Chatham House

Chatham House Magazine has a slate of drug war articles in the current issue; some good, some atrocious. The current issue is free to read online, so you can check them out now.

In the atrocious category are:

These are like badly written high school papers – confused and rambling all over the place. Really pathetic – like they know that legalization isn’t supposed to be the answer, but they don’t really have a rebuttal for it, so they just wander around.

Vanda doesn’t even seem to know the difference between outlawing and legalizing!

Why outlawing drugs is not an answer

Although frequently portrayed as an effective solution to the problem of organized crime, mere legalization of illicit economies, particularly of drugs, is no panacea.

In the category of moderately OK, is an interview with Mark Kleiman, which unfortunately, concludes with:

Surely reform has to be better than prohibition?

This drug policy reform narrative is based on two false claims. One, it’s possible to substitute regulation and taxation for prohibition and still prevent a mass upsurge in use. I’d like to see how you can do that. The other fallacy is that prohibition is an original sin: once you have committed prohibition you cannot have a sensible drug policy. But I’m convinced we could have policies where most illicit drugs remain illicit but cause much less damage. Against that claim both the prohibitionists and the drug policy reformers will protest.

Here’s the guy who says everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts, and yet he has no problem labeling “false claims” two areas merely because they disagree with his opinion.

He believes that regulated legalization will cause a massive upsurge in use, but cannot prove it, yet those who don’t believe are considered factually wrong. He believes that there is such a thing as sensible drug policy with prohibition, but except for certain populations, he can’t prove it, and yet those who believe we must dismantle prohibition are somehow making false claims.

There are a number of other articles in the issue with some good stuff. Check it out.

[Thanks, Evert]
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Chatham House

  1. strayan says:

    This drug policy reform narrative is based on two false claims. One, it’s possible to substitute regulation and taxation for prohibition and still prevent a mass upsurge in use. I’d like to see how you can do that.

    Dear Mr Kleiman:

    No interdiction or supply reduction policies necessary.

  2. allan says:

    C’mon Mark…

    […] two false claims. One, it’s possible to substitute regulation and taxation for prohibition and still prevent a mass upsurge in use.

    Prohibitionist folks and theirr crystal balls… throw in a little display of hysterics (mass upsurge in use!!!) in there and by dog, you’ve created a bogeyman to scare the timid townfolks with.

    O’ course it might behoove Mark to note some o’ them villagers are carrying pikes, pitchforks and torches.

    Besides he’s not using a bit of significant data (it uh, kinda negates the hysteria)(and uh, the whole “mass upsurge” notion):

    Study of 4000 indicates marijuana discourages use of hard drugs.

    Medical marijuana users in substance abuse treatment

    Besides… as many have long stated, the other “hard” drugs just aren’t that appealing to the majority of folks.

    Or, put simply… as my uncle used to say, “mass upsurge my ass.” (disclaimer: I just made that up)(but if I had that kind of uncle he sure woulda said it!)

  3. Scott says:

    “But I’m convinced we could have policies where most illicit drugs remain illicit but cause much less damage.”

    To use Kleiman’s own words:

    “I’d like to see how you can do that.”

    Kleiman is obviously full of crap.

    I agree, Pete. There is no evidence that prohibition works at all (we do not even have a drug-free prison system), and therefore no basis for believing in a spike in use upon repealing the CSA.

    I know people whom do not like cannabis, for example. Even though they have access to it, they refuse to use it.

    It is at least equally plausible that the limits of current illicit drug use are due to market saturation (demand and supply are already maxed out).

    Serious substance abuse apparently is the result of people trying to deal with excessive unhealthy stress (i.e. a serious imbalance in their lives). The illicit status of arbitrarily selected drugs only makes this already bad situation much worse.

    The notion that repealing the CSA (that is unconstitutional, given the irrational application of the Commerce Clause — to abandon rationality is to abandon law) would not also be backed by ever-strengthening legitimate efforts to prevent and treat drug abuse is ridiculous.

    It is truly amazing and horrifying to watch so many people make careers out of talking out of their ass, including dismissing the essential unalienable right to liberty and the dominating absence of experimental science to justify such illicit status.

  4. strayan says:

    I know people whom do not like cannabis, for example. Even though they have access to it, they refuse to use it.

