The Prometheus League
Breaking News and Updates
- Abolition Of Work
- Ai
- Alt-right
- Alternative Medicine
- Antifa
- Artificial General Intelligence
- Artificial Intelligence
- Artificial Super Intelligence
- Ascension
- Astronomy
- Atheism
- Atheist
- Atlas Shrugged
- Automation
- Ayn Rand
- Bahamas
- Bankruptcy
- Basic Income Guarantee
- Big Tech
- Bitcoin
- Black Lives Matter
- Blackjack
- Boca Chica Texas
- Brexit
- Caribbean
- Casino
- Casino Affiliate
- Cbd Oil
- Censorship
- Cf
- Chess Engines
- Childfree
- Cloning
- Cloud Computing
- Conscious Evolution
- Corona Virus
- Cosmic Heaven
- Covid-19
- Cryonics
- Cryptocurrency
- Cyberpunk
- Darwinism
- Democrat
- Designer Babies
- DNA
- Donald Trump
- Eczema
- Elon Musk
- Entheogens
- Ethical Egoism
- Eugenic Concepts
- Eugenics
- Euthanasia
- Evolution
- Extropian
- Extropianism
- Extropy
- Fake News
- Federalism
- Federalist
- Fifth Amendment
- Fifth Amendment
- Financial Independence
- First Amendment
- Fiscal Freedom
- Food Supplements
- Fourth Amendment
- Fourth Amendment
- Free Speech
- Freedom
- Freedom of Speech
- Futurism
- Futurist
- Gambling
- Gene Medicine
- Genetic Engineering
- Genome
- Germ Warfare
- Golden Rule
- Government Oppression
- Hedonism
- High Seas
- History
- Hubble Telescope
- Human Genetic Engineering
- Human Genetics
- Human Immortality
- Human Longevity
- Illuminati
- Immortality
- Immortality Medicine
- Intentional Communities
- Jacinda Ardern
- Jitsi
- Jordan Peterson
- Las Vegas
- Liberal
- Libertarian
- Libertarianism
- Liberty
- Life Extension
- Macau
- Marie Byrd Land
- Mars
- Mars Colonization
- Mars Colony
- Memetics
- Micronations
- Mind Uploading
- Minerva Reefs
- Modern Satanism
- Moon Colonization
- Nanotech
- National Vanguard
- NATO
- Neo-eugenics
- Neurohacking
- Neurotechnology
- New Utopia
- New Zealand
- Nihilism
- Nootropics
- NSA
- Oceania
- Offshore
- Olympics
- Online Casino
- Online Gambling
- Pantheism
- Personal Empowerment
- Poker
- Political Correctness
- Politically Incorrect
- Polygamy
- Populism
- Post Human
- Post Humanism
- Posthuman
- Posthumanism
- Private Islands
- Progress
- Proud Boys
- Psoriasis
- Psychedelics
- Putin
- Quantum Computing
- Quantum Physics
- Rationalism
- Republican
- Resource Based Economy
- Robotics
- Rockall
- Ron Paul
- Roulette
- Russia
- Sealand
- Seasteading
- Second Amendment
- Second Amendment
- Seychelles
- Singularitarianism
- Singularity
- Socio-economic Collapse
- Space Exploration
- Space Station
- Space Travel
- Spacex
- Sports Betting
- Sportsbook
- Superintelligence
- Survivalism
- Talmud
- Technology
- Teilhard De Charden
- Terraforming Mars
- The Singularity
- Tms
- Tor Browser
- Trance
- Transhuman
- Transhuman News
- Transhumanism
- Transhumanist
- Transtopian
- Transtopianism
- Ukraine
- Uncategorized
- Vaping
- Victimless Crimes
- Virtual Reality
- Wage Slavery
- War On Drugs
- Waveland
- Ww3
- Yahoo
- Zeitgeist Movement
-
Prometheism
-
Forbidden Fruit
-
The Evolutionary Perspective
Category Archives: War On Drugs
‘They are not helping PRRD’ | Philstar.com – Philstar.com
Posted: April 23, 2023 at 6:25 pm
They are not being helpful. They should be utilizing logic instead of loyalty. They are just sinking PRRD deeper into the mud.
