industry, the legal and welfare systems, academia and a plethora of other industries.
The phenomenon continues due to the power and ruthlessness of the US and its ability to generate economic activity. Its true motives are kept hidden via the mass complicity of governments, the press and those who profit from it.
Unless the policy is recognised for what it actually is, it will continue to impose its oppression and brutality on a worldwide scale. The world will not have the opportunity for a more peaceful existence so long as it continues.
A salient and current example of the lawlessness and brutality of the US is the apparent unilateral strikes on alleged transportation of illicit substances by so-called 'narcoterrorists'. These killings have occurred in international waters and illustrate clearly the arrogance of the US administration. The strikes achieve several important aims for the US and its brutal "War on Drugs':
red bullet pointThe US administration aim is to be perceived as taking steps to protect its citizenry from a unique threat to health and welfare. This of course is complete nonsense. Nonetheless, this course of action bolsters the administration's political advantage in the eyes of those who do not understand the situation.
red bullet pointIf a reduction in supply occurs, this inflates the price of the commodity (given the demand remains strong) thereby ensuring the continuance of the trade. Traffickers will continue to supply the substances due to the substantial and increased monetary rewards available.The vibrancy of the trade ensures the profits and corruption continue thereby sustaining those who benefit from the intentionally-created crime.
red bullet pointThe military action provides 'work' for the military and associated industries involved in supporting it. Using weapons reduces the stockpile and facilitates the production of new stock.
In summary, the actions form part of the active perpetuation of the environment of intentionally-created crime that is the "War on Drugs". The whole situation is designed and maintained by the US for the purposes of financial gain and political advantage.
Since President Richard Nixon escalated the political strategy of intentionally creating crime in order to secure political advantage and financial gain, the United States has forced every country in the world to engage in the policy and thereby brutalise and oppress its own citizens. This is done under the watchful eye of the US and the United Nations (which administers international 'treaties' compelling signatories to engage in the obscenity). The result is a world mired in intentionally-created crime which gives rise to brutality, oppression and numerous human-rights abuses.
The United States of America
To preface this piece, as has previously been discussed, the so-called 'War on Drugs' is not concerned with drugs or drug-related harm of any kind. It is solely an economic construct based on intentionally-created crime.
This crime consists simply of associations with drugs other than alcohol, tobacco and caffeine. The US (with the assistance of the United Nations) has enforced this regime on the entire world in earnest for over fifty years. The mind-numbing arrogance, ruthlessness and brutality of this situation cannot be understated.
The regime results in mass imprisonment, execution and various other atrocities. It is a worldwide economic construct that facilitates the distribution of huge amounts of public money to respond to the intentionally-created crime and enables the massive black market in substances.
It sustains many thousands of people either directly or indirectly. Law enforcement and other parts of the justice system benefit from the work generated by the intentionally-created crime. Many who benefit are engaged in what is represented as endeavors to assist people but in reality many of these people who are deemed to be in need of assistance are victim to the oppression and brutality of the regime itself. The policy results in corruption that permeates many levels of society including politics and the financial and justice sectors.
There is jobs in vicious oppression.
The truth about the strategy is meticulously prevented from becoming known in the public domain. The fallacy that it is concerned with substance use and the welfare of people is disseminated without exception. The absurd assertion that the policy has failed is the standard and ubiquitous offering by a multitude of organisations and individuals. Whether this failure to address the truth is borne out of self-interest or fear is irrelevant: the deception is perpetuated by universal suppression of the policy's true nature.
The US in general is exceedingly self-righteous in regards to its self-image, with that well-known catchphrase 'Truth, Justice, and the American Way' seemingly etched in the psyches of its people. The reality, however, is that a massive fraud has been perpetrated on not just the American people, but on the entire world for over half a century.
The regime leaves human rights in tatters and results in a worldwide situation of oppression and brutality on a scale that is almost unimaginable. This situation, unfortunately, is a testament to man's inhumanity to man and a horrifying example of the willingness of many to engage in oppression in the pursuit of financial gain and political advantage.
The 'War on Drugs' is not about drugs
Its as simple as this; if the 'War on Drugs' was actually a policy to reduce harm associated with psychoactive substance (drug) use, the people getting arrested, fined, imprisoned and executed first and foremost, would be those found in possession of and those involved in the supply of the two most dangerous drugs in existence, alcohol and tobacco.
the 'War on Drugs' is not in any way concerned with reducing harm related to drug use. It is concerned with political advantage and the acquisition of money, be that from government or from the massive black market in drugs other than alcohol, tobacco and caffeine.
