American Drug War -- CIA Involvement in Drug Trade Yadda Yadda

I caught wind of this documentary film coming out from www.AmericanDrugWar.com

I'm really interested in it. Has anyone here done any serious research on the drug trade, and/or perhaps considered purposeful protection on behalf of certain government entities?

I know that, having once been heavily involved in the drug scene with the wild White Lady ("she loves you more"), it was hard for me to grasp how many others did not understand what I considered to be natural facts. For example, cops sell drugs. Yeah, cops plant drugs. Yeah, cops fabricate raids to make it look like they're doing their job sometimes, and other times they're just raiding someone's stash that the precinct already does business with.

Of course, I was slithering around in the shadowy underbelly of things. That sort of inconspicuous facet of life that is, contrarily, incredibly conspicuous to the right people.

I spent time in New Orleans (before Miss. Katrina threw a temper tantrum) and Savannah, Georgia, Austin, Texas... pretty high-traffic drug areas.

Savannah was the worst. In Savannah, there are a variety of mobs that own most of the businesses. The police sell drugs and everyone knows it, but people are just too damned drunk to care.

So, when I "came to", so to speak, after getting that tinge of revelry out of my system via wayward traveling and various powders, pills, puffers and stuffers -- I emerged back onto the suburban surface. So here was the typical JC Penny sweater clad Father figure mulling over the morning paper and a cup of coffee telling me that "there is nothing suspicious about a 91-year-old women being shot full of holes on account she was a drug dealer... look, it says right here in the paper that they found weed in her home, that proves it, case closed, you're just a silly conspiracy nut...Nuts McGee."

This, of course, freaked me out having witnessed the trade myself.

Anyway, I'm including the 7-minute teaser thing. I'm interested in watching it. I should really write a good chunky article about the drug trade and how it works. Perhaps arguing that legalizing drugs is absolutely, positively THE worst thing that you could ever do for the dealers, users and trade as a whole. It would ruin it, no user or dealer wants drugs to be legalized.

It makes you wonder, if we really don't have much reason not to legalize legalizing drugs and if the effects surely would be much more positive and money-saving than at current (taxing the purchase thereof, regulation of potency and amount per purchase, age limits...etc) then why would we keep on with the War on Drugs? Unless, by some weird chance, it's making those shifty shits with the goggles and face-masks defending America a shit-load of money.

Hell, you can be any goddamned age to buy drugs. You could be 7-years-old. Steal 60 bucks from your Mom's purse, go down to the corner and buy a G off some guy that calls himself Rico and start using blow before your balls drop or your hooters start hooting.

Yet, that same kid would have a much, MUCH harder time getting cigarettes or alcohol, and would be in more risk of being caught. That's another reason.

It's really interesting to think about.



This guy, Mike Rupert, is really fantastic. Very brave as well. This was him exposing government aided drug trafficking back during Iran Contra --

Until we outlaw alcohol and tobacco the war on drugs will continue to be a huge farce. Prohibition will never work we already proved that.
And the Bush Admin. policies have proved bombing a country, Afghanistan, into the stone age, won't sotp the drug trade either. Seeing as how the Afghan poppy crop just set a record for production.

If you really believe that no user or even dealer want drugs legalized I have to suspect that you've never left your house. Ever.
Let alone ever met anyone whose been into drugs or been involved with drugs yourself.

Maybe at the very top of the drug food chain they don't but I think its safe to say that a vast majority of street level users and even dealers would welcome legalization.

Users with any sense would want safer product. Street level dealers would want to lose their jobs, why?

Well, I haven't researched any real data on this, but I would have to say that my perception has always been that most street level dealers are in the game primarily to support their own habits. As so, they are virtually one and the same.
And most of them don't fancy the prospect of being demonized by society and locked in prison for what they view as a personal choice.
I also tend to think that while realistically legalization would mean strict government regulation and approved outlets such as State liquor licensing, many fallaciously view it more as the legitimization of their job rather than loss of.

I'd like some statistics off of this. I doubt this theory, but until I see some statistics I'd just be citing The Wire.

Maybe dealers who sell to College students, but that's a pretty broad statement your making there. Once again I lack statistics, but I see social and economic pressures and incentives serving more as deciding factors than it being a personal choice. I mean, it is their choice, but I'd think it's not most people's first choice.

