Guatemala leader to propose legalizing drugs

[Judi Lynn]

Guatemala leader to propose legalizing drugs
Feb. 11, 2012 02:56 PM
Associated Press

GUATEMALA CITY -- Guatemalan President Otto Perez Molina said Saturday he will propose legalizing drugs in Central America in an upcoming meeting with the region's leaders.

Perez Molina said in a radio interview that his proposal would include decriminalizing the transportation of drugs through the area.

"I want to bring this discussion to the table," he said. "It wouldn't be a crime to transport, to move drugs. It would all have to be regulated."

~snip~
"There was talk of the success of Plan Colombia but all it did was neutralize big cartels," Perez Molina said of a U.S. initiative supporting Colombia's fight against leftist rebels and far-right militias involved in the drug trade.

More:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/02/11/20120211guatemala-leader-propose-legalizing-drugs.html#ixzz1m7DRDHrR

[truedelphi]

1. Just as back in the day, the USA's CIA did everything to keep other nations giving us

Oil and other resources, they now work for the International Needs of Big Pharma. Expect a coup in Guatemala very very soon. This coup will make what happened in Iran in 1953 when we ousted the democratically elected leader there look like a child's picnic in comparison. Besides, those pesty Union Leaders are making headway with the textile workers, and we have to protect the International Elite so their slave camps can continue.

[a la izquierda]

2. Perez Molina is a right wing leader with links to human rights violations...

it won't take a coup to make him change his mind. Just a little pressure from the US.

[stockholmer]

3. the ghostly penumbra of the United Fruit Company will be ushered forth......

[a la izquierda]

4. Yep...

I love/hate teaching this stuff. I love it because my students (and all Americans) need to know it. I hate it because I'm usually depressed afterwards.

[Peace Patriot]

7. I don't think he's disobeying anybody. I think something else is up...

...especially since the rightwing president of Colombia, Manuel Santos, said something similar prior to Molina not long ago--proposing legalization.

See below.

I'm not sure what's going on. But I suspect that it's Big Pharma's move, at long last, to gain control over the recreational and addictive drugs that are now illicit. There's been a lot of preliminary work, consolidating this trade into the hands of the rich few (the U.S. "war on drugs," i.e., the U.S. war on the smaller networks and farmers). Time to pull this big money-maker out of the darkness and into the "light" of insurance-run, Big Pharma-run, medical profiteer "regulation."

See below, my ruminations on the politics of it. In short, it is nearly impossible to believe that a rightwing--indeed, fascist--operative like Molina is into "good government" and "personal freedom" or that he has any objection to this "war on the poor" and its many war profiteers. I've discussed some of the other "players" below.

Molina's election WAS a coup, I suspect. During the last election in Guatemala, something like FIFTY candidates and their campaign workers--mostly leftists--were murdered. A leftist won the presidency but the fascists may have been thinking and planning long term. (They tried to get rid of the leftist president with a very weird "scandal" but failed. That president, Colom, never had much power.) I don't know what the toll was this time, in murdered leftists, but the toll last time gives you some idea of how utterly corrupt and bloody the election process is, in Guatemala. Threats, intimidation, stuffing ballot boxes, criminal gang involvement, etc., can be presumed. Fascists can't get elected any other way.

So, I don't think Molina is doing anything to offend the "powers that be" here--or to get himself couped. There is one precedent of a "centrist" president going "leftist" and getting couped--in Honduras. But Mel Zelaya was never a fascist and was not corrupt. He got couped for siding with the labor unions and the grass roots political reform movement in Honduras. Upshot: It's POSSIBLE that Molina has gone "off the reservation" but not at all likely. I think, instead, that he and Santos are playing out a script and the scriptwriter is probably the CIA.

I could be wrong. I admit that. It's hard to see "behind the curtain." But I'd be interested to know what you think of my analysis thus far.

[a la izquierda]

24. I think your analysis is spot on...

but it is hard to tell what's happening politically down there sometimes, until after the fact. My thinking that US pressure would make him change his mind (if that indeed happens) comes from the events surrounding Vicente Fox's toying with the idea of decriminalizing marijuana, cocaine and heroin. I don't remember the year, but of course this coincided with Bush's presidency, and the idea got kibboshed (sp?).

I pay a lot more attention to current events in Mexico than I do in central America, mostly because it directly affects my life and my job. So you're probably a bit more up on the latest in Guatemala than I am.

[quakerboy]

11. With that in mind

His statements sound more like a bid for US Aid/buyoff dollars than a serious plan.

[Peace Patriot]

5. This is the 2nd rightwing LatAm leader to propose legalizing drugs...

... (that I'm aware of), plus a recent commission of former presidents of Mexico recommended legalizing marijuana and re-thinking the entire "war on drugs." I'm not sure of those commissioners' political persuasion but I got the impression that it was a non-partisan recommendation, i.e., consensus of the Mexican political establishment.

But it is the rightwing speaking up that is so jaw-dropping. Generally, the U.S. "war on drugs" bolsters the fascist elements in LatAm society--the military, the police, "conservative" hard-liners. Why would they be biting the hand that feeds them? Indeed, Molina in particular has campaigned with a "hard fist" symbol and "anti-crime" rhetoric (--the kind of rhetoric that I generally dismiss as utterly hypocritical, with good reason). HE wants to legalize drugs?!

But the one that floored me was Manuel Santos, the new rightwing president of Colombia, who recently (prior to Molina's statement) said that, while he "would be crucified" if he proposed legalizing drugs, he could support somebody else in the region taking the initiative. This, in a country that has been ravaged by the U.S. "war on drugs" for two decades and is still the cocaine capitol of the world--which I suspect was the U.S. intent under the Bush Junta (not to end the drug trade but to profit from it).

There appears to be a fierce power struggle going on within the rightwing party in Colombia, between Santos and former president of Colombia and Bush Junior crony, Alvaro Uribe, and I suspect that the struggle may, at bottom, be about 'mafia' control of the country, with Uribe being a "made man" (who ran the country during the Bush Junta as a criminal cartel) and Santos representing a cleaner element in Colombia's establishment, including, for instance, the prosecutors and judges who are going after Uribe for his many crimes and possibly including business interests that are either legit or now want to go legit to benefit from U.S. "free trade for the rich."

A couple of the leftist leaders in the region have done more than talk. Bolivia threw the DEA out of the country and legalized the coca leaf as a sacred Indigenous medicine (didn't legalize cocaine, though). Ecuador shut down one of the main U.S. "war on drugs" military bases in the region and kicked one U.S. embassy operative out of the country (who was trying to directly control Ecuador's anti-drug forces). Venezuela long ago severed ties to the U.S. "war on drugs." Both Venezuela and Bolivia have been much more successful at busting big drug lords and criminal networks since they got rid of U.S. "war on drugs" operatives. Also, it should be noted that the "Black Eagles"--a rightwing criminal organization involved in murder, blackmail, drug trafficking and other crimes, and with ties to Uribe--has been busted inside Venezuela and may well have been working with the CIA to infiltrate and destabilize Venezuela.

However, none of the many new leftist leaders in LatAm openly support outright legalization of drugs (that I know of)--although all of them, I believe, understand very well that the U.S. "war on drugs" is an important WEAPON in the U.S. war against leftist democracies.

