Drug lords in cahoots with governments to keep drugs illegal?

magma69

Here is something I find quite interesting. Firstly, I should point out that I have no evidence for this theory and it is merely speculation. I don't wholeheartedly believe this theory but I do think it is fairly plausible. Do you think their is a chance that the drug lords at the top have the money/power to pressure governments into keeping drugs i.e their business, illegal. Throughout history many mobster families have had strong political power and the ability to put pressure on politicians to make decisions which favour them.

Surely governments realise by now that illegalisation is completely ineffective. The prohibition being a great example of how it just does not work. I find it strange the subject is never touched upon by any prominent politicians. The fact that the occupation in Afghanistan has allowed the poppy production to skyrocket since the invasion does not reflect the zero tolerance approach the U.S. likes to claim itself to abide by. Now, I do realise the Afghan economy, if you can even call it an economy, is absolutely crippled and the new regime could be turning a blind eye to prevent the country from going under completely. (even though it is under completely, you know what I mean!)

I think if people consider the magnitude of the drug business around the world the idea does not seem so outlandish. It is the biggest black market business. Absolutely colossal. I do not know the figures but I imagine it even leaves the illegal arms business in the dust with regards to profits.

So what do you think? Do you think it is possible that the people at the top of the drug selling business have the political power to keep the completely inefficient, ineffective legislation most countries have regarding drugs?

magma69

magma69 wrote: »

Here is something I find quite interesting. Firstly, I should point out that I have no evidence for this theory and it is merely speculation. I don't wholeheartedly believe this theory but I do think it is fairly plausible. Do you think their is a chance that the drug lords at the top have the money/power to pressure governments into keeping drugs i.e their business, illegal. Throughout history many mobster families have had strong political power and the ability to put pressure on politicians to make decisions which favour them.

Surely governments realise by now that illegalisation is completely ineffective. The prohibition being a great example of how it just does not work. I find it strange the subject is never touched upon by any prominent politicians. The fact that the occupation in Afghanistan has allowed the poppy production to skyrocket since the invasion does not reflect the zero tolerance approach the U.S. likes to claim itself to abide by. Now, I do realise the Afghan economy, if you can even call it an economy, is absolutely crippled and the new regime could be turning a blind eye to prevent the country from going under completely. (even though it is under completely, you know what I mean!)

I think if people consider the magnitude of the drug business around the world the idea does not seem so outlandish. It is the biggest black market business. Absolutely colossal. I do not know the figures but I imagine it even leaves the illegal arms business in the dust with regards to profits.

So what do you think? Do you think it is possible that the people at the top of the drug selling business have the political power to keep the completely inefficient, ineffective legislation most countries have regarding drugs?

Edit Title: "Legal" should be "Illegal" whoopsie daisy!

magma69

magma69 wrote: »

Edit Title: "Legal" should be "Illegal" whoopsie daisy!

Done.

King Mob

magma69 wrote: »

Here is something I find quite interesting. Firstly, I should point out that I have no evidence for this theory and it is merely speculation. I don't wholeheartedly believe this theory but I do think it is fairly plausible. Do you think their is a chance that the drug lords at the top have the money/power to pressure governments into keeping drugs i.e their business, illegal. Throughout history many mobster families have had strong political power and the ability to put pressure on politicians to make decisions which favour them.

Surely governments realise by now that illegalisation is completely ineffective. The prohibition being a great example of how it just does not work. I find it strange the subject is never touched upon by any prominent politicians. The fact that the occupation in Afghanistan has allowed the poppy production to skyrocket since the invasion does not reflect the zero tolerance approach the U.S. likes to claim itself to abide by. Now, I do realise the Afghan economy, if you can even call it an economy, is absolutely crippled and the new regime could be turning a blind eye to prevent the country from going under completely. (even though it is under completely, you know what I mean!)

I think if people consider the magnitude of the drug business around the world the idea does not seem so outlandish. It is the biggest black market business. Absolutely colossal. I do not know the figures but I imagine it even leaves the illegal arms business in the dust with regards to profits.

So what do you think? Do you think it is possible that the people at the top of the drug selling business have the political power to keep the completely inefficient, ineffective legislation most countries have regarding drugs?

If money is the only factor here I don't think the mob bosses etc would be able to match the amount of money
that could be made from taxing legal drugs/ increased tourism year after year.

Look at how cigarettes are becoming more and more illegalised despite all the power and pull of the tobacco industry.

A more likely explanation is politicians are just too foolish and full of righteous zeal to consider alternatives.

