DEA complicit in drug trade, says Morales:Morales says evidence will be presented to President Obama

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Agence France-Presse

DEA complicit in drug trade, says Morales
Agence France-Presse
Published: Thursday November 6, 2008

Morales says evidence will be presented to President Obama

Bolivian leader Evo Morales on Thursday accused the US government of encouraging drug-trafficking as he explained his decision to banish the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

Morales, a staunch opponent of the Washington government, said the staff from the US agency had three months to prepare to leave the country, because "the DEA did not respect the police, or even the (Bolivian) armed forces."

"The worst thing is, it did not fight drug trafficking; It encouraged it," the Bolivian leader said, adding that he had "quite a bit of evidence" backing up his charges.

Presidential Minister Juan Ramon Quintana presented a series of documents and press clippings at a news conference, which he described as "object data" that had influenced Morales' decision to suspend DEA activities last week.

Quintana said Morales was ready to present the evidence to incoming US president Barack Obama "to prove the illegality, abuse and arrogance of the DEA in Bolivia."


Read more: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/DEA_encouraged_drug_trade_says_Morales_1106.html

[Demeter]

1. May This Mark The Beginning of the End of the BFEE

and the cleansing of the CIA, DEA, and other of its ilk.

[Preening Fop]

10. Could this mean the end to our C.I.A.'s Blood Soaked, "National Endowment for Democracy"...?

But, but,
CIA installed iron healed dictators
protect our precious U.S. corporate interests....

[ixion]

11. and an end to the so-called 'war' on drugs

which has been causing nothing but trouble since its inception.

[drexel dave]

43. The purpose of the War on Drugs

is to continue the War on Drugs. Not winning is the point. When you don't win, the paychecks continue.

[ixion]

53. without question. all the more reason why it needs to go

it is dishonest and immoral.

[liberalmike27]

67. It doesn't surprise me

The drug war fuels the PIC (prison industrial complex) and the PID is used to "manage" poverty.

[drexel dave]

142. dishonest and immoral don't beat

profitable and profitable. Not in America at least.

[Myrina]

62. same with the 'War on Terra' ...

... let's hope after the Obama Administration ends the fruitless War on Drugs, they will do the same with the racketeering War on Terra.


:patriot:

[mojowork_n]

79. That's funny, Myrina.

I remember my science fiction -- we're all Terrans, ain't we?

[tclambert]

93. This is one time I think Bush got the pronunciation correct.

He's making war on the whole wide world.

[Life Long Dem]

119. That's the spirit!

:woohoo:

[Beam Me Up]

87. Your critique doesn't go nearly far enough.

The "War on Drugs", like the "War on Terror" modeled on it (both of which have to be put in quotes because they are such cynical deceptions pulled on an unsuspecting public), is in reality a policy of duplicity. For years now I've been trying to think of a term that could be used to indicate succinctly a kind of policy whose actual intentions are quite different from those publicly stated. The WoD is not merely a "failed" policy or a "incompetent" policy, it is a "duplicitous" policy. Its publicly stated aims are not its real aims. To understand this about a policy one needs to look at what a policy actually achieves, which, like the WoD, is quite different from what its publicly stated objectives are. How many hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on this "failed" policy through how many administrations? Why would government keep funding a "failed" policy? Cui bono. Who benefits from these "failed" policies -- that is what needs to be understood.

When one ties together (for one example) the alleged 9/11 hijackers, Abramov, the CIA and drug trafficking, one begins to get a much clearer picture of what has been going on in this country for low these many years. There are direct links between drug smuggling (and arms smuggling), organized crime syndicates, the CIA (and other covert agencies) and the political right wing on both sides of the isle but particularly the Republican side. Authors such as Peter Dale Scott have been chronicling this relationship for many many years.

[defendandprotect]

Drugs are a natural resouce like any other -- with huge profits ...

they were never ignored -- Golden Triangle/Thailand .. VN ...

Many rumors of secret Swiss bank accounts go back decades ...

perhaps a better idea for hiding the money has occurred to them--??

[druidity33]

150. hhmmm....

i believe the term you've described here:

"For years now I've been trying to think of a term that could be used to indicate succinctly a kind of policy whose actual intentions are quite different from those publicly stated. The WoD is not merely a "failed" policy or a "incompetent" policy, it is a "duplicitous" policy. Its publicly stated aims are not its real aims."



may best relate to this definition:

"Irony is a literary or rhetorical device, in which there is an incongruity or discordance between what one says or does, and what one means or what is generally understood.

In modern usage, it can refer to incongruity between the intended meaning of an action and the actual or perceived meaning of an action."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony



Perhaps you could call it Ironic Policy?



:)

[Beam Me Up]

156. Perhaps but to me "ironic" sounds "inadvertent" and I don't believe these

policies are inadvertent. SOME of the consequences of policies may be unforeseen but that certainly isn't the case with the criminalization of certain drugs -- especially one as benign as marijuana. Numerous studies over the years since its prohibition (and subsequent to its schedule 1 classification) have shown conclusively that it a) does not have a high potential for abuse and b) does have medical applications in certain instances. (A schedule 1 substance has to have a high potential for abuse and no 'accepted' medical application, that is the law.) Nevertheless, marijuana remains a schedule 1 substance, despite numerous petitions to HHS and the DEA for its rescheduling. I can't see this as accidental or inadvertent on the part of the DEA and HHS. It is a deliberate subversion of the law for political reasons and the consequence of this subversion have dramatic repercussions on individuals, families and society at large.

[druidity33]

160. sorry

but because the word "irony" sounds inadvertent to you, doesn't mean that's what it is. When irony is put to use , in both a literal and literary sense, intent is implicit. It's contained in the definition. If on the other hand you objected to the "feel" of the word Irony... maybe felt it "just wasn't right" i'd give you a pass. But the dictionary definition matches pretty closely to the phrase you were looking for.

:shrug:

[Grinchie]

105. It's Called Sustainable War"

It's big business, and keep a lot of idiots employed.

[dissemination]

130. but most dem leaders agree with the war on drugs.

[SpiralHawk]

18. Down with BFEE drug profiteering

Totaly skankulous

[redqueen]

36. Hear hear.

It's been 15 years too long.

[loudsue]

54. Closer to 20 years. This was Reagan's big idea.

Just a continuing program to make some people very wealthy, and a good way to finance the shadow government. Iran Contra was never settled because Bush, Sr. pardoned everyone.

[redqueen]

56. I refer to 93 cause that's when Dems had the WH and Congress.

That was our first chance to fix this.

Let's see if we blow it again.

[loudsue]

66. My opinion is that, more than any other president, Obama is dependent

upon the good graces of the CIA/FBI/NSA/Secret Service to keep him safe. I doubt he will piss any of them off for a good long while.