The foundation in law that allows such a situation is the 'Controlled Substances Act' in the US and its international variants. The two most dangerous drugs (alcohol and tobacco) and caffeine, are exempt from 'control'. These exemptions facilitate one of the most entrenched human-rights abuses in the history of humanity.
The fail-safe and obvious way of proving that the 'War on Drugs' has nothing whatsoever to do with preventing and reducing harm due to the use of 'dangerous drugs' is to offer the following:
If current 'drug policy' or the 'War on Drugs' is actually a response to harm due to the use of 'dangerous drugs', it follows that for it to be relevant and fair, the supply and possession of alcohol, tobacco and caffeine must also be subject to the criminal sanctions that currently apply to other drugs.
This statement brings evasive, misleading and untrue responses from the vast majority of people. People are well aware that they would not accept criminal sanctions being applied to their use of alcohol, tobacco and caffeine and that it is inequitable and wrong to apply criminal sanctions to the use and supply of some drugs.
The statement easily demonstrates that the policy is simply a way of defining and utilising a minority for the purposes of financial and political advantage.
The most dangerous drug for the young
One drug in particular, takes a huge toll on young people. It is a drug that has almost universal acceptance amongst the population and one that forms an integral part of many people's lives. It is present at the vast majority of social gatherings and indeed if it were absent, there would be consternation regarding its omission. The drug is alcohol.
Annually, in the US and as regards those attending college, it is estimated that: "1,825…students between the ages of 18 and 24 die from alcohol-related unintentional injuries, including motor-vehicle crashes."
As regards violence associated with the drug: "696,000 students between the ages of 18 and 24 are assaulted by another student who has been drinking."
It is implicated in a vast number of sexually-related incidents: "97,000 students between the ages of 18 and 24 report experiencing alcohol-related sexual assault or date rape."
The obvious question is, since the apparent foundation for the laws controlling drug use in the US and elsewhere is protection of health and welfare, why then is the supply and possession of alcohol not subject to criminal sanctions? Why is a drug that leads to so much harm amongst the young exempt from laws supposedly in place to protect people from drug-related harm?
Quite simply because of the following: current 'drug law' or the 'War on Drugs' has nothing whatsoever to do with controlling drugs of any kind with a view to safeguarding health and welfare. If it was concerned with this goal, obviously, it would address the supply and possession of alcohol and tobacco. Both these drugs and caffeine are exempt from 'control'.
Current 'drug law' or the 'War on Drugs' is merely a way of defining a minority that is able to be exploited for political and financial gain. The drugs are merely a way of defining the minority. Alcohol is exempt from control because it is a drug of choice of the majority of society and those enabling and performing the oppression. Quite obviously, it would be problematic to oppress eighty-percent of the population and eighty percent of the population have no wish to be oppressed.
For those who use alcohol and who are inclined to take issue with the preceding reasoning, they are free to petition government to add alcohol to the list of 'controlled' substances. Of course, they will not do this, as they do not wish to be subject to criminal sanctions for the use of a drug of choice. Only those who do not understand the current situation or who benefit financially are inclined to defend current 'drug law'.
If the 'War on Drugs' was actually about preventing and reducing harm from drug use, alcohol would be a 'controlled' substance, as it is second only to tobacco in terms of harm caused. The deceit and duplicity of the laws surrounding drugs other than alcohol, tobacco and caffeine cannot be understated. The toll taken on the young by alcohol serves to graphically illustrate this point.
All statistics in this article are from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism in the U.S. Web page address: https:// www. niaaa. nih. gov/ alcohol- health/ overview- alcohol- consumption/ alcohol- facts- and- statistics
The ultimate killer drug is not 'controlled'
There is one drug that stands head and shoulders above all others when it comes to the ability to cause disease and death. One drug has an inarguable association with various cancers and cardio-vascular and respiratory disease. It is so addictive that users are commonly known to persist in its use even after having an operation for throat cancer. It is generally accepted that it kills around fifty per-cent of its long-term users and the US Center for Disease Control describes the drug as being responsible for around twenty percent of all deaths in the US, which equates to approximately 480,000 deaths per annum.
Those not aware of the true nature of the 'War on Drugs' might rightly ask why is this drug not made 'illegal'? It is a reasonable question given that current 'drug policy' or the 'War on Drugs' is promoted as a strategy to protect the health and welfare of people in regards to 'drug' use. If the policy regime is about protecting the health and welfare of people, why is the most exquisitely dangerous drug not 'controlled'? Why are the manufacturers, distributors and users of it not made subject to criminal sanctions in order to punish and dissuade them from producing and using a highly dangerous drug?
