THE WAR ON DRUGS IS RUN BY NAZI THUGS

The War on Some People with Some Drugs Who Aren't, Say, Afghani Opium

Growers is being fought on two opposing fronts. On the left hand, the

government is trying to stop American citizens from using untaxed drugs by

use of physical and psychological force--propaganda, rhetoric, threats,

intimidation--which varies in tone and effectiveness from laughably absurd

to downright terrifying. On the right hand, the government is encouraging

or tolerating the growth of untaxed drug crops in Afghanistan and other

countries we support or with which we are allied.

This sort of divided campaign has been going on since at least the early

1970s. While Nixon was helming the first War on Dangerous Drugs, rigging

the Shafer Commission with his hand-picked ringers and ordering the

bombing of Cambodia and Laos, the CIA was helping opium smugglers in those

countries. While Reagan was supporting the Contras, Ollie North was

helping them run cocaine. To paraphrase Warren Zevon, our recent bush wars

(pun intended) have been run by drugs, guns and money. And guess who

footed--and is footing--the bill.

So what exactly is our patriotic duty? Should we buy more drugs in order

to support the new government in Afghanistan? Or should we not buy drugs

in order not to support terrorists? Of course, since most humans operate

on reflex governed by prior programming via family/school/church, the

latter is the option of choice. So if this current propaganda campaign,

illogical as it is, catches hold and the number of Americans using opiates

drops precipitously, that could be a calamity for the new powers-that-be

in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

In other words, if the propagandists succeed beyond their wildest dreams,

they will simultaneously have to open up new markets elsewhere on the

globe for their allies. Just as tobacco companies have expanded their

business overseas to compensate for the dropping rate of tobacco

consumption in the US, the US government will have to start pushing drugs

worldwide.

The first step, it seems to me, would be to hire the top ad firms in New

York City, London and other world centers in order to devise a campaign to

subtly promote drug use without overtly saying "Buy more drugs!" In fact,

it could be so subtle that, on the surface, it would appear to be--I don't

know--an anti-drug campaign. In fact, given the current world political

climate, you could even suggest that supporting drug use is supporting

terrorism--a tactic known popularly as "reverse psychology." Not many folks

are hip to semantics and the "isness of identity," so they're not going to

catch the convoy-sized fallacy inherent in that statement.

Or maybe they'll just run the drugs in and let the dealers and buyers

fight each other over who gets to sell and buy. That's always worked

before.

The Politics of Heroin; CIA Complicity In The Global Drug Trade--Alfred

McCoy