[Demeter]

71. You Don't Really Think These Agencies LIKE To Do This Stuff, Do You?

[Grinchie]

106. Clinton was owned by WalMart and Monsanto

He also fed at the trough of Corporate lobbiests, promoted the outsourcing of jobs, and inflated america's dependance in Chinese imports.

You can defend Clinton all you want, but the fact that he continued to fund these idiotic policies proves that he was only slightly better for america. He certainly is not the saint a lot of people like to make him out to be.

[Chemical Bill]

120. The drugs came in through Mena, Arkansas...

while Clinton was governor. Of course, it was GHWB who was in charge, so Bill's not really to blame, he's just covered in shit.

Bill

[blm]

73. No, there were STILL outstanding matters in IranContra to pursue, especially after Bush's diaries

were finally obtained.

And BCCI report and its outstanding matters didn't come out till Dec 1992, and should have prompted NEW hearings, further investigations, and new criminal charges.

[Gregorian]

69. Bravo. This makes my day.

I just got an email from my 84 year old dad. He stated that he's still in a state of "euphoria" over the election.

And now this.

Your post just woke me up to the reality of Obama's presidency. The end of the Bush family reign of terror.

Thank you. And may it come to fruition.

[DUlover2909]

2. I bet that an Obama win will trigger ALOT of this kind of airing of dirty laundry.

:bounce:

[femrap]

85. Don't get your hopes up...

I pray Morales stays safe. He has worked very hard for the native citizens of Bolivia.

I fear many will experience broken hearts. I learned not to have heroes...we are our own heroes.

[Zhade]

131. Yeah, that's what many said about clinton, and he promptly helped cover-up BCCI.

We have to MAKE them do this shit. Running out of time.

[GetTheRightVote]

153. I hope the truth continues to come out as well and then gets corrected

:kick:

[Peace Patriot]

3. Go, Evo! Beautiful truth-teller! nt

[ingac70]

4. Doing away with that terrorist org....

will save alot of tax dollars.

[deaniac21]

104. You think Obama is going to disband the DEA?

Dream On.

[jwirr]

135. I'd say that politically he cannot do away with it BUT there is a lot he

can do about gutting it by not funding it, changing the directives, etc.

[Solly Mack]

5. That could be fun to watch

[pjt7]

6. It's going to be very interesting to see how Obama

handles these things. Everybody assumes that he will be the fair sherrif,& i pray to God he is, but until he proves it...

[sasquatch]

7. Oh yeah

:D

[natrat]

8. the *ush junta involved with drug trafficking.......never

[CADEMOCRAT7]

9. Thank you for this post. I hope it all comes out.

All of a sudden, everything has changed. OBAMA !!!
I wonder how deep and how far the truth will be revealed ?
I wonder truly what percentage of the United States economy is being financially sustained by the drug trade ?

[clixtox]

51. 100%

Drugs are what has always sustained our capitalist system.

[shanti]

72. which is also why

marijuana is still "illegal". may this be the beginning of the end of the WOD!

[Dr.Phool]

12. Unfortunately, his life expectancy just shrunk appreciably.

Criminals don't like to be exposed.

[moodforaday]

83. THat was my very first thought

on reading the headline. Not so smart perhaps to announce it a relatively long time before he can actually deliver the evidence to the sitting president.

[formercia]

13. 322

Skull and Bones was founded by people that made their fortune in the Opium trade.

[Octafish]

157. After petroleum, narcotrafficking is the biggest business there is.

Like money, it attracts the nicest people.

[formercia]

161. When fishing, one must use the proper bait.

Octafish require the scent of ripe BFEE. :hi:

[mod mom]

14. Get extra personal security Evo Morales! (truth is all!)

[TroubleMan]

15. Put this in the no-shit-sherlock department.

Everybody knows they are involved in the drug trade. Finally one of the world leaders is doing something about it.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

21. We apparently have the same filing system.

[Andrushka]

27. Beat me to it!

Was about to write something along the lines of: "Morales also announced that bears shit in the woods."

Go Evo. B-)

[defendandprotect]

92. Let's see who joins this truth teller ...!!

[mntleo2]

16. But, but, but, SA leaders are the crooks, not the CIA ...

...as an activist during the Sanctuary Movement in the 1980s, when the CIA was responsible for the assassination of Archbishop Romero for having the audacity to suggest that, as Jesus said more than once God loved the poor not the rich, and if the poor helped one another, everyone could live comfortably. No, under Bu$h and Reagan and their goons, they used that dreaded word "socialism for whar Romero taught and in Americanese "freedom" meant the devastation of whole villages, the murders and rapes of nuns and priest, where Negroponte pretended he was actually representing We The People when instead he was overlooking CIA cocaine trafficking into East L.A. for the CIA,

So I can tell you Morales has a lot to be suspicious about.

But let's just say that because the truth was suppressed during the Iran-Contra hearings little was done about it, the same people such as Negroponte who were in play in the 1980s are in play now ~ and keeping a greedy, blood-soaked eye on what is going on in Afghanistan where the poppy trade is booming. No wonder the "changeless" U.S. politicians disparage European countries who have legalized and then controlled their drug trade. Now Europeans have actually functioning heroin addicts who go to work and provide for themselves and their families instead of hitting little old ladies over the head and grabbing their purses. This way our politicians can tell us it is so much BETTER for us when some drug lord is the only one in his ghettoed community profiteering and making sure that any "traitors" are found floating in some river so he can continue his pimping and drug trade. Let freedom ring!

I am not sure what Obama can do about it. If he values his life, he may not be able to do much. If the CIA along with the DEA, can without conscience and aware of the devastation that our policies wreak yet still lie to We The People about their own roles in these things because they have never paid the price of the Truth, I am wondering after 50 years of this if we can stop it now. To this day The School of the Americas teach thugs how to murder and rape nuns and assassinate religious figures who refuse to pay homage to the U.S. and the Vatican while actually trying to live their principals, as the School has always done.

Nope until it is general knowledge what these murderers do, and until they are all paraded out into the light and held accountable, "our" goons would have little reason to behave for our new president as they never have had to do for the last 4 presidents and this last president, who has family ties to it all, will continue to profit greatly from his own bloody role. All the while making "Freedom" into a swear word.

Huh. Change indeed!

Cat In Seattle

[defendandprotect]

88. misplaced --

[axollot]

17. It's nice to see that world leaders trust-

an Obama Administration to do the right thing in the face of hard evidence. Interesting that no one has come forward before, or we had rarely heard about it but we all were quite aware that there is major abuses going on in the DEA - i.e. California medical MJ people/centers etc.
But that is the US - I imagine overseas, they are much worse.