Chainlink, "Never get high on your own supply" is an axiom among low-level dealers, but not generally taken to heart. Among dealers with a strictly financial motive, legalization would harm their business and wouldn't benefit them. Among the dealers you describe, I concede the point.

It would ruin their business.

Exactly. However, hardcore users may not want this to happen because they won't get it whenever they want, at the amount they want, or at the potency they desire.

Well, what you're not understanding is that it wouldn't legitimize their job so much as completely put them out of work. In addition, the first rule of being a drug dealer is that you never actually use your product.

Of course, many low-level pushers (the middle, middle men, if you will) may use alternate drugs than the ones they're selling, or may sell drugs in order to support their habit. But these folks don't last very long in the trade at all.

I feel as though I have a certain level of legitimacy on this issue because of the amount of time I spent living the life. I don't profess to know the global workings like the back of my hand, but I do know most of the ins and outs.

I would say that 7 out of 10 low-level pushers really do not use their own supply or even use drugs at all. However, must sellers that push the "hard" drugs like blow, smack, Tina (meth), Rolls (Ecstacy)...etc don't use they any such things, but most often they are hefty pot smokers. If they do use the hard drugs, it's only on rare occasions, nothing near what would be considered consistent use or anywhere near what their users will be doing.

I've actually only had one dealer that used "hard" drugs while also selling them. However, she sold blow, but didn't use it. She preferred shooting smack.

That's 1 out of around 15 consistent drug dealers that I have dealt with. That isn't counting the temporary dealers I've had. The ones where you meet one night when you're in a new city and need to get loose. However, not many of them seemed to use their own products either.

There does need to be a study done on it. I don't think there is such a study, though.

Do you know what fallacious means ? The first rule of drug dealing ? Are you for real ?

We get it. You were a drug dealer and now you know everything cause you work at home in your PJs writing spam for search engines.

Please enlighten us about all of the users and dealers out there that are against legalization.

I think its also a bumper sticker.

I thought to first rule of drug dealing was don't talk about drug dealing.

Don't forget coffee, tea, and all the soft drinks with caffeine.

Don't forget sugar either. The other white powder.

Drug dealers don't give a shit, man. If it were ever legalized, though. They would be out of business.

Most don't pay attention to this shit.

Goddamn, what are you getting so uppity about.

out of business? Legalization would be key to their business improving.

The Government Legalizes drugs. Drugs become like cigarettes, manufactured as safely as possible as to do little damage as possible to the user (if that's possible, and kind of insane to say). They are basically not cutting shit with unsafe products.

The government now puts a 30% (or horrendously high) tax on all drugs, plus the cost of manufacturing, plus the profit the seller wants.

Joe Smo drug dealer, manufactures drugs at an incredibly lower cost, makes it a third as safe as the government, and charges a tenth of the price, all while still managing a profit.

The war on drugs is a lost cause i the long run, it's not doing anything to stop the drug trade, it may hamper it from time to time, but there is no real way to stop it, people are going to choose to use regardless of what the government says.

DVD players are legal, they're sold in stores all the time. Why is there still a theft rate in home electronics? People sell them in stores! Why? Because criminal Joe steals the DVD player or bulk buys it from another criminal for an extremely low price, then turns around, doubles the price, and still sells it for half the cost of what the store sells it for, and still maintains a profit.

Money is the root of all evil in this game.

You really have no knowledge of this subject, i can see that mostly in how you are debating the subject and you really shouldn't be writing about it.

Drug dealers don't give a shit about what ? (going to prison ?)

Why do you think they would be out of business ?
And what makes you think that the average drug dealer recognizes this ?
( I'm pretty confident in my assertion that most of them are ON drugs, regardless of what "The First Law" states)

Most what don't pay attention to what shit ?

I'm so "uppity" about your dribble, did you miss that ?

Also, you claim that no user wants drugs legalized.
Would you like to support that with anything other than . . . meh
*holding back the cannons*

dude.

No users here . Pay no attention.

But he DID drugs. He was in the scene. He knows all about it.
Only 1 out of 15 dealers actually uses drugs. It's science.

..but i thought he was a "legitimate source of news..."

He is. Like Rush Limbaugh.

I found an excellent article on the subject of legalization, written by the Drug Policy Alliance which analyzes drug prohibition in the context of history.
Link

I post this because I found it extremely informative, full of statistics and historical references and finally, the writing was good and I'm hoping this will serve as an example for anyone hoping to write/debate further on the subject of legalization and the drug trade itself. *wink wink nudge nudge*

Here is an interesting historical note from the lengthy article:

I know it's long, but it really is a very informative read.