I find it fascinating that two rightwing leaders are proposing legalization. What's going on here?

The Mexican presidents commission indicates the prevalence of the pro-legalization view. It is the common wisdom among LatAm leaders and peoples, and it has broad implications, for instance, as to LatAm countries' sovereignty. LatAm sentiment is overwhelmingly opposed to U.S. domination and expansion of the Pentagon's footprint in the region. But it is still notable that it is rightwing leaders who have "come out of the closet" on legalization of drugs.

It's often hard to see behind the utter bullshit that comes out of our own government--for instance, on the "war on drugs" or, say, on 'human rights' in LatAm--to what is really going on among the powers that control us. For instance, the war between the CIA and the Pentagon (that Rumsfeld and Cheney started) and that came to a head during Katrina (2005) and was resolved when Rumsfeld was ousted (2006)-- probably by intervention of Bush Sr (and his "Iraq Study Group" which included Leon Panetta)--was very hard to see. The Cheney/Rumsfeld outings of the CIA anti-WMD project was just the 'tip of the iceberg' of those events, in my opinion.

So, what is going on now, with this apparent struggle between the political and criminal factions on the right in Colombia and these two rightwing presidents (Colombia, Guatemala) wanting drug legalization?

We gotta figure Panetta's hand is behind it. I think he personally yanked Uribe from the stage as one of his first acts as CIA Director. I suspect that that action was part of an effort to cover up Bush Jr's criminal trail in Colombia (which is threatening to come out, as Colombia's prosecutors go after Uribe). But apart from preventing 'embarrassing' revelations and trying to keep Bush Junta principles out of various potential courtrooms, is Panetta (and are Obama/Clinton) trying to construct an entirely new U.S. strategy in LatAm, one that is less expensive (no more billions of taxpayer dollars for the failed "war on drugs&quot , and less militaristic, murderous and outright lawless but that still serves U.S. transglobal corporate interests?

Another question that arises is: Why, if Panetta is a Bush Cartel operative (and how can he not be, as a member of Bush Sr's inner circle*), and if the Bush Cartel (during Jr's junta) was using the "war on drugs" to consolidate and control the trillion+ dollar cocaine trade (lots of evidence pointing to this), do they now want drugs legalized?

Common wisdom is that legalization will dramatically drop the price of recreational and addictive drugs, so the motive is not obvious--though it may be a strategy that allows for a temporary loss of revenue to be followed by monopoly control of these substances and consequent jacking back up of prices, once legalization is in place.

Another factor in this discussion is that the U.S. "war on drugs" combined with its other wars have bankrupted the U.S. U.S. "war machine" economies have to come from somewhere. The total cost of the U.S. "war on drugs" alone is astronomical. We see figures like the $7 BILLION in U.S. tax dollars larded on the murderous, corrupt Colombian military, but that is just part of the cost. Add in more billions to other fascist militaries and police forces in LatAm, U.S. military bases in LatAm, related covert ops, related diplomatic/propaganda/bribery ops, and the huge costs here at home of the "prison-industrial complex" (one of the highest imprisonment rates in the world--about 75% of it for NON-VIOLENT crimes, mostly drug crimes) and the costs of numerous militant "anti-drug" agencies, federal and local (DEA, FBI, ATF, DoJ, local police, sheriffs, DA's, courts, etc.), and I'd guestimate that the cost of outlawing recreational and addictive drugs is in the trillions--comparable to Iraq/Afghanistan--all serving the PRETENSE, under the Bush Junta anyway, that the U.S. government wants to stop the drug trade.

That's a VERY costly hypocrisy. But with all that money already down the drainhole--with not even a dent in the cocaine trade--what now?

The U.S. government is run by transglobal corporations, banksters and war profiteers. So what would those powermongers want with legalization? Obviously, to monopolize and control recreational and addictive drugs. Is that what is happening here? First, massive and murderous repression to eliminate all the small players (for instance, the FIVE MILLION peasant farmers who were brutally displaced from their lands in Colombia), while drug use and addiction rates soar? Then, transglobal corporations enter the picture, with legalization, and profit from all that addiction and from the U.S. "war on drugs"-engineered monopolies (of suitable land, R&D, trade routes, etc.)?

There have been collateral benefits for U.S. "free trade for the rich" from the U.S. "war on drugs"--for instance, the murder of hundreds of trade union leaders in Colombia by the Colombian military and its "Black Eagle"-type paramilitaries. But that may have been only a side benefit of the "war on drugs." Oil is certainly one candidate for main benefit (particularly control of Venezuela's vast reserves). (Uribe was clearly spoiling for a war on Venezuela, paid for by you and me--for the benefit of Exxon Mobil & brethren.) Is control of recreational and addictive drugs the main, or an additional main, benefit to our corporate rulers, of the U.S. "war on drugs"? The "war" consolidates the trade and gains control of the revenue stream? The "peace" (legalization) will work like Big Pharma's control of antibiotics, statin drugs, vaccines, contraceptives, strong painkillers, "anti-depressants" and all the rest--jacked up prices protected by big government bureaucracy and massive looting of Medicare funds?

Legalization here would certainly NOT mean non-prescription access to cocaine, heroine and other drugs, nor even to marijuana or coca leaves (mere medicinal herbs). It will all be highly regulated. It will profit the rich, big time.

Panetta, having done his best to wipe Bush Jr's trail clean in Colombia (as Bush Sr's direct operative or ally), has now moved on to a subtler strategy for control of LatAm resources? Legalization of drugs is one plank of this strategy? That's what a rightwing proposal of legalization tells me. This is not coming out of nowhere. There is something behind this that we can't see. And who is the most likely candidate for backroom control of the right in LatAm? The CIA, of course--ever in the past, now and likely till kingdom come.

Pro-legalization is not an unusual opinion in LatAm--and sovereignty concerns cross almost all political lines (with the Left being more sincere on this issue--sovereignty--than the Right). Have Left and Right leaders found common ground--opposition to the "war on drugs"--and devised a common strategy to end it, with the Right being an agreed upon avantgarde? That is not so outlandish an idea. Right and left have come together, regionally, to form CELAC--as the South American countries did to form UNASUR--specifically to fight U.S. domination and promote regional independence. Could legalization be something that the Right has presented TO Panetta, as a better plan to serve transglobal interests and get rich, than the vastly antagonizing "war on drugs"? Perhaps the Right sees the necessity of cleaning up their image, and working in more harmony with Leftist governments (which now dominate the region).

OR--another possibility: The Left continues to concern itself with busting big, destabilizing drug cartels (some of which are obviously U.S.-tied). They have not called for legalization. But now that the trade has been consolidated and its revenue stream better directed to certain beneficiaries (U.S. banksters, the CIA, the Bush Cartel), the Right--which is enmeshed in this criminal activity--wants to STOP the busting of ITS networks in Leftist countries. Legalization is a ploy. The big profits will keep flowing but in another guise.