The DEA needs to be dismantled and rebuilt from the ground up with a very different objective, because like the war on 'terror' the war on 'drugs' isn't working the way we are going about it.

That is one reason I was glad to hear Kucinich, in 2006 after the big house win, he was appointed to 'review' the DEA. He had said at the time, not to expect anything over night that it would take a long time just to review all the documents and evidence. (paraphrased, but nearly word for word).

Glad we have Kucinich on the job in that area, and I really think he's the perfect man to do the above.

Cheers
Sandy

[Jackpine Radical]

25. Whether or not the War on Drugs is working or not is a matter of perspective.

The DEA is functioning very well as a price-support mechanism for the drug cartels. It's also a great financial success, as well as a source of extralegal power for the people who run it. Think of all the property they confiscate and either convert to their own use or sell for a nice profit every year. Boats, planes, SUVs, real estate.... Some people got a very nice gig going there, and they're not gonna want to see their power base dismantled.

[Beam Me Up]

89. Exactly! n/t

[happydreams]

100. Hee, hee. Plus you get to use the government to "beat" the competition.

:crazy:

[axollot]

138. Doesn't change the fact that something needs to be done there! These are some of them!

Just because it's a mammoth cash cow for people in important positions, and a difficult one to fix should never mean, throw up our hands and do nothing....

I hope they fix the worst of our broken systems first, and god we have a LOT to work on, where to start? But that's why I'm sitting here typing this and not running the country =)

Cheers
Sandy

[JDPriestly]

99. Yes, this is a job for Congress. The president can appoint people

to offices and set policy, but Congress is the only branch of government that can hold hearings about the conduct of government employees. No one person should take the dangerous task of exposing crimes by powerful people upon him- or herself.

[AllyCat]

19. Someone had to protect Shrub's cocaine supply. That's what the DEA

is for isn't it?

The Bush Crime Family isn't gone, but I imagine a few tentacles will be cut off here and there.

[peacetalksforall]

33. What it is really about is a secret, sub-level government - a dual government. All of

that profit unaccountable in our government. They have funding to operate their sub-level government. It is probably a good assumption to say that a lot of it goes for paying people off. Some assassinations might be out-sourced to the mafia from a variety of countries. Some money has probably been spent for campaigns against us - including the salaries of experts from think tanks who work out the details for getting their things done - and then appear on corporate networks to spread their agenda - as if they have expertise. They do - it's not benovolent.

[blm]

39. If exposed fully, then there are a few WELLKNOWN Democrats who are in deepshit, too, for allowing

BushInc to continue these operations even AFTER IranContra, BCCI reports AND especially the CIA drugrunning story exposed in 1996.

[judasdisney]

124. including Joe Biden's role as an architect of Plan Colombia?

[blm]

127. Biden wasn't in charge of protecting the crimes of BushInc - he never had access to documents that

proved CIA was running drugs and he didn't BLOCK the story at every turn, did he? I'd say Biden, like many other senators, was LED into some of his positions in the past by presidents, including the last Dem president, who didn't care how intel was spun as long as it got the result they wanted.

[NinetySix]

20. The simplest solution: Wage an economic war.

Legalize and regulate all narcotics. Medicalize some, allow others for recreational use (similar to alcohol). Nationalize the narcotics industry. Control both production and supply. Deflate prices in the short term to artificially low levels. Make illicit competition economically impossible. Fight any violent backlash by the former cartels with overwhelming force.

The central problem in the drug war is not the evil nature of drugs and their corrupting effects upon addicts' morality. The problem is the evil nature of money and its corrupting effects upon the suppliers' morality. Take the money out of the drug trade, and it vanishes like a fart in the wind.

Let all the former drug runners go out and look for a REAL goddamn job.

[peruban]

24. There is a problem with your proposed solution.

You say that the central problem is not the corruption of the user but you don't deny that it has an enormously negative impact on the user as well as greater society. People should be trusted with the freedom and liberty to chose what to do with their own bodies(I have personal reservations on this but I still stand resolute in the ideology) but I do not believe our society has developed to the point where this kind of liberty is ready for the masses. We need laws an restrictions to control the negative effects of our actions which may not be immediately comprehensible. I cite drunk driving and the long term effects of hard drug use.

I do agree that the current economic system has to be taken out out business somehow but there will still be a demand for drugs and users will pay exorbitant fees for others to take enormous risk to find new trade routes, it's the nature of the beast.

[Jackpine Radical]

28. First--I think we're talking harm reduction here, not eleimination of all bad effects.

The former is possible, the latter is not.

Drug use has a negative impact on the user. Illegal drug use has a negative impact on the user and a widespread set of negative impacts on society at large--for example, all the secondary crimes committed by people trying to supply their habits. And, as someone mentioned above, Europe, with its saner policies has a much smaller set of drug-related social problems. Also note that the person to whom you're responding didn't call for simple legalization, but rather a complex and nuanced approach that treats different drugs differently. And lastly, you cite drunk driving--but that's not a parallel situation. We treat drunk driving by punishing the specific behavior, not by outlawing alcohol.

[peruban]

152. You hold your own noose,

Secondary crimes become an economic issue. People steal for money, not drugs - despite the eventual outcome.

[bagrman]

40. It's the forbidden fruit therory, Would you shot junk just because it was legal. Are you a drunk

because liquor is? A persons personality plays a big role in weather or not they abuse drugs or alcohol. Profits are the cause of most of the grief involved in drug abuse.


Latr

[peruban]

46. I don't think so.

The forbidden fruit theory is one of curiosity and desire for greater ability, knowledge, control, or power. One may shoot junk to find out what it's about, but that knowledge can just as much sicken and repulse them from the idea as it can attract them to reliving it. Same with the negative effects of any other drug. Trust me.

[anarch]

109. good grief, people do drugs anyway

decriminalization, or even full legalization, doesn't imply a lack of regulation. Treating drug abuse as a medical problem instead of a criminal one would be a huge step in the right direction, if you ask me.

[Beam Me Up]

90. Right on! n/t

[defendandprotect]

96. But it is this private use of and exploitation of natural resources which

enable the gatekeeping and prohibition -- and ensure huge profits for those in

control --

[peruban]

22. I f this wasn't already obvious to most of us it should have been.

I live in Fort Lauderdale and we have Port Everglades here, after 9/11 that place got so locked down you couldn't go near it without three forms of ID and you know what? - there were just as many drugs in the streets as there were before. If all the added security why not more drug busts? It's like I've always said about the war on drugs, it not a war on drugs, it's a war on competition. The U.S. have always wanted to implicitly control controlled substances. When that failed during prohibition they simply regulated it. And that is what will eventually happen with drugs because its not a criminal issue at heart, it's - and I'm sad to say it by invoking John Stuart Mill here - it's a matter of liberty. People aren't ready for that level of liberty and personal responsibility but that's how true liberty works in a nutshell. It's an economic issue and we live in an economically powered civilization. Until the economic supply and demand for drugs has been addressed and somehow regulated there will always be implicit operations between nations for control of the trade. It's an issue that goes as far back as Homer's Iliad and the Trojan war, dispute over trade routes.

