Eric has been repeating the Hillary Clinton bit about why we can’t end the Drug War. “because there’s just too much money in it.“ Which brings to mind and old post of mine from February of 2005 that hasn’t seen the light of day here. So here it is.
=====
This came out about 16 July 2003 on Winds of Change and about the same Time on Sierra Times and The Rock River Times (dead trees).
–==–
“The Latin American drug cartels have stretched their tentacles much deeper into our lives than most people believe. It’s possible they are calling the shots at all levels of government.”
– William Colby, former CIA Director, 1995
I know that enforcing prohibition sounds just like the opposite of what I have been preaching for years in my personal life, and for the last year in my blog posts and writings. There is a very sound reason for this new attitude. It is a very old reason: money. If we end the drug war, a lot of people whose livelihoods depend on it will get hurt. You might even be one of them…
I’m not talking your average street level drug dealer here, or the police officer who might not find a job because of reduced crime. I’m not even talking about the lawyers who will be looking for a new set of clients when the million or so people arrested for drug possession every year become rather ordinary citizens again.
I’m talking about your mother or grandmother whose stocks will drop like rocks when drug money no longer supports the stock market. Let us do what Deep Throat suggested and follow the money. The kind of money we are talking about is not your billion here and hundred million there. I’m talking big money. A trillion dollars a year. Or more. This is not your Cayman Island Bank type money or even Swiss Bank type money. This requires some place to dump the money where it won’t be noticed. The biggest money laundering island in the world. Manhattan.
Why are stocks still selling at outrageous multiples despite a recession? Boom or bust the hot money has to go somewhere. The US of A has two things the hot money people desire, a stable currency and the ability to enforce its laws around the world. Think of what the hot money means to the American economy. A lot of ill thought out projects that turn out to be resource wasters get funded. But to the hot money people a decline of fifty percent means they still have laundered half their money. What a disaster for an honest business. What a great deal for hot money.
But America is addicted to this hot money. The ability to tolerate so much failure means America has to advance economically faster than any where else because we get efficient faster. This is one great American advantage over the rest of the world. We can let go of our failures. This is what bankruptcies and hot money do for the economy.
So we have this great engine for economic progress but it is fueled at its core by narco dollars. Do we root out the drug business by legalizing all drugs (with certain ones still under a doctors supervision) or do we keep prohibition with all its attendant miseries and racism going so our stock market and economic system doesn’t collapse? Does the money mean more to us than doing the right thing? Is our world power so important that we need to keep this vicious game going? Would giving up this game hurt our enemies more than it would hurt us?
I first got turned on to these questions by reading a series of articles written by Catherine Austin Fitts. She is a former Assistant Secretary of the Federal Housing Commissioner under Bush 1, a former managing director and member of the board of directors of Dillon Read & Co, Inc. She is currently the President of an investment advisory firm Solari, Inc. The articles can be read here:
1. Narco Dollars 1
2. Narco Dollars 2
3. Narco Dollars 3
This week’s saying: If the 1920s plus the 1990s teaches one thing it is this: “It’s not the drugs stupid, its the prohibition.” If the 2000s teach us nothing else, they will teach us: “Its not the drugs stupid, its the money.”
Maybe it’s time to start asking politicians:
“Do you support drug prohibition because it finances criminals at home, or because it finances terrorists abroad?”
This week’s politician:
Senator Arlen Specter (Rep.)
PA Tel: 202-224-4254
fax: 202-228-1229
he also has an obnoxious web form instead of an e-mail.
Cross Posted at Power and Control
Update: 18 April 2019 0417z
Narco Dollars 2 & 3 can no longer be found at the links above. You can find the whole series at Narco Dollars for Beginners.
Comments
13 responses to “Why We Must Not End Prohibition”
[…] "Do you support drug prohibition because it finances criminals at home, or because it finances terro… It is not only under Nazi rule that police excesses are inimical to freedom. It is easy to make light of insistence on scrupulous regard for the safeguards of civil liberties when invoked on behalf of the unworthy. It is too easy. History bears testimony that by such disregard are the rights of liberty extinguished, heedlessly at first, then stealthily, and brazenly in the end. — Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter […]
Someone gave me four reasons for legalization, here was my respone to them:
Job creation – What about the unemployed drug dealers? They are not skilled. Most can probably not read a newspaper want ad. They are criminals. No rock to sling, then house must be robbed.
Tax base – More taxation????