The Santos vs Uribe fight, on the right in Colombia, could be a cartel fight, meaning that Santos is NOT clean. He puts on a good show but it's possible that what's going on there is a struggle between TWO criminal organizations, with cocaine funding on both sides; or, Santos/CIA ending Uribe's "godfather'-like control, to be replaced with HIGHER control of the drug trade--and perhaps LEGAL control of it. There is obviously something that Santos doesn't like about Uribe's operations. But is this just a mafia don pissing contest, with Bush Sr as the top don? Bush Sr, like his pal Panetta, is a smooth operator. Perhaps he now has it all set up for Big Pharma profit and needs to jettison his very tainted operative, Uribe (who, like Cheney and Rumsfeld, put his boy in peril).

Molina has ties to rightwing death squads and military massacres in Guatemala. Santos--though he has created a smooth image--was Uribe's Defense Minister for several years during the height of Uribe's crimes and the Colombian military's crimes. He did resign that office and now seems more allied with Colombia's prosecutors, and maybe he was keeping an eye on Uribe the whole time. But it is difficult to entirely buy his image now. He is a hard man to get a "read" on. His first act in office was to make peace with Venezuela. He has proposed universal free medical care for all Colombians, and return of stolen peasant lands. He also seems to be working on a peace treaty with the FARC in Colombia's 70 year internal war and--as I said above--has approved the notion of legalizing drugs. But Colombia is, without question, a U.S. "client state." Its rulers are vetted and approved in Washington DC. So who is he serving, among those who run things here?

The upshot of the U.S. "war on drugs" in Colombia was to remove the smaller and the very tiny (peasant farmer) coca leaf growers from their lands, and to facilitate huge land acquisition by big drug lords, rich fascist politicos and transglobal corporations. NOW they want to legalize drugs. Right.

That's my reaction to this. Uh-huh.

OF COURSE I am tormented with hope that the corrupt, murderous, failed U.S. "war on drugs" will end its long, bloody reign over us and over Latin America. Do I expect LatAm's rightwing--Molina, Santos--the CIA, the MIC, Bush Sr, or Obama/Clinton, for that matter, to be our "liberators" from this horror?

Not without some truly perverse twist, further enslavement of the poor and who knows what kind of blowback. (I'm thinking of the 50,000-body bloodbath in Mexico.) Molina wants "good government"? Wants to end the very, very profitable mayhem of the "war on drugs"? Santos? (--big political beneficiary of the mayhem, even if he seems to oppose it NOW)? Obama, busy busting medical marijuana clinics in California? Clinton, whose husband greatly accelerated this horror? Panetta and his bud, Bush Sr?

I'm just shaking my head. Maybe I haven't penetrated the Darkness. But there is something hidden there.

---------

*(Possibly my first assumption--that Panetta represents the Bush Sr Bush Cartel--is wrong, and Panetta represents some other force that is sometimes in alliance with Bush Sr and sometimes not. Could Panetta have been a member of Bush Sr's ISG and NOT be "old CIA"? Since all this is guess work, I guess it's possible. He may represent the military brass--and the MIC in general--which opposed Rumsfeld/Cheney's plan to nuke Iran--and that is what got him membership on Bush Sr's ISG. He's hopped from the CIA to the Pentagon, I think brokering a peace treaty between the two. It makes sense that he had the blessing of the "old CIA"/Bush Cartel--which is why he was rumored to have been welcomed at CIA headquarters with champagne corks popping--a big celebration)--but is more closely tied to the military brass. As I said, very hard to see. Our government and our true rulers are so secretive that we are forced to guess--and we have no choice but to do so, if we don't want to be naive stupids.)

[Uncle Joe]

18. I believe the Internet is changing political dynamics, message control is infinitely more difficult.

The "War on Drugs" was great for empowering the Authoritarian;mostly Republican Party when it was easier to brainwash the American People by the corporate supremacist loving, corporate media.

Today the dynamics; are changing threatening to fundamentally split the Republican Party, the authoritarian loving corporate supremacists could/would never allow this to happen as the nation would most likely drift leftward and downward, downward on the political spectrum being libertarian versus upward authoritarian.

If that were to happen the American People would become more empowered versus their corporate overlords.

So the Authoritarian Party in the U.S. is drifting toward legalization whereupon as you state Big Pharma will do their best to take advantage of the situation.

As more "right wing leaders" of Central American nations see the writing on the wall and come into the fold, the "War on Drugs" will become more untenable and thus popular pressure in the U.S. will follow suit.

The Authoritarian Party in the U.S. is evolving not due to enlightenment or altruism but as a means to survive and adapt to changing circumstances.

[happyslug]

19. You are missing one other possibility, the belief that drugs would weaken the demands of the poor

After the Watts Riots (and similar Riots of the African American Communities in the us during the 1960s) the accusation was made that such communities were flooded with hard drugs so that people would start using them, and once using them be to stoned to riot. How true is this is unknown to me, I have NOT seen any records proving it or disproving it, but I bring it up for Guatemala and most of Central and Latin American have seen a huge disparity between the rich and the poor. The poor live in shacks like their Native America Ancestors did when Cortez first conquered Mexico, while the rich live up to the level of Upper Middle Class Americans. Such disparity existed among the Native American Population (and was one of the Reasons Cortez could find allies among the Native American in his conquest of Mexico).

Since the end of the Guatemala Civil War, the economic situation has become worse. During the Civil War, in the effort to separate the peasants from the Revolutionary movement, improvements in Peasant villages were done by the right wing dictatorship, but most such efforts failed to separate the peasants from the revolutionaries.

At the same time, the Rich were taking the land of the Peasants and converting them to cash crops for exports to the US and Europe. This taking of land forced many peasants into the urban areas, which had the side affect of minimizing the support such peasants could give to the rural revolutionaries. With the Collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba had to cut off what support it was giving to the revolutionaries, so that the revolutionaries agreed to end their fight in exchange for elections and "fair treatment" of themselves and the peasants. In the subsequent elections the left fair poorly, mostly due to less then clean elections, but the left knew that when it signed the peace treaty, the war was NOT helping the peasants and unless the fighting had a chance of improving the positions of the peasants the left saw no reason to continued fighting.

Just pointing out one of the reasons for the Right to Support Drug legalization is a hope that many supporters of the left will instead turn to drugs rather then votes (or guns) to make their life feel "Better". This was the accusations made by African American Militants after the Riots of the 1960s as the price of Heroin dropped in African American Urban Communities. There is strong evidence that the RIGHT WING believe that increase drug use will result from making drugs legal, and that increase use will be mostly by supporters of the left, and thus votes for left wing politicians will decline (Please note, I do NOT accept the concept that legalization will increase drug use, but I am reporting that such increase use is accepted dogma among the right wing and as accepted dogma, could be the reason the right wing politicians are supporting the concept in Latin America).

[Myrina]

20. Fascinating analysis ...

Well done. Thanks!!

[bemildred]

6. El Narco does fascism even better than the fascists.

Hence the need to drain the swamp so as to get rid of the alligators. Look at Mexico, that is where the drug war leads, and nowhere else, ever.

[Peace Patriot]

9. I think we are looking at post-draining-of-the-swamp planning.

Get rid of all the little alligators so the big alligators have more room and can eat their prey in the "sunlight" of Big Pharma/government "regulation."

You want a toke? You gotta go down to Rite-Aid after you've paid some doctor a couple of hundred dollars for a "prescription." And the "prescription" will cost you and/or Medicare a lot more than it might cost you now on the street. You want something with more of a buzz or something you need to fend off DTs? It'll cost you or Medicare many visits to the doctor, many medical tests, much medical "screening" and probably thousands of dollars.