Thoughts?

[NinetySix]

38. The term "controlled substance" is a misnomer

When a government passes a law to make a particular substance illicit, it is "controlled" in a legal sense, but in no way is it thereby controlled as a practical matter. Think of other laws which have outlawed behavior or consumption in the past: prohibition first and foremost, but also laws against such practices as abortion, miscegenation, and numerous other examples. Such laws do not force an end to the practices they intend to regulate, and certainly bring no measure of control other than to force them underground. All such laws normalize a particular moral position, while attempting to marginalize its opposite, and that is all they succeed in doing. If liberty is an issue, as I believe it is in all matters where there is no direct effect of a certain behavior on others in society, then clearly any legislation to outlaw these particular behaviors is in opposition to liberty.

But when violence is concomitant with the illicit status of a particular behavior, then the effect of the prohibition itself becomes more deleterious to society than the behavior itself. Your child is not likely to die from a heroin addict injecting himself in his own home with a medically prescribed dosage of the drug intended to maintain the addiction at a controllable level and stave off the painful symptoms of withdrawal. Your child is far more likely to be killed in a home invasion perpetrated by a junkie looking to fence your goods to get his next fix, or by drug lords warring over disputed turf.

As to the well-being of those who ingest the narcotics, government control also entails quality control. In an environment of medicalized narcotics, addicts need no longer fear overdose due to excessive purity of the substance, nor the presence of toxic impurities used to cut the substance to a certain purity level. In addition, addicts who congregate in dangerous areas or septic settings like alleys and crack houses to ingest their needed narcotics could be protected by having them administered in safe, clean, controlled environments.

[peruban]

44. Your perspective on controlled substances is thought provoking.

I didn't intend to imply prohibition by imposition of a control measure but I suppose the imposing any control measure is really just fuel to the prohibition fire. The slippery slope, so to speak.

I agree that the liberty granted must be commensurable with the public well being and that drug abuse has rampant deleterious effects both criminally and economically. It's a double edged blade we tread with this issue and that's why I don't believe we've matured as a civilization enough to answer this social problem. It requires draconian and Machiavellian measures in order to keep it "under control" and to save the public from themselves. We just need a more evolved populace and at least equally evolved leaders before this issue can be properly administered.

Something must be said however on the medicalization of drug abuse, not that's that what you were driving at, per se. Even if we were to imagine some strange Orwellian/Brazil(The movie) society where needs are ultimately met in some fashion - whether it be by free market, nationalized industrialism, or socialized cooperative - the human condition will still suffer because of so many turning away from life and into these escapist states. Take the case of China and the Opium Wars. In many ways, we do have government injected industrialization of the drug market through chemistry and development. You think these things are being done by second rate chemists in backyard labs? Hell to the no, it's perfected in proper labs and adapted to the field like any process. Think this is all a joke?, just think about it.

[NinetySix]

60. My point is exacly that it cannot be controlled in such heavy-handed fashion

The only thing that government legislation to stop drug use is capable of controlling is the legal status of the narcotics trade and the legal status of drug use. I am no libertarian on this issue. Decriminalization (which looks as if it is on the horizon) will be more damaging than prohibition, because nothing about the system of supply will have changed except its nominal legal status. I am calling for a nationalization of the entire industry, which any businessman will tell you signals the death knell of a private industry. Knee cap the current suppliers in favor of a government mandate, and the illicit narcotics trade will not wither, but die instantly without a whimper.

If necessary, set up controlled colonies for "lotus-eaters." Those who are already addicted will find that their lifestyle improves, while those who cannot tolerate use in their own communities can determine the effects of the segregation for themselves. Provide rehabilitation to those within the system who might have tired of the lifestyle and seek to live drug-free in the wider world.

As to the historical example of the Opium Wars, imagine the reaction of those opium traders to the system of supply that I am proposing. They would have been inchoate with rage, because it would have been their livelihood that was threatened. THAT is PRECISELY what I recommend for the current traffickers. With regard to the deleterious effects on the human condition, if by that you that mean the diminished capacity of an individual to contribute to society, I ask simply that you consider the contributions of addicts such as Mary Shelly, Percy Bysshe Shelley, Edgar Allen Poe, Ken Kesey, etc.

To some extent, the method I espouse requires a libertarian social attitude, in that a new tolerance of drug use is necessary. The benefit is that, with no illicit supply, there will be no future addicts, and the system will take care of the needs of every current addict. In other words, it is an attitude that is required only temporarily. But as stated above, this is not a libertarian approach either legislatively or economically. It is genuine and rigid government control over the supply, quality, and use of the substances in question.

[peruban]

70. I want to believe what you say whole-heaterdly

But I can not agree with the nationalization of the drug trafficking trade. I stress again though that this approach is not ready for our time, it's damage will be greater than the intended good. Your supposition that there will be no more new addicts is, not to be harsh, but naive. Addicts always turn on other addicts, your citation of brilliant artists who also addicted themselves to altered realities to create or inspire their art is just the example aspiring artists look for when seeking to create their own "Howl", "Ode on a Grecian Urn", "The Raven", or whatever.

I don't agree with decriminalization, at least with most synthetic and purposely processed drugs. I say synthetic and purposely processed because they are designed for particular pharmacological effect and addiction with moderate control of mortality rates is important for continued profit. That's just the basic economics of the issue. I believe that the use of coca leaves as used by the Incan and other Quechua speaking natives of Peru, Bolivia, and such is natural and allowable by liberty as is tobacco use. I do not, however, approve of the refinement and pharmacological raping of the plant for narcotics trade use which is the source of the black market drug trade part of the North and South American economies.

We can then of course look at the opiate trade from Europe and Asia. They come from the same places, pretty much, just different trade routes. Don't think that the Afghanistani and Iraqi wars had nothing to do with drug trade routes, so what do we do there? Invade?, impose economic oligarchy over existing systems supported by governments, armies, and "nationalist" patriots? I don't know how we can handle these systems, I'm just college a dropout but this is a major issue because opiates are still a major drug trafficking concern. Its derivatives are legal and some illegal - this makes it a "close to the vest" issue. Let's see how that goes.