Those are statements recently expressed by certain individuals who are supporters of the former president Rodrigo Duterte and his anti-drug campaign and who disapprove of the anti-ICC statements of the DOJ secretary and some senators.
We cannot fault Sec. Remulla et al for defending PRRD and for challenging the ICC investigators for interfering in Philippine affairs, but the PRRD supporters say things could be handled logically, factually and diplomatically. They believe that Duterte is unfairly getting a disproportionate amount of the blame for the extrajudicial killings and threatening the ICC makes PRRD look guilty.
Perhaps those in a position to bring out the facts should do so properly because I am confident that in doing so, we will all come to terms with OUR part in the war, OUR share of the blame, either through commission or omission, and maybe then we will be able to separate those who did what was right or did their jobs versus those who used the war for evil and personal gain.
Before we start pointing fingers at PRRD alone, let us all revisit the years just before mayor Rodrigo Duterte was elected president. Back then the single failure of the PNoy government was in the fight against drugs and criminality such as kidnappings, rapes, contract killing or riding in tandem assassinations, as well as terrorist activities.
People were afraid to leave even a paper bag in their car because of basag kotse gangs, young people could not take out their cell phones in public for fear of snatchers on motorcycles who would shoot you for not giving up your phone. There were horror stories of female office workers being molested or assaulted while riding taxis or schoolgirls being grabbed and snatched.
The PNP gave quarterly updates on how shabu and other drugs were spreading throughout the countryside. Cities and barangays as well as exclusive subdivisions and gated communities eventually became meth labs or shabu tiangges.
The worst was when drug pushing became a livelihood for poor Filipinos when certain mayors, councilors as well as numerous barangay captains turned into neighborhood shabu dealers. As a journalist, I regularly heard from operatives fact checking on these allegations before they moved in on a target or neutralized said individuals.
Then came the Dirty Harry of Davao, the mayor with real political will and the track record to show that he cleared Davao of communist terrorists as well as drug dealers. That alone convinced the majority of Filipinos to vote for him as president. He was not elected for his economic genius, political savvy or charisma. He was rough, tough and often rude, butwewanted him to fight crime and put a stop to drugs and drug dealers.
No one laid down conditions or terms of engagement. No one even looked over his shoulder.As long as he got rid of the drug dealers and criminality, no one asked questions. In fact, those who could have said or done something, did not. We all looked away and simply assumed that those who were caught in the mix were either guilty, involved or had no business hanging out in drug infested areas. The truth is, we silently approved of the war on drugs!
Duterte himself confessed that he misjudged the gravity of the situation when he said he could solve the problem in three to six months. He did not count on generals and elected officials being extensively involved in the drug trade or standing as protectors or obstructionists. Even the Bureau of Customs had been infiltrated by mobsters. To fight the greedy and the corrupt, PRRD pit greed versus ambition. He relied on the ambition and drive of lower ranked officials to take the fight to the ground.
Yes, PRRD declared war against drugs and that was the wish and the will of the people. The subsequent and alleged EJKs are a totally different thing. PRRDs pronouncements were political optics and sound-bytes meant to rally the troops, reassure the public and remind the criminals that they were no longer in control and would be put out of business. Talking tough and declaring war on drugs alone do not kill people. People kill people. PRRD did not. But all that is now being used to unfairly put all the guilt on his shoulders.
What happened on the ground has happened in many countries such as Mexico, Colombia, even the USA where drug lords operate. Here, they all snitched on each other or tipped off the cops in order to drive the competition out of business. Some of the EJKs were actually gang retaliation on suspected informants. In a country where contract killing prices (based on testimonies of arrested hit-men) range from P20,000 to P150,000 only, it comes as no surprise that mercenaries and vigilantes actually went into business to rid their neighborhoodsin exchange for clearing costs, just like kidnappers and hostage takers charged board and lodging for victims.