    Around 90%[1] of Californians abstain from smoking tobacco despite abundant supply.

    I’d say your hypothesis is pretty sound.


  5. Francis says:

    This drug policy reform narrative is based on two false claims. One, it’s possible to substitute regulation and taxation for prohibition and still prevent a mass upsurge in use. I’d like to see how you can do that.

    Um, no. The “drug policy reform narrative” (at least mine) is based on the belief that individuals have a fundamental right to exercise sovereignty over their own bodies and consciousness. It’s also based on the belief that the use of state violence to protect people from themselves is illegitimate and counter-productive. It’s based on the belief that the direct and indirect consequences of that violence cause far more suffering and death than the prohibited drugs themselves. Does my position depend on “prevent[ing] a mass upsurge in use”? No. As we’ve now explained dozens of times, use does not equal abuse. If, following legalization, there’s a large increase in the number of people who choose to safely and responsibly alter their consciousness with a substance other than alcohol, that will be just fine with me. More importantly, that’s not my decision to make. It’s not yours either, Mark.

    The other fallacy is that prohibition is an original sin: once you have committed prohibition you cannot have a sensible drug policy.

    Huh? Sure you can. It’s called repeal. It’s called learning from your mistakes. It’s called 1933. (I’m sure you had a point there, but I can’t figure out what it was.)

    But I’m convinced we could have policies where most illicit drugs remain illicit but cause much less damage. Against that claim both the prohibitionists and the drug policy reformers will protest.

    Again, huh? Why would prohibitionists protest that claim? That’s exactly what they say. And why are you referring to “prohibitionists” as though that’s some club to which you’re not a member? (Oh right, because you don’t want to prohibit all drugs.)

  6. claygooding says:

    Kleiman is a tool,,once a tool,always a tool(‘f’ can be substituted where it fits)

  7. primus says:

    Yes, a tool of the establishment–the system–the man. Charged with keeping us all ignorant and submissive. This is especially egregious as he appears to be intelligent enough to grasp the obvious, yet stubbornly refuses.

  8. Duncan20903 says:


    Something I’d like to point out about statements like Mr. Kleiman’s above is that they’re built on a presumption that prohibition works. Without defeating that underlying presumption we’re never going to convince these people that our society would be better off without it. No suggestions here for accomplishing that. I’d rather try to convince a religionist that god doesn’t exist.

    If prohibition works there must be a significant cohort of people who would be “drug addicts” in its absence. It’s a simple article of fear based blind faith.

    We see this mindset at work when we argue that eliminating cannabis prohibition would financially hurt the cartels with their response being that they cartels would merely import more of the deleterious substances. This requires the belief that addiction levels correlate to supply levels as well as the absurd belief that the cartels aren’t currently maximizing their gross revenue.

    Take this screed by Hamilton Nolan, published yesterday, for example: Marijuana Has Infiltrated America’s High Schools
    Marijuana, or “cheese” in street slang, is a drug derived from the cannabis plant, which users (or “esquires”) smoke or eat out of a hollowed-out apple core in order to achieve a “fix.” (…and you wonder why I call them Know Nothing prohibitionists, sheesh) While it’s obvious that Mr. Nolan is beyond cluelessness, the only way he could have come up with this fantasy is to believe that up until recently that high schools have actually been bereft of cannabis until recently. (Note: the commenters below Mr. Nolan’s article appear to have concluded that his diatribe is sarcasm and parody)

    It is this particular article of blind faith that makes prohibitionists blind to statistics like the steady decline of youth use of smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol but to continue squealing for more prohibition when they read that youth cannabis use is a 30 year highs.

    I admit that I’m out of ideas of how to prove that prohibition doesn’t work, when the “proof” that fuels their belief is invisible.

    This one is from the “I’m madder than hell and I’m not going to take it anymore” category:

    Police: Vermont man crushed cop cars with tractor

    The Associated Press

    MONTPELIER, Vt. — Working in a stout former bank building with windows closed and air conditioners humming, Orleans County sheriff’s deputies didn’t know what was happening in their parking lot until a neighbor called 911.

    A man on a big farm tractor, angry about his recent arrest for resisting arrest and marijuana possession, was rolling across their vehicles — five marked cruisers, one unmarked car and a transport van.