The drug in question is of course tobacco. It is the perfect example on which to base a discussion about the duplicity of the 'War on Drugs'. The answer to the question of why the users and suppliers of tobacco are not subject to criminal sanctions is quite simple. The 'War on Drugs' has nothing whatsoever to do with the prevention of harm caused by the use of drugs. It is about political advantage and the acquisition of money from a black market in 'illicit' drugs and from government. If it was actually concerned with preventing drug-related harm, tobacco would be its primary focus.
Why aren't the police pursuing, arresting and incarcerating smokers? Fundamentally, because approximately twenty percent of the population use tobacco. This number of people is a sizeable political force, and would never be subjected to criminal sanctions for possession and supply of a drug of choice. It would be an untenable act to even suggest 'criminalising' a large segment of society on the basis of drug use. As regards enforcement agencies such as police, the farcical situation would exist of members being forced to arrest a number of their colleagues for use of a drug of choice.
Most importantly, amongst the proportion of the population that use tobacco would be some of those who formulate and enact legislation. A politician is never going to propose or allow legislation that subjects themselves or a large number of the voting public to criminal sanctions due to the use of a drug of choice. A mere proposal along these lines would be an act of political foolishness and would generally be treated with derision before being immediately dismissed.
A brief discussion based on the most dangerous drug in existence, tobacco, provides us with a couple of simple insights. Firstly, the 'War on Drugs' is not actually concerned with preventing drug-related harm. If it was, those in possession of and supplying tobacco would be subject to its mechanisms, including criminal sanctions.
Secondly, self interest dictates that those perpetuating and profiting from the 'War on Drugs' would never allow themselves to be subject to its oppression. This is the fundamental reason why alcohol, tobacco and caffeine are not 'controlled'. Such people are however, more than happy to enable and participate in the oppression of others for financial and political gain. Drug use is merely the dishonest and false justification for this behaviour.
Heroin: the big lie
The decades-old narrative goes like this: the purpose of 'drug policy' or the 'War on Drugs' is to protect the general populace in particular, from a drug whose use can result in death due to the simple act of taking 'too much'. The story is however, completely untrue, as detailed on the 'heroin' page of this site. The assertion that heroin is a dangerous drug is the enduring concept that provides a false justification for 'drug policy' that applies criminal sanctions to the possession of drugs other than alcohol, tobacco and caffeine.
In actual fact, the substance in question when discussing heroin, is morphine. Morphine is the primary active metabolite of heroin, meaning heroin breaks down into morphine in the body. Therefore, morphine is predominately the substance that exerts the effects that heroin is taken for. Morphine is not toxic in the way that alcohol or tobacco are: its two major side effects are nausea and constipation.
Quite simply, there is not and never has been any evidence to support the concept of fatal 'heroin overdose'. There is no evidence whatsoever that taking 'too much' heroin (morphine) can result in an adverse event due to 'respiratory depression' or arrest. Why? Because morphine is broken down so rapidly so as not to reach levels in the blood that have the potential to be dangerous. In a stringent clinical study, single intravenous injections of 450mg of heroin resulted in a maximum concentration of 1.35mg of morphine per litre of blood. This is not a dangerous level. Subjects exposed to overdoses of 150% of their usual maintenance doses did not suffer any adverse effects.
So, what happens to people that have an opioid in their bloodstream and suffer a drug-induced adverse event related to breathing? As detailed on the 'overdose' page, the following situation: heavy sedation from a combination of drugs, leading to airway obstruction and asphyxiation (lack of oxygen). Contrary to popular belief, this is not related to having 'too much' morphine in their bodies. It is a consequence of combining central nervous system depressant drugs. This scenario can happen with many combinations of drugs that do not involve an opioid.
So, is heroin (morphine) dangerous? No, apart from opioid-induced constipation. Is heroin 'instantly addictive'? Not at all. In the medical realm, the vast majority of people have a distinctly unpleasant experience with morphine induced nausea and are wary of having the substance administered again. Very few people use morphine on an ongoing 'recreational' basis due to the nausea and constipation.
Why are morphine users arrested, fined and imprisoned? Because they are a tiny minority in society and to treat them in such a manner is profitable and politically advantageous. Why are they denied a 'legal' and quality assured supply of their drug of choice? Purely so as to obligate them to acquire it from and therefore sustain a world-wide black market in morphine.