Also I think it should be pointed out that the US aren't allowing poppy production, they simply aren't able to deal with it due to lack of resources etc. Considering that heroin is one of the main sources of funding for the Taliban, I don't think the US want it to continue.

Black Uhlan

Do you mean in Ireland or globally?

If its internationally this is a good place to start if you are interested

http://www.madcowprod.com/

Black Uhlan

Its not just Afganistan either. It was Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam as well, and don't forget the US funded the Mujhadeen directly in the 70's.

If you look up Afghan Presided/US puppet Karzai's brother Ahmed Karzai you'll find he was a CIA asset as well a big-time drug lord in Afghanistan.

magma69

King Mob wrote: »

If money is the only factor here I don't think the mob bosses etc would be able to match the amount of money
that could be made from taxing legal drugs/ increased tourism year after year.

Look at how cigarettes are becoming more and more illegalised despite all the power and pull of the tobacco industry.

A more likely explanation is politicians are just too foolish and full of righteous zeal to consider alternatives.

Also I think it should be pointed out that the US aren't allowing poppy production, they simply aren't able to deal with it due to lack of resources etc. Considering that heroin is one of the main sources of funding for the Taliban, I don't think the US want it to continue.

There is no way taxation/tourism can rival the profits generated from the illegal business. Competition would drive the current prices down to somewhere between half and a third of the illegal price of drugs. A gram of cannabis costs about 15 euro in Ireland. In Holland it would set you back about 6.

King Mob

magma69 wrote: »

There is no way taxation/tourism can rival the profits generated from the illegal business. Competition would drive the current prices down to somewhere between half and a third of the illegal price of drugs. A gram of cannabis costs about 15 euro in Ireland. In Holland it would set you back about 6.

But how much of those profits would the crime gangs be willing to part with every year. Would the cost of brides etc. be less than the loss due to lower prices?

And there'd be other benefits to legalisation: for example you wouldn't have to pump so much money into drug squads.

Let's try to quantify this. Let's take Ireland for example.
How much would it take per year to prevent legalisation?
How much profit does the drug trade gather per year?

How much would be made from taxes and tourism?
How much would saved from not needed a big drugs division?

magma69

King Mob wrote: »

But how much of those profits would the crime gangs be willing to part with every year. Would the cost of brides etc. be less than the loss due to lower prices?

And there'd be other benefits to legalisation: for example you wouldn't have to pump so much money into drug squads.

Let's try to quantify this. Let's take Ireland for example.
How much would it take per year to prevent legalisation?
How much profit does the drug trade gather per year?

How much would be made from taxes and tourism?
How much would saved from not needed a big drugs division?

You surely don't expect me to be able to answer these questions accurately? :rolleyes:

Ireland is estimated to have an illegal drug business worth about 1 billion per annum and rising.

indough

pretty sure the government tends to exaggerate such figures and also the values of drug seizures as well to make their anti drug policies look more effective and the drug dealers look more like the baddies, there would no doubt be a fair bit more incentive for legalizing certain drugs than the obvious taxes (also for example less would be spent on imprisoning people because the sale and use of drugs would not be offenses anymore) so im inclined to agree from a financial point of view it would be more in the governments interests to legalise drugs than to keep them illegal

the only real benefit or potential conspiracy angle i see is that it gives the governments of the world an excuse to criminalise a large section of society for not really doing much wrong

magma69

I don't know if my point was unclear but I am in favour of full legalisation. My point is that it is possible politicians are being payed off to keep drugs illegal rather that do what is right for the country and legalise them.

indough

ok that makes more sense i suppose its not so far fetched

studiorat

magma69 wrote: »

I don't know if my point was unclear but I am in favour of full legalisation. My point is that it is possible politicians are being payed off to keep drugs illegal rather that do what is right for the country and legalise them.

Considering how much politicians already earn my guess is they would need to be given some serious money to take a risk of turning a blind eye to drug smuggling while keeping it illegal. A smuggler would have to bring huge amounts in to pay those fcukers.

The amount of people needed to be bribed would just make it too expensive for this to happen.

Condisering some dealers will kill someone for a few grand I really don't think they would pay the government.

Also considering the turn-over of criminal types who are into this business it's pretty hard to imagine that one of them has not blown the whistle on this conspiracy yet.