Ok, so rehabilitation services are a band-aid fix to a rampant social pandemic that occurs not just to brilliant artistic minds, but to those who want to escape the harshness of their own worlds - maybe an abusive relationship, maybe a lifetime of failure and financial servitude, maybe a world of guilt inspired by the simplest of human condition - it's a way to resolve, if even just temporarily a psychological pain with the relief of a an enlightenment-like bliss unimaginable only to the most enslaved of addicts.

As for a libertarian attitude, I hate to be the devil's advocate here, but I find myself morally obligated to believe in it on an idealistic basis. I won't vote for it, but when I have children I will teach them that what we believe is not always what should be legislated.

[NinetySix]

86. I see a great deal of agreement between what the two of us have written here.

One bit of difference that seems to divide us is your assertion that society is simply not ready to embrace such a change. But I might remind you that the legal status of narcotics has not always been what it is; in fact the legal history of "controlled substances" is surprisingly short. Opium and its derivatives were only outlawed in the first decade of the 20th century. Cocaine was also legal through the early years of the last century (and was even available for sale to the public via the Sears Wishbook!) before becoming outlawed by the same forces that brought about the prohibition of alcohol. And Marijuana was only assigned its status as an illicit substance following the public outcry on the heels of such deceptive propaganda films as 1937's Reefer Madness.

The truth of the matter is that all of these narcotics, and others besides, have a long history of distribution and consumption, in some cases stretching back longer than recorded history. Opium was a major commodity sold along the Silk Road, Arabian Nomads regularly used Hashish on their long journeys through the Empty Quarter, and as you point out, Coca leaves (although not refined cocaine) have been chewed by the Indigenous Peoples of South America quite probably for as long as the people have inhabited the region.

I only advocate allowing modern human beings the liberty to retain control over their own lives so that they can lead them in whatever way they see fit. It is personal autonomy that is the real radical idea here. The intervention of the government is only necessary insofar as it is necessary to tear down the edifice of an entrenched distribution mechanism that seeks to enslave addicts for financial purposes.

I think you'll agree that if there is no profit in private distribution of narcotics (and there wouldn't be if the market were flooded with convenient sources of low-cost or free, high-quality narcotics, distributed by prescription from your family physician). As to whether the drugs would still proliferate among those who would like to turn others on recreationally, I can only point out that the supply would be controlled by physicians who would have no incentive to prescribe amounts greater than those needed to maintain the addiction; such behavior would constitute a dereliction of the duty to "do no harm." Prescribing an addict any extra is more likely to lead to increased use by the addict rather than sharing in any case. And because of the nature of addiction, such medicalization would utterly undermine any illicit market in the substances, with no need for strict enforcement. If you can get it for free, why buy it? And if nobody's buying, what's the point in selling? And if cheap supplies of the substances are kept artificially tight, no addict in his right mind would even consider sharing.

I absolutely agree with your assertion:Don't think that the Afghanistani and Iraqi wars had nothing to do with drug trade routes, so what do we do there? Invade?, impose economic oligarchy over existing systems supported by governments, armies, and "nationalist" patriots? I don't know how we can handle these systems.... Exactly right, tried and failed. But you can't grow tobacco and sell it on the open market without a license from the government. In the same way, cut out the suppliers who have controlled production and distribution up to now by setting up government farms to grow the crops. Maintain tight controls over all aspects of production and distribution. Set heavy penalties to anyone convicted of circumventing government control, whether for profit or otherwise. Invasion and occupation are the pound of cure solutions. An ounce of prevention could save a lot of people a lot of heartache.

You also describe a rampant social pandemic that occurs not just to brilliant artistic minds, but to those who want to escape the harshness of their own worlds - maybe an abusive relationship, maybe a lifetime of failure and financial servitude, maybe a world of guilt inspired by the simplest of human condition - it's a way to resolve, if even just temporarily a psychological pain with the relief of a an enlightenment-like bliss unimaginable only to the most enslaved of addicts. I agree absolutely that this is the situation as it stands. But remember that prostitution and pornography are fueled by addiction, and that it is thus not liberty and choice that sends the participants of those industries to the lifestyles they lead. I think we would be kinder to future generations if we were to improve their lives by controlling any addictions they might have fallen on by chance or mistake rather than continuing to consign their futures to the kind of lives of exploitation and degradation which only serve to reinforce the addictions they are slave to.

Our concerns seem to be quite compatible. It is only in the prospective solutions that we seem to differ.

[peruban]

108. We most certainly agree more than disagree.

Issues of interest persist, your citing that currently illegal or controlled substances have been legal for consumption in the past simplifies the concerns of those who worked so hard to prohibit the spread of these "imbibements". They saw these substances as a catastrophic epidemic, ironically a religious "war" was waged against the terrible indecencies of ankle skirts and jazz music.

Ok, but to the more substantial point at hand. So we're not really talking about nationalizing, industrializing, or even hypercapitalizing on the current drug epidemic. Am I right to think that you think that a medical approach is the right way to go? Maybe. A revamped medical system would have to be introduced and addiction needs to have a major stigma change in the public eyes into a true affliction rather than a character flaw as it is now. This is not something that will happen in our lifetimes, I think. Compassion and understanding is all we can hope for.

So, ok, we control quality and production somehow through some miraculous pact with the supplier countries which would love to see things stay in the hands of the current cartels. We offer some compensation greater than the black market cost (both in production and transport) and secure a closed market or at least a legitimate market supplier according to country political competitiveness. Then, finally, we can offer the drug addict consumer a quality product at a economically viable cost.

I just don't see it happening.

Mankind is not ready for true liberty yet. We must as individuals ween off the teet of civilization.

[NinetySix]

154. The difference between what I propose and the paradigm of the past

is the difference between genuine control over the entire sphere of narcotics, and the absolutely unfettered drug trade. I find it ironic that the drug trade has changed little since the 19th century, except that it is no longer sanctioned by law (with all that entails). Cannons were employed back then in defense of supplies and trade routes, and guns are still used in the same regard today. When I speak of nationalization, the picture you form in your mind should be that of an all-out, untethered economic assault on the narcotics industry, one much more devastatingly effective than any amount of firepower that might be brought to bear. The kind of assault I propose is one intended to present an existential economic threat to all drug cartels everywhere.

Your primary concern is that it seems to be that we humans are not yet mature enough to control our own personal behavior and fate, but that we must be looked over by a benevolent, guardian government for our own good. This is simply too Hobbesian for me to accept. I subscribe to the Lockeian notion that Liberty is innate in us, and does not belong to someone else to be bestowed upon us from without. If we do not insist that both individual liberty and individual responsibility must be retained by each member of our society, then I fear we will never be mature enough to wield such liberty. We are, as the Founding Documents claim, endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and we must not delegate those rights, but assert them.

