Has The Drug War Corrupted The FBI?

[MSimon]

In your beloved Oklahoma:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... pture.html

This is a story of street level crime by officers of various government anti-drug organizations in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

After evidence of the officers’ misconduct came to light, federal agent Brandon McFadden pled guilty to drug conspiracy and testified against other TPD officers. An excerpt from former Agent McFadden’s guilty plea reveals his involvement in the scandal:

From January 7th of — to May of 2008, I conspired with others, including Tulsa police officer, Jeff Henderson, to distribute methamphetamine in the Northern District of Oklahoma. During the time period . . . I used the position as a special agent with ATF to further the drug conspiracy and abused my position as a special agent. During this time, myself and Henderson seized drugs and money which were kept for our own personal benefit, falsified investigative reports, and failed to document events, and obstruct justice through falsely [sic] testimony under oath and persuading other individuals to do the same.

I'm sure this was just an isolated incident. After all, America has the most moral people and the most moral police in the world. Especially in Oklahoma. The Buckle of the Bible Belt. Just a few bad apples. Besides it is probably worse elsewhere in the country. Uh. Oh.

[MSimon]

So D,

How do you propose to end the drug problem if the police are conspiring to deliver them?

When was the last time an American drug kingpin was busted? Ever wonder why?

[choff]

The corruption caused by drugs could be said to do even more harm than the effects of the drugs themselves.

http://www.rense.com/general20/link.htm

[Diogenes]

Love the graphics D. Very helpful.

Did you know that 70% of female heroin addicts were sexually molested as Children?

I'm all for the Pagan solution: abuse them some more.

BTW before the Harrison narcotics act: 1.3% of Americans were heroin/opiate users. Almost 100 years of Drug War later there has been tremendous progress.

Currently only 1.3% of Americans are heroin/opiate users. All the money spent was worth it.

BTW Switzerland cleaned up those needle parks by voting TWICE to legalize heroin. But I get your point. Without keeping the drugs illegal how will you get all those wonderful graphics?

Looks like I hit a nerve. Anyway, you see what I mean about an emotional argument beating a logical argument any day of the week. People just seem to be wired that way. I realize you are also appealing to emotions with your 'Racism", "Sexism", "Child Abuse"," Denying veterans medicine", "futile", etc. arguments, but they just don't work well because the connections are too tenuous for people to see a cause and effect relationship.

Your point about female heroine abusers being abused overlooks the fact that a lot of sexual abuse occurs to non heroine users as well. Sigmund Freud himself did studies that indicated an astonishingly high rate of abuse for females, and the numbers were so hard to believe that he decided they must not be true.

Your argument that heroine use is unchanged, and therefore law enforcement is pointless, seems to overlook the more obvious possibility. Law enforcement has been keeping it low, when it's normal tendency is to do something like this.



EXPONENTIAL GROWTH.

The chart kinda looks like velocity in a gravitational field. The Constant pressure of the drug war could be construed as the equivalent of a thruster against gravity. Stop thrusting and you fall. Now you would have us believe that in the absence of thrust, we would levitate, and this just seems hard to believe.

[Diogenes]

In your beloved Oklahoma:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... pture.html

This is a story of street level crime by officers of various government anti-drug organizations in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

After evidence of the officers’ misconduct came to light, federal agent Brandon McFadden pled guilty to drug conspiracy and testified against other TPD officers. An excerpt from former Agent McFadden’s guilty plea reveals his involvement in the scandal:

From January 7th of — to May of 2008, I conspired with others, including Tulsa police officer, Jeff Henderson, to distribute methamphetamine in the Northern District of Oklahoma. During the time period . . . I used the position as a special agent with ATF to further the drug conspiracy and abused my position as a special agent. During this time, myself and Henderson seized drugs and money which were kept for our own personal benefit, falsified investigative reports, and failed to document events, and obstruct justice through falsely [sic] testimony under oath and persuading other individuals to do the same.

I'm sure this was just an isolated incident. After all, America has the most moral people and the most moral police in the world. Especially in Oklahoma. The Buckle of the Bible Belt. Just a few bad apples. Besides it is probably worse elsewhere in the country. Uh. Oh.

I am as much responsible for (Oil Rich Liberal) Tulsa as you are for Chicago.

[Diogenes]

So D,

How do you propose to end the drug problem if the police are conspiring to deliver them?

Well, first we have to demonstrate to the people that we aren't foolish by focusing on a problem which is relatively trivial compared to all others which we are currently facing. It's called "triage." If we are so senseless as to put the drug problem ahead of things that are actually a lot closer to threatening our survival, then we can't be expected to solve the drug problem either.

Financial solvency first. (Governments must live within our means.)

Stabilization of the domestic economic situation. (Unemployment, housing, etc.)

Stabilization of Foreign economic conditions as much as we are able. (it's all an interconnected house of cards.)

A lessening of financial support for our foreign enemies and other nations which bear us no good will. (Increase North American Oil production)

The Drug issue? Maintain a holding pattern until efforts can be brought to bear during conditions commiserate with it's importance, which at this point is not very.

The drug issue is just noise.

[Diogenes]

The corruption caused by drugs could be said to do even more harm than the effects of the drugs themselves.

http://www.rense.com/general20/link.htm

This is a mantra constantly repeated by those who wish to make it legal. They would rather have the unknown bird in the bush than the known bird in the hand.

I daresay the harmful effects of legal drugs would dwarf anything we now consider bothersome about prohibiting them.

[ScottL]

D,

With a graph like that you'll need to back it up with actual numbers. You know the drill, you can't just say something is true, you have to prove it.

[KitemanSA]

D,

With a graph like that you'll need to back it up with actual numbers. You know the drill, you can't just say something is true, you have to prove it.