Or maybe they'll just cheapen it all, as a control mechanism. Ultimately, the government/corporate rulers will just supply us all with "Soma" so we won't think about any of this.

I'm sure it's all been thoroughly analyzed, with lots of actuarial charts and fun graphics, before a fascist like Molina would propose legalizing drugs. The reason I think this is Santos. It's a rightwing "thing" in Latin America right now. Why?

[bemildred]

10. Where we disagree is as to who are the big alligators.

I think Perez Molina is the little alligator, who is trying to get rid of the big alligators (El Narco). I would bet the cartels are better funded, better equipped, and even less sentimentai about "business" than the Perez Molina. And I think generally, when you see this sort of call for legalization, you will always find fear of El Narco behind it.

I don't disagree with your view of the drug wars motivations etc, but I think we are losing, and will always lose, because we arm and fund our enemies with our prohibitionist drug policies, which create a lucrative black market essentially from nothing, by fiat. It's like trying to get rid of ants at a picnic by shooting them with a BB-gun, one at a time. If you want the ants to go away, you have to get rid of the food.

[Peace Patriot]

12. Thanks for clarifying what you meant by "alligators."

Did you know that alligators are actually very good parents, who protect and nurture their young for long periods--something you might not expect from reptiles?

Off point but interesting. We are forever slandering innocent animals by comparing slimy, vicious human beings TO them. I do it myself. Calling some of our leaders snakes, vultures, rats, sharks, barracudas, hyenas and whatnot. Animals just do what they do. They don't have evil intent. They don't have the consciousness to choose good over evil, and when they do have high consciousness--dolphins, elephants, most whales--they seem to be peaceful, communal critters who don't pick fights, and/or their particular "fit" in Nature's scheme doesn't require aggression.

We, on the other hand, are a bloody-minded species capable of demanding ethical behavior of ourselves and others, and, because of this--because we are capable of distinguishing good and evil, and choosing between them--can descend into utter depravity out of greed or other motives, and sometimes out of madness (organic or psychological). Slaughtering a hundred thousand innocent people to steal their oil. Torturing prisoners (helpless people). Cutting off ears, dicks, scalps as souvenirs of our dreadful deeds--and yet worse, if you consider most soldiers to be victims (probably true), TEACHING young people to kill without mercy, stoking up hatred and racism and forcing them into situations where they will commit atrocities even if they don't intend to. Ruining their lives, ruining their children's lives, destroying young families--for what? For greed. To get the oil, the money, the power. To be all powerful so you can rain death down on others with impunity.

Nature has never created a monster equal to the human monster, in death-dealing, horror-making, callousness and egotism. No animal compares. We are top of the Kali heap.

So why DO we use animal comparisons for human evil? I really don't know. It's a mystery of language and human psychology.

As for the "alligators" in the swampland of narcotics and corporate rule, I don't think Molina would have dared to propose legalization of drugs if he feared El Narco retribution for his proposal. It's true that El Narco exists because of the illegalization of drugs, and their profits could be drained from them, with legalization, into the coffers of Big Pharma, which, I am quite certain, is poised and ready to try to monopolize the entire dope business the moment that that gate is opened. Molina is not courageous. He is cowardly human rights violator. He is not some kind of champion against El Narco (trying to slay El Narco with legalization, or even just trying to evade them with legalization). I think something else is going on--basically, that the most powerful parts of El Narco are prepared for legalization and expect to be part of it.

You think he's clean? I don't. I think he has drug cartel backing. What we've learned in Colombia is that the rightwing and the drug cartels are as entwined as Siamese twins. There is no distinguishing where one ends and the other begins. They are ONE organism and their crimes are identical--and, in the case of Uribe in Colombia, ordered and organized from the top, from the president's office. Murder, extortion, blackmail, threats, intimidation, massive theft and brutality of every kind. Indeed, conjoined--as they were in Colombia--the beast of government-by-mafia was/is far worse than any criminal organization on its own.

Uribe was using government powers to consolidate the cocaine trade, to eliminate rivals, to steal the land of FIVE MILLION peasants, to commit every kind of crime from murder to election fraud to ponzi schemes, and to spy on judges and prosecutors to protect himself and his closest cronies and his favored drug lords and death squads. A criminal organization alone cannot achieve nearly as much power nor inflict nearly as much mayhem. And criminal organizations often achieve relatively peaceful, "balance of power" arrangements, based on "turf." Not so with Uribe, the Colombian military and the U.S. (Bush Junta) military. They were into making war--NOT to eliminate the drug trade but to consolidate it and profit from it.

Molina is a similar type of rightwinger. He doesn't fear El Narco. He IS El Narco. It's possible that there are several rival El Narcos in Guatemala and he fears one of them--but he is not some kind of innocent on the run from the bad guys. He IS one of the bad guys. The consolidation of the trade that I think that the Bush Junta used the U.S. "war on drugs" to accomplish may not be complete in Guatemala. It certainly is not yet complete in Mexico where the disfavored narc organizations are still fighting the favored ones and their U.S./Mexican backers. When it is all sorted out, that's where legalization comes in, to elevate the trade from crime to monopoly, through "legalization."

Possibly the very criminal organizations behind rightwingers like Uribe and Molina expect to be--or are angling to be--subsumed in the larger, legal corporations that would take over the business with the "legalization" of drugs, or are planning to create new corporations that will have to duke it out with the existing pharmaceuticals and other interested corporations (Monsanto? Chiquita? Bechtel? Dow? Bank of America?). It's called "laundering." Legalization would be the truly Big Time version of it.

That is my thesis. That is what best explains all that has gone on with the U.S. "war on drugs" over the last decade and this current weirdness with rightwing politicians calling for legalization, and the largely innocent parties, those truly into "good government"--the leftist politicians in Latin America--NOT doing so.

I can't quite figure out Santos. (His fellow rightwinger and rival, Uribe, has NOT called for legalization. This may be because he's too dirty to be included in any deal with Big Pharma.) But one thing is clear about Santos--he is the architect, on the Colombia side of things, of the U.S. "free trade for the rich" agreement. So he is likely in even tighter (than Uribe was) with the interested transglobal corporations who would oversee and greatly profit from legalization.

Uribe might have reason to be plenty pissed at this. He got rid of the labor union leaders for these corporations, cleansed the land of peasants and, in every way, did the Bush Junta's bidding--and he doesn't get to be "laundered," too?! The "laundering" of Uribe that Panetta probably arranged--getting criminal witnesses out of the country; cushy academic sinecures at Georgetown and Harvard--may ultimately be quite thin, as Colombian prosecutors proceed with their investigations of Uribe. I think Uribe is just too dirty and, despite his coziness with the Bush Cartel (or maybe because of his danger to Junior) will have to be jettisoned. Panetta put Santos in power (or, at the least, vetted and approved him). He yanked Uribe, who is very vulnerable to prosecution in Colombia, and here (a couple of lawsuits in the courts, by death squad victims' survivors).