You may be right, that it may never happen. Those who have control may always see it this way and never provide us an avenue to prove that, acting rationally and soberly to fashion sensible drug policy, we can deal with the problems of addiction and exploitation in a forthright and self-aware manner to create a more ideal social structure with regard to drug use. But I am convinced that this approach is likely to eliminate the dangers associated with the current state of the narcotics industry, improve the lifestyles of all members of society, and engender the latent compassion and sense of responsibility that citizenship ought to entail by forcing us to actually face up to and deal constructively with the problem of drugs.

[humbled_opinion]

23. CHANGE WE NEED.

TRUTH for once. Obama will ensure that issues like these will get full airing and handled appropriately. If I were him I would Scrub the CIA, FBI, NIA immediately...... Fire all the heads and hire new staff..

[NBachers]

26. Read "Powderburns" by Celle Castillo

A DEA agent for 12 years, Castillo worked in the thick of the DEA drug wars in Central America. When he observed Bush the Elder and the DEA of supporting the drug trade, he tried to change things. It's an excellent book by someone who was there.

http://www.powderburns.org/

[Barrett808]

64. And "The Big White Lie" by former DEA agent Michael Levine

The Big White Lie: The Deep Cover Operation That Exposed the CIA Sabotage of the Drug War
http://www.amazon.com/Big-White-Lie-Operation-Undercover/dp/1560250844

[defendandprotect]

98. Thanks for the info/video ... FED also "laundering" ...

Quite a private economy they have going ---

AND couldn't agree more about attack on Constitution and our freedom!!!

[happydreams]

107. I gotta get that book. I need a book like this and Barrett's that tells the

story from a personal level.
A phenomenal book that I've cited numerous times here at DU is Al McKoy's "The Politics of Heroin: CIA complicity in the International drug trade".

[Fly by night]

29. Obama: please appoint someone to head the DEA who will dismantle it ASAP.

[No Elephants]

30. Any reason why the evidence has not been and will not be presented to

President bush? It's been his DEA for the past eight years.

[razors edge]

31. Maybe Bolivia remembers

what happened to evidence supplied to the * administration from Saddam Hussein about Iraqi WMD.

3000 pages became 800 pages before being released to the UN. I see no reason to suspect this would play out any differently.

[WriteDown]

37. Why not just make it completely public and let the....

international press examine all the evidence. I have to wonder why its so clandestine.

[razors edge]

41. I agree.

But the US somehow grabbed up all the Iraqi info and cherry picked what would be released. If they did it once, they could do it again.

[peruban]

50. It's clandestine nature is due to the international sensitivity.

As I've always held, the drug war is one of competition not of abolition. There are other nations' economies, specifically sensitive European ones that the U.S. caters to in its covert gangland wars that need to be attended to in a diplomatic matter. I'm not defending here, I'm just suggesting perfectly reasonable intentions.

[pitohui]

55. well the money is laundered in friendly countries like singapore

so yeah there is an issue of not wanting to start even more shit w. even more countries, the usa has created enough enemies for itself as it is

bush has never treated bolivia w. anything other than cold contempt, at some point, an intelligent thinking man understands that it's hopeless to discuss with someone who hates you, you can only take action, as morales has done in tossing out troublemakers or perceived troublemakers out of his country

if we thought a bolivian visitor in the usa was a spy, or a drug seller, i think we would take strong action ourselves without taking the time to beg the international press (which could care less anyway) for permission to eject the individuals in question...

[pitohui]

52. morales has said bush is the anti christ and bush has backed cia efforts to remove morales

he believes that bush tolerates this kind of activity, no doubt as a way for dea agents to get bonus income

i do not believe bush has anything upstairs in the way of brain and i doubt he understands that this shit is taking place but, in any event, bush does not acknowledge morales as the legally elected leader of bolivia and has supported efforts to remove him or at least create unrest

just as in venezuela

you can't talk frankly to someone who wants to kill and eat you, and this is the situation that morales has faced with bush

with obama, morales has a chance for a clean slate, and i'm hopeful that they can speak frankly and get any rogue agents removed, plus "dea" and "journalists" that are really cia agents working to dislodge morales gov't really need to be removed from bolivia

bolivia's need is for a more liberal gov't than the george bushes of the world are willing to accept, the capitalist model is not going to work for them

[peruban]

63. Your optimism is reinvigorating.

I'm going to be more skeptical and suppose that W is complicit in these black ops - let's not be naive, the man did get an MBA from Harvard, even if it was a joke he learned something about economics and has at least been coached in understanding the policies he's helped influence.

The cruel fact about the importance of drug trade economics on the U.S. GNP is unavoidable. No politician wants to talk about it because its considered a "war" since Reagan and "terrorism" since 9/11.

I wish it were realistic to think that Obama is going to walk in, clean everything up and the rest of the world will just follow suit but we have to accept the fact that we've been playing a dirty game of poker with the rest of the world for a long time and they aren't thrilled about cleaning up their act either. Especially those who only just got their beaks wet, like the Russians. Just saying.

Latin America has never seen eye to eye with one another, it's what kept them from being the natural balance of unified power on this side of the globe. The U.S. has taken advantage of this at every opportunity, by supporting revolutions from Spain then opposing unification movements like those of Simon Bolivar by supporting infighting which continues into today. Unfortunately, there seems to be no end to the nationalism which continues to separate the Latin American nations. The trade of illicit drugs to North America and Europe remains a contended issue of control.

[xchrom]

32. recommend

[Lugnut]

34. Here we go......

:popcorn:

[Javaman]

35. anyone paying attention knew all along that the dea had nothing to do with

actually "arresting" people. it was always about money. This comes as a revelation?

I hope this guy stays out of small planes.

[Richard D]

42. Evo is so cool

A real human being. That should be a requirement for politicians.

[bagrman]

45. It will be interesting to see how much air time this gets in the MSM.

If it's not covered in the press, we know that it's a fact.

Latr

[bamacrat]

47. How could he be accused of promoting big government if he did shut down the DEA ..

and also the failed war on drugs. we would save so much money, and violate so fewer rights. Oh and by the way how awesome does President Obama sound?