    By the time they ran outside, the tractor was down the driveway and out onto the road.

    With their vehicles crushed, “We had nothing to pursue him with,” said Chief Deputy Philip Brooks.

    • darkcycle says:


    • claygooding says:

      This is the kind of activities that will occur more frequently as the numbers in the polls rise for legalization,,because we are no longer the minority and it’s starting to influence our interactions with law enforcement and prohibs,,,,people are getting pissed,,and it’s about time.

      Also see the recent hoax pulled in San Diego with the drug stores being threatened with property seizures for delivering diverted pharm drugs,,,,really pissed that federal prosecutor off.

    • darkcycle says:

      Oh, and Mr. Nolan’s hyperbolic fright-piece gave me the giggles for nearly an hour. I had to go back and re-read. Priceless. You made my morning Duncan!

    • allan says:

      Tractor guy made the nat’l evening network news last night. A real creative act of civil disobedience. And I can easily see that there is little difference between his act of crushing cop cars and the Berrigan brothers hammering on warheads and nukular subs.

      Swords into plowshares indeed.

      And a question that just entered my head (without even knocking first! who’s in charge in there anyway?)…

      Is Prohibition treason?

  9. Servetus says:

    Kleiman treats recreational drugs as a commodity like sugar, as a substance waiting to invade every nursery and kindergarten class in America. The biggest controlling factor I see in drug use is culture, not taste buds.

    Culture typically determines which individualist uses which drug, with most modernists or progressives leaning toward soft drugs like marijuana and psychedelics, while the conservative and rural types are prone to focus on alcohol, meth and Oxycontin. For a while, and with the help of the CIA, black urban culture focused on crack; and so forth.

    Changing drug laws can involve appealing to a cultural factor or belief the legalizers have in common with an alternate drug culture. Another involves changing the culture itself such that it leads to a tolerance of a particular drug-taking kind of behavior. No culture I know of advocates drug use for children.

    If cultural restraints are the leading factor in controlling drug use, then legalization and regulation should have little impact on drug taking behavior.

    It should be easier to control drug taking behavior with culture and education emphasizing the true side effects of specific drugs. The forbidden fruit factor will be gone, which will be a counter to a long term rise in drug use once the curiosity factor is met. That and harm reduction policies will negate many of the medical problems with drugs. Science will understand and conquer biological addiction, and the evil and counter-productive menace of crime, punishment and persecution will be at an end.

  10. kaptinemo says:

    Something’s been bothering me for some time. Every time I hear this claim that cannabis use would ‘explode’…as if that would be a bad thing.

    Just think: the number of ‘domestic disturbance’ 911 calls would plummet, and those remaining would almost certainly be the alcohol-fueled, really dangerous variety, so police would have a good idea in advance of what they could expect.

    Fewer alcohol fueled car accidents…and I am not just talking about the inebriation but the attitude evinced by the (blessedly few) drunks I’ve had to deal with while traveling. As in (mainly young and inexperienced) guys getting juiced up and driving as if their cars were mechanical extensions of their penises or something.

    A cannabist learns very early on how much of a lifesaver that old “One car-length for every 10 MPH” rule, and being cautious rather than alcoholically daring. They’re a lot more careful, as studies down with cannabis-using drivers have shown. Just a couple examples of actual benefits.

    The whole nature of the culture would begin to change, and IMNHO to the better. But the cultural gatekeepers, the ones who favor the status quo, refuse to even consider that cannabis use is, perforce, less deleterious to that very culture. They’d prefer self-destructive substances like alcohol or tobacco to something that might actually be beneficial (as in cancer treatments).

    If that doesn’t illustrate mental illness on the part of those who claim to be thinking clearly, I don’t know what does.

    • Goblet says:

      kaptin- I agree – I have always thought the world would be a much better place if more people cannsumed. In fact, I trust cannabists more. I own a business, and when hiring, if I can ascertain that a potential employee is a friendly I am much more comfortable with them.

  11. Peter says:

    “The other fallacy is that prohibition is an original sin: once you have committed prohibition you cannot have a sensible drug policy…”

    Prohibition is not, and never was, a sensible drug policy. How can you have a sensible drug policy contiguous with the proven- failed, not-sensible system known as prohibition?