What I can't figure out about Santos is this very thing: Is he El Narco-backed? Bear in mind that much of the Colombian military (of which he was Defense Minister) is dirty with the drug trade. Its paramilitary death squads are, of course, dirty. Many and maybe most office holders in Colombia are dirty. (Some SEVENTY of Uribe's closest political associates--in his government and in the legislature--are under investigation or already in jail for numerous crimes including drug trafficking and ties to the death squads.) Uribe's home territory--Medellin--and other parts of Colombia are notoriously dirty (mayors, police chiefs, etc.) How could Santos have escaped this dirty money and power scene? He ACTS LIKE he's not dirty, but, being of the same rightwing party as Uribe, it's hard to believe. The narc trade underpins EVERYTHING in Colombia.

Now maybe what he's done--and why Uribe hates him so much (he really does)--is make his own accommodation with the favored drug cartels (the ones that the Bush Junta/Uribe empowered and that Uribe thinks that he is "godfather" of), while maintaining a clean image, to muscle Uribe out. Santos doesn't have the "look" of such deviousness, but that doesn't mean that he isn't. It's just hard to figure how anybody gets into such a powerful position in Colombia WITHOUT the agreement of the big drug organizations and without their financial backing. These big drug organizations may be playing for inclusion in the Big Pharma/Big Corporate legalization. They may be lying low, as to their visible political muscle, to see how well they fare. If they get screwed by Santos, they will strike. He may not be "in their pocket." He may not be mafia himself. But he's made a deal. And they know that he has to be "clean" (or appear to be clean) to be in a position to make the legalization deal.

I have not seen ANY evidence that Santos fears El Narco. So, in Colombia--and by analogy in Guatemala, with Molina--El Narco (or important parts of El Narco) must be okay with legalization. They may both end up dead, with two bullets in their heads, tomorrow, and I will be proved wrong. But that's how I make sense of the RIGHTWING calling for legalization while the Leftwing remains relatively quiet about it--as if they are not at all sure that this is a good idea. (Do they feel their jaws dropping, as I have--or are they more in the know, maybe biding their time, checking it out? Not sure. Chavez, of all people, has been strangely silent. Warriors against the U.S. "war on drugs" like Morales in Bolivia have been silent. WHAT is going on with this? The center-right is carrying all the weight on legalization! It's very odd.)

[bemildred]

13. I like your theory.

I'll give it some thought. I admit it had me a bit puzzled.

[Odin2005]

8. Sr. Molina should watch his back and stay out of small planes.

[Judi Lynn]

14. US Embassy in Guatemala criticizes president’s proposal to legalize drugs

US Embassy in Guatemala criticizes president’s proposal to legalize drugs
By Associated Press, Updated: Sunday, February 12, 8:31 PM

GUATEMALA CITY — The U.S. Embassy in Guatemala is criticizing President Otto Perez Molina’s proposal to legalize drugs in Central America.

The embassy says Washington opposes such measures because “the evidence shows our shared drug problem is a threat to public health and safety.”

An embassy statement on Sunday said that legalizing drugs wouldn’t stop transnational gangs that not only traffic drugs but also people and weapons, as well as extorting and kidnapping people.

Perez Molina on Saturday said he will propose legalizing drugs in Central America in an upcoming meeting with the region’s leaders. He gave no other details about his proposal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/americas/us-embassy-in-guatemala-criticizes-presidents-proposal-to-legalize-drugs/2012/02/12/gIQAToif9Q_story.html

[nanabugg]

15. Legalization and regulation of drugs would also mean taxation. We all know that the GOP

will be against anything that raises revenues for the US government.

[Mopar151]

16. They're heavily invested in beer stocks and Scotch futures

Not to mention Big Pharma

[Peace Patriot]

17. This does raise a major problem in my Big Pharma theory, that our corporate/war profiteer rulers

and their servants in U.S. government are very, VERY attached to the corrupt, murderous, failed U.S. "war on drugs"--or at least they have been to this point. How could legalization of drugs occur in this context?

The "war on drugs" is not a failure in their view, because, a) it supports an entire fascist industry of legal weapons and police/military hardware, infrastructure, personnel, prisons, etc.--billions and billions of dollars worth of private contractors; b) it has proven useful for slaughtering trade unionists, peasant farmers, environmentalists, political leftists and other undesirables in LatAm countries; c) it is a major tool for infiltrating, spying on and controlling LatAm countries in the interest of U.S.-based transglobal corporations; and d) it provides vital preparation for other wars across the "global south" including Africa and Asia (Pentagon "Southern Command" wide lateral planning, i.e., Air Force bases, the U.S. 4th Fleet and other naval resources, surveillance, coordination with allied military forces and local infrastructure such as airports, etc.).

The U.S. "war on drugs" does all this and more. In general, it militarizes and brutalizes LatAm societies, providing important support for fascist elements, and softens these countries up for lawless corporate rule (rape of resources, enforcement of slave labor conditions).

The Bush Junta added at least two new uses for the "war on drugs"--melding it in the "war on terror" for a two-barreled assault on human/civil rights and on good leftist governments, and the master twist: using the "war on drugs" to consolidate the fabulously lucrative drug trade into fewer hands and better direct its trillion+ dollar revenue stream to U.S. banksters, the Bush Cartel, the CIA and other beneficiaries.

What all of the above means is that it is, in fact, impossible to get rid of the "war on drugs" by popular demand in the U.S.A. "Popular demand" ain't in it. This no longer works in the U.S. Democracy is pretty much over here and "good government" is quite literally impossible. Government here is one big extortion scheme by the "war on drugs"/"war on terror"/oil war mafia.

The U.S. embassy in Guatemala is reflecting this reality, in its absurd defense of the "war on drugs." We hear this absurdity every day, endlessly, from every government agency and politician in the country. We have to make "war" on "drugs" because "drugs" are bad. No matter that it hasn't made a dent in the drug trade, lo these forty years of "war." No matter that drug use has in fact greatly escalated and criminal networks now grip entire countries. No matter that it has nuked entire segments of the poorer classes. (Ever hear of a rich kid going to jail for possession?) (Do you know why prisons full of black men are located in white rural areas in the U.S.A.?) We have to keep doing this insane thing--"war on drugs"--because, because, because....into blithering idiocy.

HOWEVER, Big Pharma can accomplish great things, where democracy cannot. If Big Pharma wants legalization, legalization will occur. End of story. And the "war on drugs" will be transmorgified into some other kind of war profiteering and fascist culture-building. That could be very bad (for instance, Oil War II: Latin America, or "the China threat"/war in the Pacific--there are lots of possibilities, including war on the streets at home, in response to massive rebellion in the U.S.).

I am working backwards here, from the evidence--TWO rightwing politicians calling for an END to the "war on drugs"--TO the logical conclusion, that the biggest potential beneficiary of ending this "war" --the Bush Junta-consolidated drug trade in league with Big Pharma--want this to happen and will make it happen. And these are not just any politicians. They are TWO rightwing PRESIDENTS, one of a major U.S. client state (vast reserves of oil, fertile land and other resources) and major "free trade for the rich" partner (Colombia)--not to mention Colombia receiving $7 BILLION in U.S. "war on drugs" largesse--and the other, a minor "free trade for the rich" partner but major drug route (Guatemala).

Plus the center-right former Mexican presidents' commission--Mexico, a major U.S. "free trade for the rich" partner, major drug route and major "player" in every way, right on the U.S. border.