And while some generals and elected officials were making money from the drug trade, the ambitious officers imposed ulo-ulo quotas, as in kill quotas, on drug pushers or criminal repeat offenders, thereby slowly killing the market. This was reported to me by other officers in the field. The quotas were intended to fast track the promotions of higher ups. They were not imposed by general headquarters or the Office of the President. They were required by the overly ambitious officers who saw a fast way to get to the next rank.
The ultimate tale is that we all had a part in the war on drugs, whether we admit it or not. Lets not be like Caiaphas saying: It is better for one man to die than the whole nation to be destroyed. Were all guilty in this war.
* * *
E-mail: [emailprotected]
Originally posted here:
Posted in War On Drugs
Comments Off on ‘They are not helping PRRD’ | Philstar.com – Philstar.com
Brandon Ali: By 18 he had a shotgun. At 19 he was smuggling drugs. Age 20 he had murdered a man – Teesside Live
Posted: at 6:25 pm
Brandon Ali stared across at the press bench in court. Defiant, dishonest to his core, and completely unrepentant, he showed no reaction as he was sentenced to 21-years in prison for murder, in the summer of last year.
Four months later, Ali simply shrugged as he was handed an 11-month jail term for posting a radio stuffed full of drugs to an inmate in August, 2020. That sentence runs alongside his current 21-year minimum term, meaning he spends no extra time behind bars.
Three months after that, Ali stood staring at the press bench once again, as he was brought out of his cell to attend court. This time he was given a three-year prison stretch, after a shotgun with his DNA all over it was found buried near a children's park.
READ MORE: Ex-Teesside University student kept guns 'to rent out to YouTube rappers making music videos'
The sawn-off gun was buried at some point before the winter of 2019, when Ali was 18 at the most. This means that at the age of just 22, Ali has a lengthy prison sentence to serve.
There has never been a hint of remorse shown by the former Hemlington drug dealer - although he must surely regret his actions now he has days on end with nothing to do but think, whilst holed up in prison.
Ali, and his pal Joey Matthews, were once winning the turf war in Hemlington. Constantly out on their push bikes, they supplied the narrow streets of terraced home with anything from cannabis to the anti-anxiety pill, pregabalin.
But when a rival dealer threatened their livelihood, Ali and Matthews, declared war. There was a fight in the street and threats made, before the two 21-year-olds saw Mr Eland out on his bike, on Saturday, August 21, 2021.
Witnesses said Matthews was driving, but in court Judge Watson said the murder was a joint enterprise. They must have seen Mr Eland's girlfriend Kassi Weir sitting on the handlebars. Their car mounted the kerb and drove straight at the couple.
The 37-year-old drug dealer suffered catastrophic brain injuries. His girlfriend Kassi Weir, who miraculously escaped serious injury, was seen screaming: "He's dying! he's dying!" as a witness rang 999 to say that "blood was pumping out of Carl Eland's head, ears and nose."
Mr Eland was pronounced dead days later in hospital. He had four children.
Judge Paul Watson KC told the pair: "No one who has seen the dramatic footage of the vehicle being driven into the bicycle and the cyclists being thrown from it, could forget those dreadful images. The sense of shock when it was played to the jury was audible," as he jailed them both for 21 years.
Four months into his life term, Ali was in the dock at Teesside Crown Court again. His fingerprints were found on a digital radio, which was posted to HMP Northumberland, in August 2020. It was stuffed full of drugs.
Ali tried to claim that he thought he was just posting a digital radio - but his fingerprints were found on the inside of the radio and on one of the packets of drugs. He appeared in the dock alongside Steve Blagg, 45, and the pair were convicted of sending 3,370 worth of class C drugs, hidden in the back of the radio, into prison.
Blagg has 145 offences to his name, and has been in and out of prison for much of his life. The radio was posted to the wing where his son was incarcerated.
Ali was back in court earlier this year, after police uncovered a firearm, buried in a contained in the mud, near a children's playground in North Ormesby, Middlesbrough.