[pitohui]

58. he isn't going to shut down the dea

however i would like to see an end to destructive actions like spraying herbicide over widespread areas of other nations, something the dea has done several times since reagan in bolivia

people who are purifying cocaine and running huge factories and becoming, literally, billionaires while killing our own people need to be taken out (keep in mind, some or maybe all of these big fish are not bolivian nationals)

however, our approach of flying over in airplanes and basically destroying farmland and forest alike in bolivia causes great harm to the peasant and the environment and has done NOTHING but provide price support for the cost of cocaine

i hope morales puts good evidence in front of obama and anyone who is committing a crime that causes cocaine to be distributed in the usa is dealt with, while harmless farmers growing a harmless leaf that is chewed unprocessed...are let alone

you do not have to close down the entire dea to get this result, what you have to do is arrest and prosecute the rogue agents, and you have to shift direction so that you go after the real problem and "big" fish instead of some random bolivia guy who raises a little leaf to chew so people can work at elevation

my two cents

i'm also tired of the so-called money laundering laws that exist only to make sure that you and i are afraid to have or carry cash (small amts like $10K or even less must be reported and tracked) while billionaires -- and literally, some of the mexican cartel drug lords are Billionaires with a B -- are allowed to own entire banks and move their money electronically around the world

the dea wastes time with the small shit because, i believe, too many bad people at the top are being paid off to look the other way when it comes to the REAL big stuff, my opinion anyway

they pick on bolivia because it is literally perceived as too weak to fight back while allowing true bad guys to thrive in mexico and within our own borders -- our so-called law enforcement suddenly loses its gonads when asked to confront a real, dangerous enemy -- it doesn't take much of a man to spray weed-killer on an un-armed bolivian peasant, now does it? but try assisting in the war that is currently taking place in tijuana and making it safe for people and police officers right there on our own borders...ask about that...and all you hear is "crickets"

[Maat]

48. While I support decriminalization regarding drug offenses ..

and legalization of marijuana use, I believe that users of these drugs need to take responsibility for the killing and torture that results, and for whom they patronize.

[High Plains]

77. You have it absolutely backwards.

There is nothing intrinsic to the production of coca/cocaine or opium/heroin that leads to "killing and torture." The negative effects you're talking about are an artifact of drug prohibition, not drug production.

Take the US alcohol industry, for example. No one is being tortured and killed in the booze wars these days. That only happened when alcohol production was prohibited.

You want to end the torture and killing? End drug prohibition.

[Jed Dilligan]

145. Yup.

[Maat]

147. Not so.

As a social worker (I'm retired now), people on cocaine and methamphetamine often were violent and tortured their children AND their partners.

It's just not so that that drug abuse is harmless to others. You can believe it's so, but it's not (and, no, the perpetrator would not have done it anyway - judgment was seriously altered on the drug - that's why people take it - it changes the brain).

When someone is on that shit, they are going to stay away from MY kid ... she was already deliberately burned by someone high on a stimulant before we adopted her. Don't bother to put that they would have done it anyway - the facts and witness testimony do not support that.

[High Plains]

158. I assumed you were referring to the wars in Latin America, not drug use.

Still, I will argue for legaliization, even of stimulants, on the basis of overall harm reduction. Now, we get both the harms of drug abuse and the harms of drug prohibition. Better to remove one set of harms completely (prohibition) and work to reduce the harms associated with drug use.

Yes, some tiny fraction of stimulant users commit violent acts. So does some tiny fraction of alcohol users. And so do some people who don't need drugs to be fucked up. Should we jail 999 out of thousand cocaine users because 1 out of 1000 will do something stupid? I don't think drug use in itself should be a crime, but neither should it be an excuse for any crimes committed.

[downindixie]

49. So it was said!

"Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attemps to control a man's appetite by legislation,and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes"

Abraham Lincoln

[bob4460]

91. Another Abe favorite of mine

"It has been my experience that a man with few vices also has few virtues"

[backscatter712]

57. This drug trafficking brought to you by the CIA...

the same fine folks who brought the world crack!

Lets hope some truth gets out there, and we're all decent enough to put an end to this crap.

[KansDem]

68. Well, that's what "CIA" means: "Cocaine Into America."

...or "Crack Into America" if you prefer.

[amyrose2712]

59. K.

[Doctor_J]

61. Obama will need a new cabinet-level dept to clean the stink of the BFEE

out of the government. Maybe the new AG can find a point man (David Iglesias?) to get all the way to the bottom of it

[tclambert]

122. What's BFEE stand for?

Oh, wait. "Bush Family Evil Empire." Haha, I like it. And I loves me the internets.

[Octafish]

149. Bush Family Evil Empire.

Following their activities is sort of a hobby of mine. But, first things first:

DEA Agents Agree: CIA means Cocaine Importation Agency

[Hulk]

65. Smart move for Morales...and Chavez and any other leaders of the world...

Stay quiet until the jack ass is out of the White House, and you will finally have someone who will listen to you and have dialogue with you instead of some idiot TELLING YOU what to do.

I hope the criminal moron in the White House will just sleep through the next 70+ days, and leave the world alone. He f*cks up everything he touches.

[Zephyr_Wind]

78. He won't sleep ...

he'll probably do as much damage as possible to try and make Obama look bad. Obama is going to have a long hard road to travel to try and undo all the horrors and damage the PNAC Neocons inflicted upon us and the world.

ZW

[tclambert]

125. That's why it's so important we have a majority Democratic Congress right now.

They can try to blunt some of Junior's schemes. That doesn't sound right. Cheney's schemes. That's more like it. Junior coming up with a scheme on his own. Imagine it!

Engler kind of did that as he was leaving the governor's office in Michigan. He wrecked the budget, and left Jennifer Granholm to try to clean up his mess.

[Ian David]

74. Oh, crap. Bush is going to invade Bolivia before he leaves office now. n/t

[Ian David]

75. Here's a photo of our last two DEA agents leaving Bolivia...

[bobthedrummer]

76. K&R

on edit: a link to Daniel Hopsicker's Madcow Morning News
http://www.madcowprod.com/

:patriot:

[AntiFascist]

80. K&R, this accounts for some of the corruption at the highest levels of the Bush Admin. n/t

[GreenTea]

81. Who's the least bit surprised? These are legalized thieves, criminals - jailing their competition

[moodforaday]

82. Black ops against el Presidente Morales

to begin in three seconds... two... one...

[Initech]

84. Holy crap! Does this mean the end of the war on drugs (profiteering)?

Damn this just keeps getting better and better! :wow: :popcorn:

[defendandprotect]

94. Of course...but the people running this didn't lose their control over

drug dealing on election day--!!

This is HUGE ... and has to be stopped because it's a major threat to democracy + freedom

of all citizens as our increasing prison population shows--!!

EVERYONE knows this is going on -- there was video recently from Afghanistan where a

British military officer is commenting on the new peaks of cocaine production ....

and comments on "how the American government just loves to sell drugs" ...!!

[tclambert]

95. The best way to fight drugs is to get people jobs

Busy, gainfully employed people have less time for all sorts of crime. Middle class tax cuts --> more middle class spending = economic stimulation = more business opportunities --> more job creation --> more people with middle class incomes --> more middle class spending, and repeat. That right there is your solution to economic woes of all kinds.