The thing "D" refuses to acknowledge is that the Chinese experience was NOT a case of people "choosing" to use drugs in a free system but the result of a CONSERTED effort by the Brtitish Government to recoup some of "their" gold that had been accumulating in China (the Brits LOVED Chinese nick-nacks you know).
The growth was due to strong external pressure by ONE group in a land where importing the drugs was illegal; so there was no competition. Kind of like what we have now.

The Maoist government then used the addicts as an excuse to eliminate many people.

[Diogenes]

D,

With a graph like that you'll need to back it up with actual numbers. You know the drill, you can't just say something is true, you have to prove it.

You are new to this discussion. The source of the numbers has been posted many times before. Most participants are already familiar with where this information came from, and as far as I know no one is objecting to the numbers shown on the chart as being inaccurate. Just read through this thread and I think you can find the link back to where these numbers came from.

The point is, It took 140 years to go from ZERO chests of opium per year to 40,000 chests of opium per year. How anyone in their right mind can argue that this doesn't prove there was a growing demand is beyond my ability to comprehend. The fact is, advocates of loose drug laws just do not like this piece of information.

[Diogenes]

D,

With a graph like that you'll need to back it up with actual numbers. You know the drill, you can't just say something is true, you have to prove it.

The thing "D" refuses to acknowledge is that the Chinese experience was NOT a case of people "choosing" to use drugs in a free system but the result of a CONSERTED effort by the Brtitish Government to recoup some of the gold that had been accumulating in China.

Are we supposed to believe that the British went around with pipes forcing people to smoke them? The stuff markets itself. It doesn't need coercion.

The growth was due to strong external pressure by ONE group in a land whenre importing the drugs was illegal; so there was no competition. Kind of like what we have now.

Not quite right. The British forced the Chinese to legalize the stuff. The addictions skyrocketed after that.

The Maoist government then used the addicts as an excuse to eliminate many people.

A predictable outcome. You allow a nation to get half it's population addicted to a serious narcotic, and it becomes helpless to defend itself from either external or internal enemies. An Addicted population will always produce a dictator. You just have to look further down the probability curve than the short term.

[MSimon]

OK. Emotional arguments beat rational arguments. But do they lead to good policy? Of course. And we have the Democrat policies in America to prove it.

So are you endeavoring to raise the level of discourse or lower it? Because if your aim is to lower it the Ds will beat your azz silly.

I'm looking forward to it.

Things like: "Spending doesn't matter when people are going without medical care." Or "Why are junkies denied medicine and forced to get theirs on the street?" Or, "Why when Whites and Blacks use and sell drugs in roughly equal proportions (per capita) are Blacks about 8X as likely to go to prison? Republicans, who are the main supporters of this program, are racists." Actually it is just that Republicans are ignorant. In the main because the just don't want to know. It would shake their faith. It will get worse. The breaking of Drug Prohibition will discredit their faith. Something D thinks is important to maintain. How ironic. Deliciously ironic.

I'm looking forward to it.

[MSimon]

D,

Drugs do not cause addiction. If they did everyone who tries heroin would be a junkie. Only about 1/10th of the people who try heroin get addicted. And only about 1/10th the population ever tries the stuff. I tried morphine once - in the Navy - administered by a Navy nurse, in a Navy Hospital (Long Beach). So why aren't I a junkie? No pain, no need.

Addiction is caused by pain. Those in chronic pain will be chronic users. Well duh.

So why were there so many users in China? For the same reason alcohol use in America was so high during our development era. Conditions were very harsh.

You want fewer junkies? Do something about child abuse. That causes long term pain for those genetically predisposed. Fortunately we do not have to worry about generally harsh conditions. Except for our warriors and victims of child abuse.

Look up the "addictive personality" theory that was once so prevalent. It was supposed to explain why everyone who tried drugs didn't become a life long user. No one could define it. Which should have been a clue right there.

Oh. Well. My arguments are merely logical and evidence based. They have no chance with D.

[MSimon]

For 90+ years emotion has reigned supreme on the drug question. Reason is now rearing its ugly head. Dang.

80% of the American people favor med-pot. 76% say drug prohibition is not working. 57% of men favor legalization (the Rs are the man's party). There are not enough "moral" people to win an election. Four more years of Obama and the Ds. Fine by me. Enjoy.

As Casey Stengel once said,"Can't anybody here play this game?".

[ladajo]

D,

Drugs do not cause addiction. If they did everyone who tries heroin would be a junkie. Only about 1/10th of the people who try heroin get addicted. And only about 1/10th the population ever tries the stuff. I tried morphine once - in the Navy - administered by a Navy nurse, in a Navy Hospital (Long Beach). So why aren't I a junkie? No pain, no need.

Addiction is caused by pain. Those in chronic pain will be chronic users. Well duh.

So why were there so many users in China? For the same reason alcohol use in America was so high during our development era. Conditions were very harsh.

You want fewer junkies? Do something about child abuse. That causes long term pain for those genetically predisposed. Fortunately we do not have to worry about generally harsh conditions. Except for our warriors and victims of child abuse.

Look up the "addictive personality" theory that was once so prevalent. It was supposed to explain why everyone who tried drugs didn't become a life long user. No one could define it. Which should have been a clue right there.

Oh. Well. My arguments are merely logical and evidence based. They have no chance with D.

You are arguing that dosage does not matter. I PROMISE YOU that I can get you addicted to heroine or cocaine. You choose. You have a very weak arguement on this that we have discussed before. The primary means that dealers use to increase the sales base is "sampling". Many producers also use it as a means to control the "employees". They force usage to get them hooked and then they own them. Literally. You know all that.