Again, Ali denied all knowledge - somewhat bafflingly claiming that he had only ever touched a gun when he went to "shoot clays" with his grandad, as a child. Under cross-examination, he said that his DNA "could have been on a gun that I touched before" but that he had never used a sawn-off shotgun.
When the prosecution accused Ali of lying about the clay pigeon shooting, and asked him why he hadn't given that explanation to the police when he was arrested in 2019, Ali remained unflustered. "I didn't think," he told the jury. "I was young."
His co-accused George Lammie, 45, told the court that he was a drug dealer and that he must have inadvertently touched the shotgun when someone - he couldn't remember - came to his house and offered him a bag containing a gun, in exchange for drugs.
Ali, of Dalwood Court in Hemlington, was given three-years. Lammie was jailed for five.
Ali is the antithesis of a clever or sophisticated criminal. He killed a man in front of people on a residential street. And he left his DNA all over a shotgun, and on the drugs inside the radio.
But he has never shown any emotion - not when he was handed a life term in prison, nor when the harrowing details of Mr Eland's fatal injuries were read out to a courtroom, packed full of the victim's family and friends.
His mother, who has attended all of his court cases, shouted "see you son" as he was last led out of court. Ali didn't reply, he didn't even glance back at his mum, as he was led away to a waiting prison van. He must surely be one of the youngest "lifers" in HMP Durham.
READ NEXT:
View post:
Posted in War On Drugs
Comments Off on Brandon Ali: By 18 he had a shotgun. At 19 he was smuggling drugs. Age 20 he had murdered a man – Teesside Live
Kindiki team shores up gains in drugs, illicit brews fight – The Star Kenya
Posted: at 6:25 pm
The Ministry of Interior and National Administration has nabbed more illicit brew compared with its predecessors average annual nettings.
The crackdown ordered by Interior Cabinet Secretary Kithure Kindiki saw a record 1.7 million litres of unregulated brews destroyed.
This is 700,000 more than the Jubilee administrations annual average nettings of one million litres in the period from 2020 through to last year.
In 2020, the Presidents State of national security report showed that the state netted a total of 1,002,157 litres of illicit brew.
The report showed that the collection was an increase of 10.4 percent compared with the previous year 2019.
The Ministry further reported that it had netted drugs worth millions of shillings in the intensified crackdown Kindiki ordered in February.
We will not relent in the war on illicit liquor and drugs and I am fully committed to ending the menace that has left most families in the Central Kenya region in pain, said Kindiki at the start of the crackdown.
He listed drugs, terrorism, illegal drinks, and banditry in the northern part of the country as serious threats to Kenyas stability.
To join in the fight against illicit brew, Members of County Assemblies from Central Kenya region have formed a 20-member committee to lead in formulation of stringent laws to regulate the sale of alcohol in the region.
This was after Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua held consultations with MCAs from the five counties on Friday, on how to end the illicit brew menace in the region.
The counties include; Muranga, Kiambu, Nyeri, Nyandarua and Kirinyaga.
The MCAs met the DP at his Iruri home in Mathira, Nyeri County.
The 20-member committee is expected to hold its first meetingon Thursday next week for consultation with legal experts, where they will be joined by the National Assembly Majority Leader Kimani Inchungwa.
A bill for the five counties will be drafted. The bill will be subjected to public participation and County Assembly plenaries as per the procedure before adoption.