All three countries--Colombia, Guatemala and Mexico--with huge "war on drugs" moneys from U.S. taxpayers, with all that that means for the local fascisti and for vast military/police corruption and protection rackets. The rightwing in these countries = the drug cartels. That is the clear and obvious result of the U.S. "war on drugs" in Colombia. The Bush Junta, as a parting shot (2008) dumped billions into Mexico for the same purpose (consolidation of the drug trade; protection of their networks; control of politicians). Guatemala is rife with rightwing and drug violence--and is still hurting from the Reagan era horrors (TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND Mayan villagers slaughtered). The U.S. didn't have to do much to destroy Guatemala as a society and as a democracy.

Now, why would RIGHTWING politicians want to end all this? WHO would they be speaking for?

They must be speaking for very big "players" in the drug business: the surviving, favored drug cartels and Big Pharma. They are proposing the end of a rival business--the "war" business. And, if I didn't know what I know about the "war on drugs," I would say that they are ASKING for a bullet in the head from some "war on drugs" general, or DEA agent, or hired gun, or drug cartel death squad. Are these men stupid? No, they are not. They are speaking for powerful interests and they know that they will not be assassinated for this. How do they know that?

I can't rule out that they are actually defying U.S. government policy--for their own reasons or in solidarity with leftist leaders in the movement for LatAm sovereignty--but I think that that is very unlikely.

This song and dance--Molina advocating legalization, and the U.S. embassy pooh-poohing that and trotting out all the tired old lies about it--is nothing more, in my opinion. It is orchestrated. If my theory is right, this Molina proposal (and Santos' prior, same proposal) is a "false flag" ploy. It is coming FROM the U.S. government, but from the outside, THROUGH these U.S.-controlled, rightwing leaders, to see how it will fly and to begin prep of our propagandized people for Big Pharma's big move.

Now, there may still be some controversy within the U.S. government and within the overarching corporate/political establishment, as "war on drugs" profiteers consider their options. Maybe they are being promised a war on Iran or a war on Venezuela. I shudder to think. One thing I think we can be pretty sure of: Legalization will NOT result in reduced "war" budgets, although it might result in reduced 'prison-industrial complex" budgets. The prisons are bursting with inmates and state budgets have been looted. In California (looted by Enron), "liberal" Governor Brown is dumping thousands of prisoners on the counties, which can hardly absorb them. (Note: SEVENTY PERCENT of U.S. prisoners are in jail for non-violent crimes, mostly drug related.) This is a true crisis and legalization would relieve it. There is NO MORE MONEY to punish people for drug possession/trading and the rightwing purposes in doing so have already been accomplished--decimation/disempowerment of poor populations.

One other thing: legalized recreational or addictive drugs will be the subject of a regressive (anti-poor people) tax (the sales tax). It is another way to tax the poor and avoid taxing the rich. This is another "glow" around legalization (in addition to Big Pharma/Bush Cartel profiteering) that makes it attractive to those who serve the rich (all of our political leaders, almost without exception). Legalization will produce a new regressive tax of major proportions (fending off fair taxation); it will be a corporate business stimulant; it will relieve the prison crisis; it can be monopolized and become part of huge, unaccountable conglomerates; it can "launder" Bush Cartel/CIA billions in illicit money and so on. It has many plusses and "glow" points for the powers-that-be.

"Military-industrial complex" profiteering will stay the same. We're in for more wars, I'm afraid--from the "liberals" (their little wars, such as drone-bombing Libya), and from the nutball fascists (Bush Junta II: big wars). The U.S. has almost nothing else to "sell" but war and war toys. And the profiteers of war cannot be dislodged. They will suck up all gain from legalization into their great big hungry maw. As with the end of the "Cold War," we will see no benefit from the end of the "war on drugs." Indeed, recreational and addictive drugs may become MORE expensive in Big Pharma's hands--but, more likely, the legal looting will be spread out across Medicare and private insurance co-pays, to include more "consumers."

Big Pharma R&D on recreational and addictive drugs has likely been completed. Long term planning (including how to maintain the war machine budget) has likely been completed or is in-progress. And if anybody can simply turn the country from one direction 180 degrees to its opposite, it is Big Pharma combined with the Bush Cartel and its favored recreational/addictive drug providers.

I know that I'm extrapolating a lot, from these two rightwing presidents' statements, but I can't make any other sense out of them.

It's interesting that Santos said, in his statement about drug legalization, that he "would be crucified" if he took the initiative on it, but that he would support legalization if "someone else" took the initiative. Soon, that "someone else" came along and did just that. "Crucified" by whom? Perhaps the immediate war profiteers around him, his own military (of which he was Defense Minister during several of the "glory years" of U.S. billions flooding into their hands). Perhaps the war profiteers in Washington. Or both. His statement about being "crucified" may mean that the matter was not quite settled yet, how the war profiteers would continue war profiteering. Molina's follow up statement may mean that we are close to a decision and a big move within OUR political establishment/government, on legalization.

"Liberal" politicians, like Obama and Jerry Brown, will not--do not have the power to--propose legalization until they get the "green light" from those who own them. They would, indeed, be "crucified" if they did. Their hypocrisy on the "war on drugs" is palpable (not to mention disgusting). So it may come from the right instead--and be part of a deal, say, that will put Jeb in the White House, big war back on the table and Big Pharma dealing out cocaine, heroine and other drugs legally.. That could be fun. "Zonked out nation goes to war." (We're already zonked on sugar, hormones, anti-psychotics, anti-depressants, painkillers, speed and other "substances"--so maybe adding the illegal drugs to this mix won't change things much--although easier availability of marijuana and coca leaves (not cocaine) could be beneficial, if Big Pharma provides undoctored herbs--not very likely.)

Like I said, what corporations want, corporations get--and what the Bush Cartel wants, the Bush Cartel gets. Doesn't matter if it's a 180 about-face on U.S. policy. I mean, look what they did with torture--made it "the fashion," in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the U.S. Constitution, the UN Charter and numerous laws and treaties, not to mention democratic tradition! Easily overturned. Easy 180. So it goes.

It's also kind of like the transglobal corporate interest in "green energy." When the time comes, when they're ready, they will monopolize/expand the technology and make us pay through the nose for free energy from the Sun. They're already doing it. That is a monopolization-in-progress. They've done it with EVERYTHING that people want or need--from food, to clothing, to shelter, to energy, to medical care, to education, to sex, to entertainment, to love of family (buy them things), to "community" (shopping malls), to clever widgets, to postal services, speedy transportation, personal security and personal hygiene--everything turned into a manipulable commodity. Why not illicit drugs?

No reason whatever why not, from a corporate point of view.

Peoples' need/desire for recreational drugs or dependence on addictive drugs will become just another corporate commodity. The blather from the U.S. embassy in Guatemala--like all such "war on drugs" blather--is just a temporary defense of current policy, until the big players have made their arrangements, and then we won't hear that defense any more and they will start blathering about something else (all the "terrorists" in Nicaragua or Venezuela that need to be bombed back to the Stone Age).

I think it's coming (legalization) but, with Big Pharma in charge, could be bad. Very bad. I've too often seen corporate monsters turn good things into bad things--food, drugs, journalism, business, "the marketplace," medicine, entertainment, investment, credit, you name it. Legalization--which I heartily support, in theory--could well be "turned," in typical corporate fashion, into a big negative.