Release of prisoners – Very few are quiet people that deal a lttle weed or some coke end up in prison, at least here in Chicago, most are hardcore criminals who would eventually be in prison for something else.
Law enforcement – Nothing but a paramilitary force anymore. They are never going away, going to be too busy chasing the “unemployed” drug dealers.
Legal drugs – Means available on nearly every corner. How many youths you think do not try harder drugs just just because they would have to go into gang infested slums to procure? Legal eveywhere and available everywhere means a lot more experimenters and a lot more people finding out they have the addiction gene – just traded the need for prison beds to the need for rehabilitatoin beds.
rjp,
It is true we had quite a criminal hangover from ending Prohibition 1. It lasted about 20 years. Look up “Murder Inc.” I expect when we end this one we will have similar results.
As to hard drugs – you don’t understand the supply chain. There are people who won’t go into “The Zone”. They are supplied by those who will. Thus the idea that current modes limit access to hard drugs is incorrect. And the Household survey shows this to be true.
So why aren’t there more cocaine and heroin users? Well they are not particularly pleasant drugs for most people. See:
http://classicalvalues.com/2011/11/the-addictive-power-does-not-reside-in-drugs/
As to changing beds? Rehab beds are 7X cheaper.
Rehab is not cheap.
From:http://www.thecleanslate.org/average-inpatient-alcohol-and-drug-rehab-costs/
The average price for a 28 day stay is $25,166.
>When we average only the facilities with on-site detox (26 out of 32), the average price is $27,399.
Finally, if we look only at those facilities which don’t offer detox services (6 out of 32), the average price $15,491
I don’t think we are looking at cheaper.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) 2,292,133 adults were incarcerated in U.S. federal and state prisons, and county jails at year-end 2009 — about 1% of adults in the U.S. resident population.
And alot of them are addicts. So they are going to be just trading beds. Then were going to have new beds, and the SS Disabilities.
It’s my opnion that both costs and crime will rise.
Well OK. In exchange for your low cost program we get corrupt cops (happens in EVERY prohibition regime), corrupt politicians (happens in EVERY prohibition regime), and a corrupted people (happens in EVERY prohibition regime).
“The Latin American drug cartels have stretched their tentacles much deeper into our lives than most people believe. It’s possible they are calling the shots at all levels of government.” – William Colby, former CIA Director, 1995
And can you please explain why addicts need any beds? Do we incarcerate food addicts? Exercise addicts? Television addicts? Heck, sex addicts have clubs. etc.
So my no bed cost is zero.
As to crime going up? Happened at the end of Prohibition 1. It is the price of honest government (after having a dishonest one for so long).
But if you like corruption I can see why you would support present policies. That practically makes you a Democrat. Or a Republican. Both parties have their cronies. Just different ones.
Simon, we aren’t going to allow sales of drugs to minors.
Kent,
But we already do. It is called Prohibition. And the first prohibition was in part killed for precisely that reason.
When I was an alcoholic (age 16 no less) it was easy to get the stuff. Find a wino – offer him a bottle of his favorite and he would deliver the rest (if he was a close friend or wait outside the liquor store if he was just some one I met).
Diversion will always be a problem. The question is: under which regime is it harder for kids to get their hands on stuff. Hands down it is the legal market that makes it harder for kids to get the stuff.
It is utopian to think that there is any perfect way to keep kids from trying what they want to try.
There is no perfect way to protect children. None. The best protection of course is to not abuse the kids. See this 17 minute video for details.
Especially the last 5 minutes:
http://classicalvalues.com/2011/11/the-addictive-power-does-not-reside-in-drugs/
[…] might add that the biggest government corruption I know if is Narco Dollar Recycling. Print PDF Categories: Uncategorized 0 […]
[…] read the following three part Narco News series by Catherine Austin Fitts linked here. She corroborates Mike Ruppert. She was a HUD official in the Bush I […]
[…] naturally (as Simon and I have pointed out ad nauseam), the more the “warriors” try to clamp down on the […]
[…] And who worked for HUD and Hamilton? Catherine Austin Fitts. […]
[…] this blog post on the Lame Cherry blog that confirms that and also confirms what Mike Ruppert and Catherine Austin Fitts said about how drug dealing supports the NWO. Once you comprehend that Obama has been centralizing […]
[…] banks can’t survive without interest. So Grillo wants to destroy the banking system. But as I recount here the banking system can’t survive without the black market. Particularly the black market in […]