Link:
Kindiki team shores up gains in drugs, illicit brews fight - The Star Kenya
Posted in War On Drugs
Comments Off on Kindiki team shores up gains in drugs, illicit brews fight – The Star Kenya
The US Has Spent $1 Trillion Fighting The War On Drugs A Failure, Say The Authors Of New Cannabis Book – Forbes
Posted: April 17, 2023 at 9:47 am
More here:
Posted in War On Drugs
Comments Off on The US Has Spent $1 Trillion Fighting The War On Drugs A Failure, Say The Authors Of New Cannabis Book – Forbes
Gov. Kathy Hochuls cannabis crime bill will destroy lives and restart the War on Drugs (guest column) – newyorkupstate.com
Posted: March 31, 2023 at 1:13 am
Gov. Kathy Hochuls cannabis crime bill will destroy lives and restart the War on Drugs (guest column) newyorkupstate.com
Go here to read the rest:
Posted in War On Drugs
Comments Off on Gov. Kathy Hochuls cannabis crime bill will destroy lives and restart the War on Drugs (guest column) – newyorkupstate.com
Official says war on drugs is ‘here, local’ following discovery of 10K fentanyl-laced ecstasy pills in Silsbee – 12newsnow.com KBMT-KJAC
Posted: March 26, 2023 at 4:59 pm
Official says war on drugs is 'here, local' following discovery of 10K fentanyl-laced ecstasy pills in Silsbee 12newsnow.com KBMT-KJAC
Continue reading here:
Posted in War On Drugs
Comments Off on Official says war on drugs is ‘here, local’ following discovery of 10K fentanyl-laced ecstasy pills in Silsbee – 12newsnow.com KBMT-KJAC
The War on Drugs: History, Policy, and Therapeutics – Dominican University
Posted: March 11, 2023 at 1:48 am
The War on Drugs is an effort in theUnited Statessince the 1970s to combat illegaldrug useby greatly increasing penalties, enforcement, and incarceration for drug offenders.
The War on Drugs began in June 1971 when U.S. Pres.Richard Nixondeclareddrug abuseto be public enemy number one and increased federal funding for drug-control agencies and drug-treatment efforts. In 1973 theDrug Enforcement Administrationwas created out of the merger of the Office for Drug Abuse Law Enforcement, the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, and the Office of Narcotics Intelligence to consolidate federal efforts to control drug abuse.
The War on Drugs was a relatively small component of federal law-enforcement efforts until the presidency ofRonald Reagan, which began in 1981. Reagan greatly expanded the reach of the drug war and his focus on criminal punishment over treatment led to a massive increase in incarcerations for nonviolent drug offenses, from 50,000 in 1980 to 400,000 in 1997. In 1984 his wife,Nancy, spearheaded another facet of the War on Drugs with her Just Say No campaign, which was a privately funded effort to educate schoolchildren on the dangers of drug use. The expansion of the War on Drugs was in many ways driven by increased media coverage ofand resulting public nervousness overthecrack epidemicthat arose in the early 1980s. This heightened concern over illicit drug use helped drive political support for Reagans hard-line stance on drugs. TheU.S. Congresspassed theAnti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, whichallocated$1.7 billion to the War on Drugs and established a series of mandatory minimum prison sentences for various drug offenses. A notable feature of mandatory minimums was the massive gap between the amounts of crack and of powdercocaine that resulted in the same minimum sentence: possession of five grams of crack led to an automatic five-year sentence while it took the possession of 500 grams of powder cocaine to trigger that sentence. Since approximately 80% of crack users wereAfrican American, mandatory minimums led to an unequal increase of incarceration rates for nonviolent Black drug offenders, as well as claims that the War on Drugs was a racist institution.
Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia (2020).War on Drugs.Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/war-on-drugs
Continue reading here:
The War on Drugs: History, Policy, and Therapeutics - Dominican University
Posted in War On Drugs
Comments Off on The War on Drugs: History, Policy, and Therapeutics – Dominican University
The War on Drugs – Crime Museum
Posted: at 1:48 am
The War on Drugs refers to the recent trend in United States political and military systems of sweeping prohibition efforts to end illegal drug trafficking. The first use of the term war to describe these policies occurred when President Richard Nixon gave a speech on June 18, 1971 in a press conference for the Congress on Drug Abuse Prevention and Control, in which he referred to drug abuse as public enemy number one. However, Nixon was not the first U.S. President to support stringent drug control policies; his actions were a continuation of existing policies.