These rightwing presidents advocating it has caused me to analyze possible downsides. The end of any "war" is a good thing. The "war on drugs" has been immensely bloody and destructive. It has also been as costly, all in all, as the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan. It is evil. So, whatever may come of legalization, it is good to stop the killing and the repression and the immense cost. Legalization will NOT increase addiction. That has been proven, time and again. It DECREASES addiction, and it will have the benefit of categorizing drug addiction as a medical problem, not a criminal problem. These and other huge potential benefits could come from legalization. But with Corporate Rule as it is, and considering the Bush Cartel set up for legalization (their activities in Colombia), and control of our government by war profiteers, we could end up with a different but equally bad set of problems, long term.

Aldous Huxley warned of a society controlled by a government-provided, mind numbing drug, in "Brave New World." That is something to think about, as we contemplate a Big Pharma/Bush Drug Cartel legalization--not that we have any power, as a People, to stop it, mitigate it or do something else (a better legalization). We really don't. And that is something else to think about: how we get our power back as a democratic People. (Start with the corporate-run, 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines, is my advice.)

[Judi Lynn]

21. It WAS a shock when Colombia's former defense minister took this position.

To hear it coming now from a man who made a name for himself during the genocidal war against the poor and the indigenous Guatemalans, a man whose candidacy for the President's office seemed beyond a grotesque nightmare, it is stranger, and stranger, yet.

Your comments on what may very easily, even likely be behind it go a long way in making "sense" of something which on the surface seems impossible.

It would merely seem fascinating if it didn't have a deadly automatic implication. What would make it worth this transition to these people who've been making out like bandits from the current situation.

Really appreciate your investment in this post. Thank you.

[truedelphi]

26. Thanks Judi Lynn.

Last year I was getting beaten up by my fellow users for "my marijuana use." Which is really beyond the pale - i cannot use the stuff as it puts me to sleep for like a week. (Not saying i didn't smoke it a lot when younger, but cannot do that now.)

But in doing resarch for an article I wrote for the indie press, way back in the summer of 2000, I found out that the War on Marijuana is really a war on women.

I was amazed to find all the hundreds of photos of women in California's prisons, whose stories were tragic.

Often these were women in their fifties and sixties, whose crime had been using medical marijuana for Multiple Sclerosis. Seeing these women sitting in their wheel charis, with the minumum cost of their stay in jail and/or prison being $ 135 a day, I couldn't help but think that in a compassionate society, the money would be spent on research and not jailing people.

The saddest story of all was that of a yong African American woman. She had inherited some money from her granma's estate, and she used it to go to college, and also for the purchase of her condo.

But at some point, this thug started approaching her in her parking lot. He wanted to date her. He scared her, and so her response was a polite but definite "No, thank you. I have a boyfriend."

Some time later, this thug (who happened to be living in a condo in her association) got popped for major drug dealing. But all he had to do to get his sentence reduced down to three or four years was to snitch on people. So he reported her as being one of his "business partners." He immediately became a favorite of the local police, as they needed a snitch with his connections.

Then the police (or someone connected to the police) had cocaine planted in her appartment. She then got busted and at the point when I was reading her story, she was going to be serving twenty years. She would be serving the full sentence, as she had no one to snitch on.

[truedelphi]

22. What a thoughtful and excellent post,

Peace Patriot.

The DOJ is waging war on the duly protected states rights' approved Medical Marijuana clinics here in California.

The news media is telling people: no reason to worry about marijuana for your medical needs - there will be plenty available to you as soon as the FDA licenses a medical marijuana product from Great Britain.

This type of statement sent off a flurry of letters to the editor. People started pointing out that there was more to medical marijuana than simply being allowed to have the Big Pharma version - especially if that version would be coming to California from Great Britain.

Last year, in California, over 100 millions of dollars came into local County treasuries because of taxes on Medical Marijuana. So the DOJ crackdown will be hurting a state that is experiencing 20% unemployment in many of its rural counties. People have had jobs running dispensaries. People have jobs growing medical marijuana. People have jobs guarding the growers. People have jobs doing the accounting and seeing a lot of the various bureaucratically required forms are filled out. Now many of those jobs have been eliminated. Why? Because the DOJ is protecting Big Pharma rather than states' rights.

[Peace Patriot]

23. Yup, medical marijuana is an indigenous industry...

...indeed, it couldn't be more of an indigenous industry, a business with a real product, a beneficial product, created and marketed of, by and for the people, in utter defiance of our political establishment and in the teeth of its most fascist efforts to prevent it.

And we know what happens to indigenous, people-run, people-benefitting industries. They are sucked up into and destroyed by our Corporate Rulers. It's happened to book stores. It's happened to "mom and pop" grocery stores and every other kind of family business--from dry cleaners to funeral homes. It's happened to local newspapers and radio and TV stations. It's happened to tailors and seamstresses. It's happened to people who fix vacuum cleaners, sewing machines, cars, lawn mowers--all those handymen we used to have, some of the cleverest people among us. It's happened to everyone who ever had a clever idea and started a business. It's happened to the decimation of our communities and any kind of real marketplace. All now is monopolies--often monopolies of nothing, either cheap throwaway shit thrown together in slave labor shops abroad, or monopolies of shitheads who bet on us not being able to pay the mortgage!

Anything indigenous--anything real, anything constructive, and most especially anything beneficial--will be sucked up and destroyed. Can't have people producing something useful, making money and employing others. That is not in the Big Corporate Game Plan.

Our people are dauntless inventors, creators and entrepreneurs. And with all that's been done to destroy their creative spirit, they have STILL produced several truly new and beneficial products: one of them is medical marijuana (which has had the hardest uphill battle); another is solar energy technology and another is organic food. ALL out of the hippie movement of the 1960s, by God! And I might add computers, particularly Apple products, and the Internet, but that is a more complicated discussion. Both are, in any case, indigenous inventions and also came out of the blow-your-mind hippie culture of the '60s (with "military-industrial complex" contributions, and, lately, slave laborers in China).

I remember when all of these things were in their infancy, in the '70s and '80s, and were being nurtured along by wild-eyed visionaries in Mendocino and Humboldt counties (and some other places). Combined, they literally saved this country from total economic meltdown and are now poised for hostile takeover by the Transglobal Destroyers.

This relentlessly destructive phenomenon--Corporate Rule--is a key part of my hypothesis about Big Pharma's and the Bush Cartel's legalization plan, of which we now have hint from these two rightwing presidents in Latin America. Why are they saying this, at the risk (as Santos put it) of being "crucified"? Very, VERY odd. Time for a theory to match the weirdness of our troubled world: The Bush Junta did all the bloody ground work of repression and consolidation and Big Pharma and brethren are about to make their move on addictive or recreational drugs and medicinal herbs. All that work, all that R&D, all the grief, all the fear, all the unjust imprisonments and thefts of personal property, all the CAMP raids and invasions and terror, all the political work, all the community building--all that medical marijuana providers have done and suffered--is about to be CRUSHED into transglobal corporate monopolies.