    • Servetus says:

      The deal is that a sin requires something beyond punishment. Punishment isn’t enough. Sin qualifies for persecution, torture, confiscation, stigmatization, kleptocracy, and so forth.

      This sort of thing always emerges from people who believe they’re doing their god’s will, and/or who have a messianic complex and believe they fill the role as some kind of demigod.

    • Duncan20903 says:

      Violating prohibition was the Original Sin in the Book of Genesis.

  12. Servetus says:

    How to Make Money Selling Drugs: New Anti-Drug War Documentary feat. Eminem, 50 Cent.”

    Truly excellent trailer.

  13. War Vet says:

    Neither these two stories mentioned the attacks on 9/11 –why? That was 100% caused by drug money (unless we are assuming Afghanistan has long been a 1st world nation full of riches and prosperity like the U.S., thus affording it). The violence in America is topnotch with illicit drugs and criminal enterprises –just read the news about U.S. soldiers getting killed in Afghanistan or Iraq via what drug money can afford . . . what about the gangs that shoot up streets and each other here in the U.S.? Drug prohibition was the leading factor in our recession and high unemployment rate . . . A $3trillion dollar war fighting drug money in the Middle East is a much greater factor than the housing market collapse or bailing out the banks and big companies. One Million in drug money in Afghanistan makes having $3 million in the U.S. look like typical minimum wage –one cannot buy shit with $3 million in the U.S. in comparison to what $ one million in Afghanistan can buy. Even the Brits cannot remember how drug money created various terrorist attacks in London or how drug money has forced them to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan for over a decade at huge economic costs. Waging a long war against drug money in Afghanistan didn’t work for Russia –and look at what it’s causing now . . . maybe we should call the U.S. the United Soviet States of America . . . a fitting name to be chiseled on our economic tombstone. So its OK to keep drugs illegal at the cost of providing illicit funding for roughly 8-20% of all the genocides . . . was the 80,000 dead Cambodians during the 70’s Polpot decade worth drug prohibition? Prohibitionists’ views and ideas were a threat to my life in 2008 Baghdad . . . I would be justified in killing anyone who thinks differently than I do when it comes to drug prohibition –one has a legal right to use violence as a means of protecting one’s life from danger and death . . . how many Americans lost their jobs because the war on drugs had a negative economic impact on the nation . . . does the inability to buy food and shelter create a threat against one’s life? In a black and white world of cause and effect: it was the American cop (DOJ and DEA) who went around taking peoples jobs away during this recession . . . the cops forced me at gunpoint (9/11) to go to war and then when I was there, they shot at me and my friends.

  14. thelbert says:

    the arab plane thieves that killed about 3000 stockbrokers and bankers in the world trade center were funded by oil money from saudi arabia. to avenge the deaths of the servants of the 1%, we have ruined our economy with trillions of dollars worth of war. the terrorists have won because of our stupid knee jerk reaction to sep 11. it’s typical tactic of the military to punish the whole unit for the misdeeds of one person. now it’s being applied to the american public. rather than punish the perpetrators, every air traveler gets punished. not a cost effective way to win a war. of course if we had invaded the saudis we would have had even more problems than we have today. i think the wisest course would have been to get bin laden and forget about invading innocent countries. of course, with greed heads like bush and cheney in office we had to make more war vets. because war means money to the 1 %. so don’t blame the drug money, blame the aristocracy of america. the enemies of the constitution. the war on terror and the war on drug users are wars of the aristos against the common people.

    • War Vet says:

      If oil money was to blame we would have had the CIA invade Arabia the way they covertly invaded Iran in the 1950’s. Oil money is legal money and legal money is not covert and has a paper trail. The American public and her politicans (to save face and be called electable heroes) would have boycotted Arab oil and Natural Gas or hemp fuels would have replaced oil fuels by 2003 (mostly). Iraq would have never been on the table . . . WMD’s would have not been the word of the day. Even Massoud admitted Osama was going to attack with his ally the Taliban and the Taliban made opium illegal for one year only and it was the year 2000 -as a means to increase the price of dope -to have more money for the storm a coming. Osama beleived that he could get America to come to Afghanistan and he beleived America would be there longer than a few years and he knew that drug money was the only way to do it. Oil is something you cannot grow, unlike drugs, which cost no money to grow, unlike drilling for oil, which has loads of workers and shippers to pay before making any money . . . oil can be stopped and checked and controlled the way we stopped the factories in Japan and Germany . . . take control of one oil field, you cannot create another one . . . destroy one dope field, you can create another one. The Arab people and rich oil men would never let oil finance 9/11 (maybe less than 2%) . . . they had no reason to attack us since we saved the Islamic world from Russia and Saddam . . . that’s like saying you burnt all your money as a method of investing it and letting it grow. Drugs are illegal and oil is not and oil is overt and drugs are covert, hence drug money is the perfect tool for anyone to use as a method of attacking another nation . . . its more likely that one used oil money to buy drugs so one’s oil money reappeaers on the streets of London and Moscow -with drug money to spare to buy or grow more drugs so more drugs can finance a militant agenda. If you truely beleived oil money is to blame, then its because you boycott all forms of oil and other petrol products -the way millions of Americans and Brits and Philipinos and Indians and Spainards and Chinese have after various terrorist attacks . . . oil for terrorism is bad for business and cannot be used. It was drug money my friend . . . read about the Soviet War with Afghanistan in the 1980’s and you will find out. If oil really did finance the attacks -then I bet you a million dollars that America is playing the role of a peaceful occupation akin to Korea and Japan and Germany and Italy after the war due to the fact that America, the U.N., NATO and her allies seized control of all the oil as a method of winning the war on terror and hired pro-Western oil workers and oil men to keep oil money out of enemy hands . . . I bet you would have heard about scandals about how the Saudi Princes had sex with goats and small birds and baby boys as a CIA method of creating an uproar against the Satanic Infedel Saudi Princes whom would have sex with animals, thus no longer deserving to rule the people with oil money, since oil money creates so many more oppurtunities for that nation, that they can elect their own people . . . they have a great standard of living because of oil and the wealth is spread out better than you believe (better than Iran or Iraq). There are too many flaws with believing in the lie that oil is to blame . . . the American people accept a lot of lies and a lot of shit from their gov’t, but they would never stand for their nation being attacked by rich oil men . . . there is too much history between Narco-Terror and Islamic terrorism happening over the world . . . oil is too risky. This means we are assuming the U.S.S. Cole attack was from oil money and the Beirut Barracks bombings that killed 200 American troops was from oil . . . the terrorist attacks of the World Olympics of China and Germany were from oil . . . Spain, London, 1993 WTC . . . U.S. Embassies etc. Oil creates too good of money for them to risk it . . . no way would they risk the world boycotting Arab/OPEC oil or losing control of it via CIA/Black ops. It was drug money -that’s why the DEA and DOJ had a field day with Anti-Drug propaganda after 9/11 and how we the users were to blame . . . it’s true -buying illegal drugs in Europe, Africa and Asia and some Heroin in America created 9/11 . . . that’s why Hollywood has so many drug money terrorism plots for movies -because it’s true . . . its true because the cops keep drugs illegal on a global level and the American DOJ endorsed the 1961 U.N. Single Convention on Drugs . . . Anslinger travled the world telling nations they should outlaw drugs based on his model and that’s where organized crime comes in and that’s where wars and terrorism being financed by the black market comes in. Its fitting if you think about it: to Keep drugs legal in China, Europe and America went to war with China in the 1800, hence Hong Kong and Macau . . . to keep drugs illegal in America and Europe, we allow ourselves to be at war. Don’t submit to thinking oil is to blame for 9/11 . . . if you beleive that then I bet you’d boycott anything that uses gasoline or is made from petrol plastics . . . you’d be surprised how much American fuel and goods come from Arab oil. I Boycott Starbucks because they donate money to Pro Drug Prohibtion groups in America -do you boycott fuel and plastics? Half a Million dollars to create 9/11 is a small ammount that looks more like drug money going to one cell after splitting the rest of the dope money amongst other cells around the world . . . oil money would have made a much bigger and grander attack . . . why would Arabia Attack us -what purpose did it have -did they want us in Kuwait or Iraq . . . did they want us in the Stan . . . why would a rich man want to lose all his money while wanting to still be rich? It makes no sense. If I’m wrong about drug money and 9/11, then I’m wrong about thinking the drug cartels of Mexico use drug money to wage their war . . . it comes from Mexican Gulf Oil and their Media etc. Explaine Massoud and his warnings stemming from threats comming from Afghanistan/Pakistan’s Taliban/Al Qaeda link. Remember the rule of logic that states drug money had to play into 8% of the Cambodian genocide and 8% of Rwanda and 20% of Darfur etc due to time and place. Drug money gives thugs control and a fighting chance at destorying America with a long war of attrition.