Yeah, there will inevitably be a black market for drugs if they are legalized.

However, they will not be as easy to obtain or sell. The danger of selling will be more pronounced.

It's like prescription drugs -- people are selling them illegally, manufacturing them illegally, trafficking them illegally, and using them illegally. However, this is no where near as pronounced as the illegal street drug trade as far as pot, coke....etc are concerned.

As far as obtaining them, once drugs were legalized the number of low-level pushers and users would dramatically decrease, if not be abolished. Those more direct to the source, with the capability to produce drugs illegally, would find themselves with a lack of pushers and would have to do the legwork themselves.

This would directly result in scarcity and the ease of obtaining drugs for sell and use would really digress, especially over time.

The reason is because low-level drug dealers are middle-middlemen. They usually get their drugs in small levels from a "middleman" that gets a larger amount of drugs from still yet another source and the chain goes about two levels higher than that to the actual big-time traffickers.

Anyway, the low-level pushers -- the ones that buy small amounts of wholesale and sell retail on the streets -- would not want to go through the pains of then setting up their own meth labs, for example. They'd drop out of the trade, and most of them usually don't last long anyway. The reason there are so many, however, is because it's basically viable for nearly anyone to become a drug dealer. It's really, really easy. However, it's much more difficult to be able to produce drugs.

There are only a certain amount of drugs that can be produced individually such as Ecstacy and Meth. If pot was legalized people would no doubt opt more widely for the legal substance than the illegal, so let's rule that out.

So, the low-level pushers are gone. The higher-level pushers may begin producing their own drugs like Ecstacy and Meth. Even this would be incredibly difficult.

For example, MDMA, the big squeeze for X, is incredibly difficult to obtain even now and usually must be stolen. That is why most people get shit X, which are concoctions of smack, coke, B12 and whatever other synthetics they can use to mildly mirror the effects of MDMA.

The Meth trade would no-doubt continue on undeterred because it probably would not be legalized.

So -- let's look at this -- those two most commonly individually manufactured street drugs are...well...not many. Just two (there are others, but they aren't very popular even now and probably won't be because people don't consider LSD and PCP as "recreational" and Shrooms would go the way of pot, in my opinion).

You can't manufacture cocaine at home, you can't manufacture heroin at home. So, since MDMA is already hard to find, and if the trade in X is already faltering throughout the United States because of that fact and if people could no longer easily obtain the Coke and Heroin to even make fake rolls or smack-based rolls -- then i would think the X trade would almsot COMPLETELY die out in the advent of legalized drugs.

Meth, as I mentioned, would go strong I think. But that's it.

So. If people can buy pure pot and shrooms and do them legally without worrying about arrest and if 85% of the drug users in America only smoke pot, then the majority of drug users would not seek out a guy on the street selling cheap pot or shrooms that have the potential to be unpure. Furthermore, if pot and shrooms required some kind of proof that they were purchased legally, then street sellers that grew their own and tried to sell wouldn't get a lot of business even if it was cheaper.

Why risk arrest for cheaper pot, when you can buy stuff just as pure and not be arrested because you have proof you purchased it legally?

Meanwhile, the illegal drug cartels pushing coke and smack into the US would be put out of the shadowy aspect of the business simply because their product is now a lucrative export, effectively bringing wealth to the country. So, there aren't going to be a lot of cartels out there still trying to sell to drug wholesalers who in turn sell to middle men who in turn sell to low-level pushers.

All that to say -- Meth is the only drug that will survive the legalizing and remain a street drug. Ecstacy will barely be around, if at all. Little or no cocaine or heroin will be coming in illegally, and both are nearly impossible to produce individually.

And, as statistics show, 85% of admitted illegal drug users only smoke pot, which means if pot is legalized there would only be about 15% of potential users actually seeking them illegally, but even most of them would opt for legal coke or heroin because most of them are most likely casual users that can deal with the regulated purchasing amounts under Federal Law.

So... I'm pretty sure that even the black market of drugs would barely exist. People would just rather do drugs and pay a little more to avoid arrest than opt for cheaper, less pure street-level drugs, the likes of which wouldn't really be nearly as widespread.

I somewhat explained all that clearly.