One of the most significant aspects of the U.S. Drug War can be traced back to 1952, when Congress passed the Boggs Act. This act established the U.S. policy of mandatory minimum sentencing. With mandatory minimums, courts are required to sentence first-time offenders with a minimum sentence depending on the drug. The Boggs Act referred specifically to Cannabis possession, and many of its elements were later repealed. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 strengthened the system of mandatory minimum sentencing, and added provisions for other types of drugs. Mandatory minimum sentences have been criticized for being inflexible and unfair, and have contributed to the overall trend of prison overcrowding in the United States. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 49.8% of inmates, about 100,000 people, are currently incarcerated due to a drug offense. Less than 30% of inmates are violent offenders.
Though there have been drug prohibition laws in the United States since 1860, the Drug War is strongly associated with President Ronald Reagan. In 1986, Reagan signed into law the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which, in addition to strengthening the mandatory minimum sentencing policies, appropriated $1.7 billion to fund the war on drugs, and also shifted the federal supervised release program from a rehabilitative focus to a punitive one. The supervised release program refers to the measures that inmates must do when they are released on probation. These programs usually consist of regular drug tests and meetings with probation counselors. Historically, these systems were in place to help recovering drug addicts stay on track once they were out of prison. However, the shift to a punitive focus reflected a desire to punish those involved in illegal drugs, rather than help them recover and get their lives back on track. During Reagans presidency, the First Lady, Nancy Reagan began a campaign called Just Say No, which was focused on educating youth about the dangers of drug abuse and on different ways they can say no to drugs.
One of the most notable aspects of the war on drugs is its apparent targeting of lower income and minority communities. With the passing of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, possession of 28 grams of crack cocaine warrants a five year mandatory minimum sentence for a first-time offender. In order to get the same sentence for possession of powder form cocaine, someone would have to have 500 grams. While some argue that crack cocaine is more addictive and therefore deserves a higher sentence, some medical experts dispute this by stating that there is no pharmacological difference between the two forms of cocaine. Many people assert that, because crack cocaine is statistically linked to impoverished Black communities while powder cocaine use is most common among affluent White communities, the legal disparity between powder and crack cocaine is potentially rooted in racist beliefs. While both forms of the drug are harmful and addictive, the drastic differences between the mandatory minimum sentences reflects a devotion to punish drug offenders at all costs, rather than on working to find a solution that would land less people in prison. In 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law the Fair Sentencing Act, which reduced the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine.
View original post here:
Posted in War On Drugs
Comments Off on The War on Drugs – Crime Museum
What Is the War on Drugs? – WorldAtlas
Posted: at 1:48 am
The War on Drugs is a term used by the United States government that describes their domestic and foreign policies regarding the spread and manufacturing of illegal drugs.
The term reached the mainstream consciousness of America in 1971 after United States President Richard Nixon mentioned the term in a speech and the media picked up on it. Two years prior to this speech, Nixon had formally declared a war on drugs with a focus on incarceration and eradication. This earlier declaration was due to Nixon's concerns about drug use during the Vietnam War and the prevalence of illegal drugs on the streets of the United States.
Richard Nixon designated a US $100 million budget in order to fight the trafficking and manufacture of drugs worldwide. This budget has inflated to $27.8 billion in 2018 and diverts many resources that could be used more effectively.
Throughout its legacy, the War on Drugs has gathered its fair share of commentary from critics, who complain that declaring war on something as ambiguous as illegal drugs is just as ineffective as declaring war on terrorism. This article will explore the early history of drugs in the United States, major operations during the War on Drugs, and the criticisms that this policy has faced.
Marijuana had been used medicinally in the United States since the 1600s but was made illegal in 1937. Many critics of this policy point to the fact that hemp is a cheaper alternative to paper pulp and businesses owned by the elite would lose money if hemp was legal. Opiates, such as heroin, were introduced to the United States by Chinese immigrants as a wellness tonic as well as being widely used during the Civil War to treat pain. In the 1800s, cocaine became a popular stimulant and was even used in the Coca-Cola beverage until 1903.