      • Duncan20903 says:


        War Vet, it is very easily obtainable information that the lion’s share of al Queda’s funding previous to 9/11 came from Osama bin Laden. Mr. bin Laden was worth a couple of billion dollars, and that was oil money from a very wealthy Saudi family. It doesn’t mean that the Saudi government was involved.

        Say, did you know that Mr. bin Laden and his merry men received extensive training from the US government which was obsessed with defeating the USSR? If you are old enough you might recall when the USSR tried to assimilate Afghanistan. The truly ironic thing about these events is that the USSR’s government was >< that close to imploding simply because of the way their economy was run. But the US government decided to get into bed with al Queda, except in that day we called them the Afghani Freedom Fighters.

        • War Vet says:

          Osama’s family wasn’t into oil. Bin Laden had very little money as you have read. Remember the large war in Algeria in the 90’s . . . legal money he inherited would have dried up. Osama was kicked out of Arabia and out of his family. I believe fighting drug money in the Stan was the straw that broke the camel’s back for the U.S.S.R. It’s not logical that Al Qaeda received most of their funding from Bin Laden’s inherited money . . . he was in the Stan fighting Russians and would have had access to CIA protected dope, which would have made him money. Bin Laden would have gone broke bombing various embassies and waging war in Algeria and the Sudan in the 90’s . . . Bin Laden was promised is very own province in Afghanistan. Most logically, he spent the money his family gave him on drugs so his money could grow like a doped up Washington Mutual . . . If I’m wrong, then explain Massoud –explain the year 2000 with the opium ban on less than 100% of Afghanistan’s dope . . . supply and demand would rise the price of heroin as a method of getting more money for the storm a coming. Bin Laden was not a rich man after a long war in Algeria if he only used inherited money . . . his money would have been frozen after 1993 (mostly frozen), but drug money is hard to prove a link, therefore it’s the most logical avenue of approach. I’ve spent the last three years proving this and received a BA when I finally proved this to a bunch of stiff necked professors . . . You cannot negate 3yrs of research from God knows how many sources found in libraries and gov’t websites. There is no online evidence or university or military research evidence that states Osama had a billion dollars, let alone a hundred million dollars . . . his family didn’t give him that much . . . you are making him look like the favorite oldest son of the Bin Ladens, which is not true . . . his family didn’t like him because they thought he was radical. No nation’s website, let alone the U.N. or Al Jazerra or University or Wiki will ever state Osama had money worthy enough to wage war from the mid-80’s to 2001 . . . you know as well as I do that he was broke by the year 1989 if he used legal inherited money ($10 Million a year reported operating power of Al Qaeda) . . . if what you mean is that he used his daddy’s money to buy dope in Afghanistan/Pakistan/Lebanon/Malawi/Morocco/Muslim India/Muslim Thailand etc, then you are right. You cannot burry money under the ground and expect it to grow in leaps and bounds –the only way one’s money can grow is by investing it in the illegal drug market where it has very little paper trails to prove its existence. I would have received my Ph.D proving drug money was the main culprit as a graduate thesis, but the war changed much of my life’s goals. Do you remember the IRA in Ireland –they used Drug money to wage ‘The Troubles’ in Ireland after the 1961 U.N. Single Convention on Narcotics. The CIA gave Bin Laden the ‘green light’ to have access to opium and heroin via a legal law called the ‘Revolutionary Tax’ which made growing opium and making heroin legal as a method of rebuilding one’s nations and fighting Russians. Bin Laden had no significant amount of inherited money, there’s no website or book that will say that . . . it’s about smuggling with Pakistan and Iran –that’s how one makes enough money to wage an attack that would bring a nation to a long war in a foreign place . . . even Osama admitted his tactics . . . Bin laden sincerely believed he could get America to spend more than a few years in Afghanistan at trillions of dollars . . . he wrote this before 9/11 in his ‘Revolutionary Guide to Jihad’. Read it –its chilling.