And Colombia and the U.S./Colombia "free trade for the rich" agreement is a big part of this plan, as is the crushing of the labor unions in Colombia using "war on drugs" funds, military assets and death squad networks. Clearly they intend Colombia to be the chief production center for corporate-controlled drugs, and the routes of those drugs to the U.S. will exactly match both the existing illicit cartel pathways and those forged in U.S. "free trade for the rich" countries, run by rightwing leaders--Honduras, Guatemala, Mexico (and perhaps Panama and El Salvador). (Of these, only El Salvador has a leftwing leader but not a very strong one--for instance, when the fascisti here made their move on Honduras, El Salvador immediately caved to U.S. pressure and withdrew El Salvador's application to join ALBA, the Venezuela-Cuba organized barter trade group. Honduras was already an ALBA member and the coup regime cancelled Honduras' membership and stole of bunch of labor funds in the process).

Trade unions and peasant farmers are under fierce assault in all of these countries. Jobs there may be from legalized drugs, but not union jobs, you can be sure. Banana, palm oil or soy-plantation type jobs--all day in the sizzling sun without water, shit pay, no benefits, of course, and, if you get uppity, you get a bullet through the head. That's how Chiquita operates and Drummond Coal and Monsanto and all the rest. Crude, brutal exploitation. That's what Big Pharma and pals surely want for their new drug monopoly. They will crush producers here, extinguish the entrepreneurs, kill all the jobs and start off in the kind of venue that they prefer--one with mountains of dead bodies of union organizers.

This is an immensely sad prediction. I hope I'm wrong. I think it's coming and I think THAT is why this "free trade for the rich" agreement has been held up--it's a matter of coordination or planning by Big Pharma--and nothing whatever to do with Obama administration concerns about the murders of labor leaders. Their aboutface on this "free trade" deal--their approval of it--tells us all we need to know about the phoniness of that concern.

But here's a laugh for you, to relieve the tragedy of American Democracy: Think about how funny it will be when President Obama announces the end of the "war on drugs" after his government's feverish raids and fascist door kicking in California. He's a smoothie. He did the two-step on the U.S./Colombia "free trade" agreement without missing a beat. Neatest tapdance I've seen since Lyndon Johnson campaigned as the "peace candidate." But THIS is going to be vaudeville like we've never seen before. End of the "war on drugs." Enter the New and Improved recreational and addictive drug provider and peddler of medicinal herbs: Big Pharma!

LOL!

[Judi Lynn]

25. Guatemalan leader: the only way to beat gangs is to legalise drugs

Guatemalan leader: the only way to beat gangs is to legalise drugs
The US's failure to cut demand for narcotics leaves Central America no choice, says President
Guy Adams
Thursday 16 February 2012

The President of Guatemala has floated the prospect of legalising drugs in a bid to stop criminal gangs bringing even more bloodshed to Central America, and will attempt to win regional support for an idea which is likely to face fierce opposition in Washington.

Otto Perez Molina used a meeting with Mauricio Funes, his counterpart from neighbouring El Salvador, to discuss the concept earlier this week. He described it as the only way to respond to America's failure to cut the demand for illicit drugs from consumers. Mr Molina intends to seek support for legalising drugs from other Central American leaders at a summit next month. "We're bringing the issue up for debate," he announced to reporters in Guatemala City. "If drug consumption isn't reduced, the problem will continue."

The decision to explore legalisation comes amid soaring crime rates in the country, which is regarded as prime real estate by Mexican drug cartels competing to shift cocaine from South America, where it is grown, to the US, where most of it is consumed.

Since current policies don't appear to be stemming that flow, Guatemala needs "to find alternate ways of fighting drug trafficking," Mr Molina says. "In the last 30 years with a traditional combat with arms and deaths, it can't be done and we have to be open to viable alternatives." The President remains vague on exactly how legalisation will work in practice. His best stab at outlining the nuts and bolts of the policy came in a radio interview, in which he said: "It wouldn't be a crime to transport, to move drugs. It would all have to be regulated."

More:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/guatemalan-leader-the-only-way-to-beat-gangs-is-to-legalise-drugs-6950300.html

[Comrade Grumpy]

27. Guatemala is by no means alone. Check out this December declaration of 12 Latin American leaders:

My apologies. All the links in the text got stripped out, but you can go to the link below to see them. Also, I tried to bold some stuff, but I don't know if that worked. This is my first post here; I will eventually figure this stuff out.

________________

http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2012/02/12-latin-american-leaders-call-for.html

Thursday, February 09, 2012
12 current Latin American leaders call for exploration of legal drug regulation

A remarkable and almost unreported event took place at the beginning of December last year at the somewhat obscure, 13th summit of the Tuxtla Mechanism for Dialogue. (See here For more on the Mechanism.)

It was reported in El Universal on 6 Dec 'Frenar consumo de droga o regularlo, exigen paises a EU' and in the Washington Post on 19 Dec 'Latin American leaders assail US drug 'market'', but has had no international pick up beyond.

A dozen Latin American countries issued a joint statement on organised crime and drug trafficking (here is the original Spanish text on the Mexican Government website). Point 7 is translated here:

“What would be desirable, would be a significant reduction in the demand for illegal drugs. Nevertheless, if that is not possible, as recent experience demonstrates, the authorities of the consuming countries ought then to explore the possible alternatives to eliminate the exorbitant profits of the criminals, including regulatory or market oriented options to this end. Thus, the transit of substances that continue provoking high levels of crime and violence in Latin American and Caribbean nations will be avoided.”

<snip>

The summit was attended by the Presidents of Guatemala, Alvaro Colom; Honduras, Porfirio Lobo; Mexico, Felipe Calderon; Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega; Panama, Ricardo Martinelli; the Dominican Republic, Leonel Fernandez; and the First Vice President of Costa Rica, Alfio Piva Messer. Also present were the Foreign Ministers of Belize, Wilfred Elrington; Colombia, Maria Angela Holguin; and El Salvador, Hugo Martinez. Chilean President Sebastián Piñera was also present as a special guest.

Following President Santos’s lead, twelve countries have now effcetively called for an end to the war on drugs. The significance of this is great, but the silence following it has been deafening. Perhaps because there was no pro-active media promotion of the statement, it has not been reported anywhere nearly as widely as last years ground breaking Global Commission report. That report - suypported by a global media campaign - was however, made up almost entirely of former presidents. The Tuxtla group are all incumbents.

[Judi Lynn]

28. Amazing link you''ve shared,Comrade Grumpy! It's a shame,but typical the corporate media ignored it.

The more you read about events in Latin America which don't seem to promote the U.S. corporate objectives in Latin America and the Caribbean, the more you'll discover it's very hard to find anything showing the will and intention within the Americas to build their solidarity and create their own new democratic world for their own people, after so much suffering on behalf of the poor and powerless, who've been exploited and treated with contempt, and brutality by the US-supported oligarchs.

Just saw your link so late, I need to postpone a closer look until later today, to see the whole thing clearly.

It's a BIG surprise seeing some of those names there!

Thanks for the good news, welcome to D.U.

[Comrade Grumpy]

29. Thank you. Disaffection with US-imposed drug war transcends ideological divisions.

Whether it's Evo Morales in Bolivia, Santos in Colombia, Perez Molina in Guatemala, they're all very tired of paying the price of enforcing US demands that they help us prohibit those substances we love to hate, or is it hate to love?