The military of the Allied nations, as well as the Nazis, used amphetamines during World War One and Two in order to stave off exhaustion and trauma. In 1906, the Pure Food and Drug Act required doctors and pharmacists to label medicine accurately and the 1914 Harrison Narcotics Act restricted the sale of cannabis, cocaine, heroin, and morphine for any purpose. 1914 is seen as the beginning of prohibition for many countries, not just the United States.
Under the guise of the War on Drugs, the United States has funneled money, troops, and other resources (either covertly or openly) to countries in order to stop the spread of illegal drugs. Here are just a few of the major (and known) operations that have taken place during the War on Drugs.
Operation Intercept (1969): This operation aimed to counter the amount of marijuana that was coming across the Mexican border into the United States. Border traffic slowed immensely during this time and due to the interruptions and impeding cross-border travel and work, this operation lasted just 20 days.
Plan Colombia (Ongoing): Under this policy, the United States sends millions of dollars in aid per year to the Colombian government who are fighting against militia groups who fund themselves through the sales of illegal drugs, namely cocaine. The aid that Colombia receives from the United States puts the country at third-most behind Israel and Egypt for US military aid. This operation has divided critics, some claiming it is a success, while others believe that human rights have been tossed to the wayside in order to fight these groups while still allowing drugs to leave the country freely.
Operation Just Cause (1989): Critics claim that this operation shows the hypocrisy of the United States foreign policy as Manuel Noriega (the dictator of Panama) was funding US-backed Contra groups in Nicaragua, the United States pledged to turn a blind eye to his own drug trafficking activities and money laundering. Operation Just Cause saw a full-scale invasion of the country by US troops and Noriega surrendered in 1990.
Many observers and international organizations have been critical of the War on Drugs for various reasons. Critics state the ineffective political drug policies of the United States, including propping up corrupt governments, have failed. There is no question that drug-use, trafficking, and related criminal activity has increased monumentally since the 1970s. This is due to the policies surrounding the War on Drugs focusing on non-violent offenders (users) rather than violent drug-dealers.
The War on Drugs has also been criticized for the over-criminalization of individuals. An example of this is the number of arrests for personal drug possession. 82% of all drug-related arrests in the United States are for possession, mainly marijuana possession. The War on Drugs has directly contributed to the United States' incredibly high incarceration rate.
Lastly, many critics are concerned that the United States War on Drugs is fuelling current drug wars and ruthless violence in Mexico, Afghanistan, and the Philippines. These countries have experienced some of the most ruthless drug-related violence ever seen on this planet.
Many states in the United States, as well as Canada, have begun the process (or already have) of legalizing marijuana. This will lead to fewer arrests of non-violent criminals as well as the police force focusing on drugs that are harmful rather than medicinal. Hard drugs such as cocaine and heroin still remain major problems in many North American cities today. After a 40-plus year campaign, the War on Drugs is seen as a colossal failure by anyone who has researched incarceration rates for non-violent criminals, the spread of illicit drugs throughout North America, as well as the poor techniques used by police to enforce many outdated drug laws.
Read more here:
Posted in War On Drugs
Comments Off on What Is the War on Drugs? – WorldAtlas
9 Important Pros and Cons of the War on Drugs ConnectUS
Posted: at 1:48 am
Drug trafficking is a global problem, an illicit trade that involves the manufacture, cultivation, distribution and sale of prohibited substances. While every nation in the world works hard to fight against drugs, drug trade is still a booming business. The dynamics of drug trafficking is simply incredible in the sense that consumption and distribution continues to rise even with continuous efforts to curb drug-related crimes and offenses.
In a bid to reduce the illegal drug trade, a campaign of drug prohibition, military intervention, and military aid was established. It includes effective drug policies that are designed to discourage distribution, consumption, and production of psychoactive drugs that were made illegal by the UN and participating governments.
While declaring war on drugs seems to be logical, opponents think it might be a waste of time and resources. Some claim that criminal acts are a consequence of drugs being declared illegal. Because people cant acquire these substances through official channels, they will resort to illegal production, distribution and consumption.