        • War Vet says:

          Duncan -I’ve been using the war with Russia and the Revolutionary tax as my proof that Bin Ladne made most of his money on dope, which financed 9/11 -which financed Afghanistan . . . Hamas and Hezbollha are reported to use drug money as well . . . there is no proof that the Iraqi insurgency used oil money to fight us when we invaded Iraq because all the oil comes from the Kurds and the Kurds loves us more than you love your favorite pet . . . put the PKK uses drug money and we are not (yet) on the PKK shit list -hence drug money -drug money -drug money . . . If I’m wrong, then I’m wrong to think that drug money is used by the drug cartels in Mexico to wage their war.

        • Duncan20903 says:

          Have it your way. I learned a long time ago to not bother to argue with the tin foil hat crowd.

        • War Vet says:

          If you don’t bother reading more than one source or at least more than 25-45 sources from around the world (yes, illegal drugs exist outside the U.S.), how could you argue any way . . . sounds like you’re the one into Conspiracy theories . . Too much Fox News for you . . . maybe your tin foil hat is covering your eyes and ears, keeping you from reading various sources from within the U.S. and outside the U.S . . . keeping you from hearing the cries and screams of the dead, wounded and the families of war and 9/11. I was just trying to shine some truth onto your narrow view of the war on drugs . . . I’m the one that saw the Mexicans, Russians, Nigerians and Italian Mafia dope dealers and traffickers locked up in a CIA/Military Baghdad war Prison . . . what prison were you in? If you didn’t hurt your hands from clapping “I do believe in fairies” so hard, you might be able to open up a few books and type up on some international websites and academic scholarly websites you can read for a small fee or for free at University . . . people like you don’t bother to believe the truth and refuse to react and you allow my friends to die for drug money -volunteers so you won’t be drafted . . . and if you are a war vet -negate the above -I’ll say you have the right to believe whatever you want -but if you are not a veteran while not boycotting your taxes which keeps drugs illegal and soldiers fighting drug money, then I demand some respect . . . war is stranger than the most bizarre thing you can ever imagine and 100Xs more horrifying . . . you really think the chaos of war and the secretes of the Black market combined together will give up her secretes to those whom only read a few newspaper blerbs and internet blogs?

          What –you expected me to sit back on my laptop and do nothing while drug money invaded the U.S. in 2001 –the first time America was invaded by a foreign enemy since 1812 (Pear Harbor wasn’t a part of the U.S. back in 1941’ remember) . . . or are you going to do something about it more than just get on the internet and argue against facts . . . If I was to say 1 plus 1 equals 2 –you’d argue with me wouldn’t you? I wrote to the famous Congressman, Tom Coburn about my whole ‘9/11 was from drug money and all if not most of our war dead from drug money etc etc’ thing and all he did was agree with me and told me that the U.S. was doing everything in her power to stop drug dealers globally . . . sounded like the same war on drugs scheme to me. Even if you don’t stand up Duncan –you’ll still fall down. I write this to you because I know my friends died in combat because the U.S./U.N. keeps drugs illegal . . . because we went to war to seek revenge for 9/11 because drugs were illegal. All I require out of you is your belief (or at least 3 dozen websites from well established and respected government, university and news sources stating it was Arab oil) Bin Laden’s family’s money comes from construction –not oil. If the ‘stop the drug war’ community got hundreds of people to see that drugs killed 6000 plus troops and 3000 from 9/11 –it changes the fucking ball game . . . make them realize that drug money most likely financed the deaths of 10,000 U.S. troops in Vietnam (by the time you account for region, precedents of what the CIA had done –can be done by others and history –you get that amount . . . something a College Logic class could teach you to calculate all on your own without always being spoon fed your ABC’s and learning from others).