I mean surely Howard Marks would have shouted it from the hills by now...

uprising

Don't forget the "mena connection"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8681225708920427234#

CIA drug trafficking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_drug_trafficking

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5ERlo1YnLU

amacachi

The reason drugs are still illegal is because we live in a democracy. No government would get elected for the foreseeable future if they were going to more-or-less legalise drugs, despite the fact that it's obvious it would sort out the vast majority of the societal problems associated with drugs. Crime would fall absolutely massively, and even leaving aside the money from taxation, the money which is currently wasted on enforcement and all the violent and other crimes that come along too could be spent on rehabbing those who want rehabilitation.
But not enough people know this. People don't think rationally when it comes to drugs. They know one person who's a heroin addict, that's it, drugs are awful, la la la I'm not listening, etc.

indough

actually i dont think ive met many people who would be against the legalisation of certain drugs, i wouldnt see it as being a matter of giving the people what they want if thats what you mean

amacachi

indough wrote: »

actually i dont think ive met many people who would be against the legalisation of certain drugs, i wouldnt see it as being a matter of giving the people what they want if thats what you mean

What age are you and what age are the people you've talked to about it? Also I mean Heroin more than spliff. Important to remember that older people are more likely to vote, and if a party came out and said they would legalise drugs the papers etc. would have a field day.

indough

i dont think it would be quite as bad as youre making out, and remember i did say some drugs, i wouldnt expect them to outright talk about legalising heroin overnight

for the record im 28 but i know people of all ages really so its not too relevant, and in my experience its usually the younger more naive folk who tend to be 100% anti drugs until they grow up a bit and see the world as not such a black and white good vs evil place, although not everybody learns this lesson obviously

amacachi

indough wrote: »

i dont think it would be quite as bad as youre making out, and remember i did say some drugs, i wouldnt expect them to outright talk about legalising heroin overnight

for the record im 28 but i know people of all ages really so its not too relevant, and in my experience its usually the younger more naive folk who tend to be 100% anti drugs until they grow up a bit and see the world as not such a black and white good vs evil place, although not everybody learns this lesson obviously

Heroin is where the problems come from, it's the one that should be tackled first.
A minority of young people are vehemently anti-drugs, they just happen to be more vocal, and most of them are more against use than their legal status.
Older people for years have had the attitude "drugs=bad, drink=fine", while it may not seem the case on here, the vast, vast majority would be against legalising Heroin etc.
BTW I mean legalisation rather than decriminalisation, have the supply controlled by the government, not the daft situation in some places with spliff where it's ok to carry it but it means you're still buying from the same people causing the problems.

uprising

Well I know a few coke dealers arent too happy with the new "Head Candy" shop open in Finglas village, seems some of their customers are going for the legal alternative.

Gardai, local residents and drugdealers are united that these places should be closed down.

Nick_oliveri

All you have to do is look at the new man in charge of the ACMD in Britain to see how it works, to the benefit of the current "administration".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8460555.stm

On Wednesday the Home Office named pharmacology specialist Les Iversen as the new chairman of the ACMD, but the appointment was overshadowed by the revelation he had once backed the legalisation of cannabis.

In an article in 2003, Prof Iverson wrote that cannabis had been "incorrectly" classified as a dangerous drug for almost 50 years and said it was one of the "safer" recreational drugs.

However, he told BBC Radio 5 live he had since changed his mind because of new evidence about the dangers of cannabis.

Thats democracy for you, always moving forwards....to keep the status quo and the current party in office for another few years. As I've said before, it doesn't benefit the politicians to even have a debate about any issues outside of the political safezone. It also doesn't benefit Iverson's position to be pro-cannibis after what happened to Nutt.

digme

Money from drugs were the only thing to keep the banks going during the crash of last year.This was mostly in europe,as the drug cartel have switched their proceeds as the dollar is useless.

uprising

King Mob wrote: »

Considering that heroin is one of the main sources of funding for the Taliban, I don't think the US want it to continue.

If you actually look the Taliban were destroying the poppies:

UN Says Taliban Poppy Ban Hits Farmers Hard (Part 1)

A new tour of Afghanistan's poppy-growing areas by UN officials has confirmed that there is almost no cultivation in Taliban-controlled areas this year. In the first part of a two-part Radio Free Europe interview, officials of the UN Drug Control Program in Vienna describe the impact of the ban upon Afghanistan's rural economy, which for years had centered around the opium drug trade and now is hard-hit by the prohibition.

http://www.poppies.org/2001/06/06/un-says-taliban-poppy-ban-hits-farmers-hard-part-1/

Karzai blames U.S. and Britain for increased opium production
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Karzai_blames_U.S._and_Britain_for_increased_opium_production