1. Deter or lessen drug-related crimes.When drug addicts will not have easy access to illegal substances, they will not experience the highs or hallucinations that will drive them to commit crimes. They wouldnt need to steal either so they can buy drugs. Put simply, without the pushers there will be little to no users.
2. Culprits will be penalizedIncluded in the policies of war on drugs is the penalty that will be afforded to manufacturers, distributors and users of illegal drugs. The level of punishment that will be imposed depends on the gravity of the crime. Knowing that there are consequences to be paid will make people think twice before embroiling in any stage of the illegal drug trade.
3. Helps create a place that is drug freeA drug-free area or community may seem impossible given the present situation, but it is achievable as long as everyone does their share in the fight against drugs. War on drugs should not only involve the government and local authorities, but also friends and family of drug users or sellers.
1. Widespread corruptionWatch any drug-related movies and youll see that the people who introduced and imposed the war on drugs are the same people who could be peddling the illegal substances. Political analyst also see a projected increase in corruption within the government because of the funds that will be allocated to control drug abuse. What are the odds that these funds will be used for personal gain?
2. Provides a smokescreen to hide the real problem behind drug abuseA majority of the population that are easily lured into drug dealing are those within and below the poverty line. People who have no hope of achieving very much because of their circumstances would resort to drug dealing where knowledge and skills are not required in their resume. They also see it as a way to make something of themselves, and to have the resources to fund their own drug habits. Would it not be better when the billions allocated for anti-drug campaigns are used to help improve the lives of these individual? For the last 40 years, an estimated $1 trillion was funneled to the war on drugs. Taxpayers are paying big for a war that is showing no signs of being victorious any time soon. In fact, the flow of drugs into the United States are increasing year after year.
Perhaps everyone would turn out to be good citizens if they are provided with all the basic necessities to help them achieve their dreams. Viewed this way, the war on drugs is nothing more than a nasty and vindictive smoke screen.
3. Increases risk on the lives of policeman and militaryMissions against drug lords is no joke, considering that they too have their own army that has no care about the lives that will be lost during a shootout or drug bust operation. What do policemen have against assassins and mercenaries? Not to belittle the skills and capacity of law enforcement, but a mission against drug pushers and manufacturers are increasingly worse. The safety risks on the lives of many policemen are also very high. Friends and family of these brave men and women would be very unhappy if something happened to them.
4. Increase racial tensionThe soaring arrest because of the war on drugs disproportionately targeted African Americans, according to the Human Rights Watch. From 1995 through 2000, the US Department of Justice reported thats arrest for drug offenses rose by 126%, which also accounted for 27% of the total growth among black inmates, 7% the total growth among Hispanic inmates, and 15% of the growth among white inmates. In 2008, the Washington Post also reported that one in five black Americans are behind bars because of drug-related laws.
5. Disparity on sentencingOpponents complain that sentencing in drug-related crimes have major flaws. There is a huge problem in the sentencing between possessions or trafficking of powder cocaine and crack. For example, those convicted for possession of 5 grams of crack and those in possession of 500 grams of powder cocaine basically have the same punishment minimum mandatory sentence of being incarcerated in a federal prison for 5 years. Judging from the differences of the drugs in question, sentencing is definitely unfair.
Moreover, the ruling is perceived as discriminatory against minorities, because blacks, Hispanics and other races are likely to use crack than cocaine. Does this mean that white people go free for as long as they are not in possession of 500 grams of coke?
6. Never-ending chain reactionOne man incarcerated for drug abuse or drug-related crimes is likely to have children who are growing up without a father. Statistics show how this can have a bad effect on the little ones. If they are in the same situation as their father before them, they could end up drug users or sellers as well, whichever comes first. So the cycle just goes on and on. It will be a never-ending ride of history repeating itself.
Link:
Posted in War On Drugs
Comments Off on 9 Important Pros and Cons of the War on Drugs ConnectUS