          Put down the bong for once and let everybody know . . . quit using your tinfoil hat to smoke meth and heroin with –throw it away Duncan. Congress doesn’t give a damn how many U.S. troops die because drugs are illegal (maybe they are ignorant like you and don’t see the full picture –how much deeper the waters have to be dragged to find the dead bodies –the treasure of knowledge) . . . they don’t care drug prohibition cost $3 trillion dollars from 9/11 to today . . . but the people will –or are more likely to do something after getting the facts (God I hope they do). If you don’t dig deep yourself –or at least take my word for it –I blame you for killing my friends and causing 9/11 . . . It took individual German citizens to let Hitler rein. Look up Narco-Terrorism . . . read DEA and CIA fact sheets . . . read the 9/11 study . . . look up Guinea-Bissau and Narco-Terror . . . read Al Jazerra, National Geographic, the U.N. website, NY Times, U.K. Guardian, BBC . . . Swiss and German think tanks regarding Narco-Terror . . . U.S. War College etc etc etc. You would fail high school or college because of your lack of desire to research the answers . . . Do your part as a citizen and quit letting cops kill my fellow soldiers and destroy millions of jobs via denied industrial hemp. Too many politicians and newpapers I have written to . . . time for others to pick up the slack and make bigger splashes in the pool. Don’t be a part of the problem by limiting what you can do to fight the war on drugs . . . diversify . . . study cause and effect. Don’t be a coward Duncan . . . don’t be just some stereotyped lazy pot head waiting for the news to tell you how high to jump and who to vote for . . . turn of Jersey Shore . . . let me give you a push in the right direction: the Opium Wars . . . trace it back and draw the line forward. I will never lie to you Duncan and I’m right because I did the research as a concerned citizen. Don’t drink the Kool-Aid . . . it’s too cold and it will give you brain freeze and red lips and is bad for your health. How about this: I bet you my life I’m right . . . do you trust your stats to wager your life . . . many a fine young woman and boy did fighting for this country –don’t fail them.

        • Green Tea says:

          Tone done on the PTSD War Vet. We’re all on the same side here. One guy insults you and you write a whole damn novel on the drug war, which by the way, I’m still googleing some of that stuff you posted, like Narcoterrorism. I dont like what I see about it. It makes me sick to think we let our brave troops walk into a drug terrorism nightmare based on a drug terrorism attack on our Nation less than 12 years ago. i dont know. ignorance is bliss. Ill believe Duncan tonight just so I can get some sleep, but you have filled my head with stuff I didn’t expect, so Ill just smoke some and try to forget about it. Can we all just get along in here. Dont be calling the boy a ‘tin foil hat’ wearing guy Duncan. He never once mentioned anything about UFOs and JFK’s assassination. Maybe the war on drugs for War Vet guy is realer for him than it is for any of us. Maybe he beggs the question, better to get arrested for drugs than to be a double amputee veteran of the drug war? IDK. War Vet, dont bite back at the Gratful Dead bear guy OK, even if he started. Both of you guys are wearing tinfoil hats now.

  15. FlyingTooLow says:

    All card-carrying members of the DEA need to read: Shoulda Robbed a Bank

    Here is one of its reviews:

    5.0 out of 5 stars… If David Sedaris had written ‘Catcher in the Rye’..this would be it, June 30, 2012

    Amazon Verified Purchase
    This review is from:

    Shoulda Robbed a Bank (Kindle Edition)

    I have never smoked pot in my life…nor do I ever care to.
    I read about this book in numerous Huffington Post comments. Thought I would read it because I know nothing about marijuana or the people involved with it. I am ecstatic that I did. Funny, Funny, Funny!!!
    The chapters are like short stories. Stories about unloading boats with helicopters, close encounters with law enforcement, traveling through the jungles of South America. The chapter about the author’s first time smoking marijuana made me feel like I was with him…coughing.
    All of the characters were just a group of loveable, nice guys and girls. Not what I had been raised to believe…hysterical maniacs high on pot bent on death and mayhem. They were nothing like that.
    If you have ever read any of David Sedaris’ books, and like them…you will love Shoulda Robbed a Bank.
    And the crazy things happening reminded me of Holden Caufield in ‘Catcher in the Rye’ and the way he staggered through life.
    The way the words are put together are like nothing I have ever heard. I am sure I will use many of the sayings found in this book just to dazzle my friends. A terrific read. I love this book.

    • Duncan20903 says:

      Once could be considered informative. More than once is spam. Perhaps your next book could be “shoulda hired a publicist”?

  16. FlyingTooLow says:

    With all of the rhetoric surrounding the marijuana debate, the item most overlooked:


    “…over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign”.”
    — from the essay On Liberty by John Stuart Mill

Comments are closed.