[defendandprotect]

101. In other words the new recession and loss of jobs will increase profits

for our drug dealers ...

[tclambert]

111. Why do you have to take the negative view?

On the positive side, the DEA can now pay for itself.

[tclambert]

112. Sorry, I'm getting close to 500 posts, so I'm getting a little silly

[tclambert]

114. Bingo, bango. 500

Thanks for your tolerance. Back to serious matters.

How can you tell the DEA is really in the drug business and not pretending to be in the drug business in order to infiltrate the drug business?

[defendandprotect]

116. Friday is a good day for silly posts ... I have 10,000+ of them ... Congrats ...

[tclambert]

128. 10,000+? My fingers'll be bloody stumps by then.

[defendandprotect]

136. Coincidentally ..

they are ....:(

[defendandprotect]

115. Right .. wrong of me to hate our freedom to have corruption ...

snd keep our banks in business laundering drug money --

I was being mean ..

[tclambert]

129. Hey, the drug business is a business, and the Republicans say business can never be wrong.

It's just market forces at work, and Adam Smith's invisible hand will make sure it all works out for the best. The part the Republicans object to is drugs making poor people feel good.

[defendandprotect]

137. I love when my bank wants all my ID for some little transaction --!!!

:nuke:

[HEyHEY]

97. I love that fucking guy.

Once Obama is in all the corrupt shit Clinton never dealt with will finally be sorted. The DEA chief among that.

[Vidar]

102. I hope his evidence is rock solid. Bravo Evo!

[happydreams]

103. Some thoughts: The first thing I would do if I were Obama....

Go get a full body armor suit that was not made by Ollie North's company, and wear it at all times. Then I would put my family in a safe house. Then I would go into exile and run operations from a remote location and like Yasser Arafat not sleep in the same place twice. (((Hire food tasters))) and handpick my personal security team.

Those were just my first thoughts. Of course this is the kind of situation that requires considerable thought and analysis.

The big problem is that Dubya will be able to access all CIA info and recieve briefings for the rest of his life as Poppy did. IOW he will, if I understand correctly, know Obama's most secret decisions.

In a way Obama is picking up where JFK left off, sometime after the latter said he wanted to break the CIA into a 1000 pieces.

[pitohui]

110. it was jimmy carter not jfk who tried to reduce the power and reach of the cia

result: october surprise in the 1980 election and the pretty much lifelong demonization of carter

nonetheless, if i were obama, i would not take your advice to go into exile, pretty much defeats the whole purpose of becoming president if he is to hide in a closet!

we have a secret service, let them do their job, again, carter is the one who threatened the cia, and while they may have smeared him, carter is very much alive and still active and doing good in the world to this day


the cia is not all powerful and a president can't live his life in fear

[defendandprotect]

118. Well .. only because the CIA killed JFK before he could destroy them ..!!

A minor technicality, I guess ---!!!!!!!

[tclambert]

121. The Church committee did a lot during the Ford admistration

to expose and curtail CIA excesses. Maybe too much. Frank Church, D-Idaho, chaired that Committee. It started in 1975. It led to the creation of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. IMO, they went too far in reining in the CIA's operational capabilities. What we're left with couldn't respond effectively to 9/11, and couldn't or wouldn't deal with Saddam Hussein without a full-blown war. Although, with the lax oversight characteristic of the Bush years, they've gone back to some of their worst habits when it comes to interrogating prisoners.

It's a tricky thing, oversight of the intelligence business. Too much oversight and they can't be effective when you need them. Too little, and they inevitably get carried away with the torture and the assassinations and the spying on your own people.

That would have to apply to the DEA as well. The secrecy, the huge amounts of money, the continual struggle against bad guys who get to live the good life, and the lack of discernible progress from one decade to the next has to tempt some agents to go all Vic Mackey.

The whole situation cries out for coming up with an entirely different approach.

[tclambert]

117. You think Dubya will read those reports?

Doesn't seem like he's paid attention to many of those papers so far. What was that one titled? "Bin Laden determined to attack within the United States?" He's just gonna go down to the "Sans Cattle" Ranch, and spend his time taking a chainsaw to nature like he's been doing the last eight years.

[diane in sf]

113. it would be really great to clean up this particular canker.

[judasdisney]

123. Obama's First Crisis Will Be A False Flag Attack In Latin America Designed To Turn BHO Against

designed to turn Obama against Chavez & Morales.

Obama will be pressured to side with Alvaro Uribe, the fascist president of Colombia.

[judasdisney]

126. Daniel Hopsicker

was told by a former DEA agent: "If you want to uncover the most explosive scandal of all time, examine the bank accounts of retired DEA agents."

http://www.madcowprod.com

[pitohui]

140. if this is being planned maybe a sit down with morales up front is a good pre-emptive move

i realize that obama has much on his plate and maybe the small poor nation of bolivia isn't the first idea to spring to mind BUT there is an opportunity here to reach out not just to bolivia but to the other liberalizing nations of south america -- venezuela, brazil, and so on

i would also like to see an end to the embargo on cuba, it's shameful this has cont'd for so long

[jwirr]

132. This probably links straight back to what the Kerry committee looked

into during Iran/Contra hearings and the drug peddling going on in GHWB's CIA. It would make me so happy to finally see them tried and convicted but I am very afraid because we are dealing with a huge crime syndicate here.

[Two Sheds]

133. Tell me something I don't know...

the War On Drugs has been even more of a failure than the War on Terror.

[Two Sheds]

134. Never trust Narcs. Never, EVER trust "successful" Narcs

and NEVER EVER EVER promote a Narc to a better job.

[wroberts189]

139. Gomer Pile: Suprise, Suprise, Surprise n/t

[McCamy Taylor]

141. And in another breaking story, the sky is blue. LOL.

The US Post Office is the main producer of child pornography in the US and the DEA is main reason that drugs are still illegal. They have to have some reason to incarcerate Black folks.

[lib2DaBone]

143. Ask Anyone who has dealt with the DEA......

..And you will find corruption of the highest level. DEA Agents confiscating CoCaine and Cash... then watching the DEA Agents keep the cash and snort the Cocaine.

What part of Corrupt is hard to understand?

Your Tax Dollars at work.

[Jed Dilligan]

144. No Shit, Sherlock.

I hope some corrupt agents get lengthy sentences behind this.

[superconnected]

146. I hope this man lives to present it to Obama.

[lib2DaBone]

148. COMPLICIT? LMAO......

..you ain't seen nothin' until you've seen a DEA FEDERAL agent snorting Coke and stuffing money in his pocket. Don't ask... you don't want to know......

[kiteinthewind]

151. I hope Morales has some really good security coverage.

I doubt they (DEA) are likely to let it happen. :scared:

[Oldenuff]

155. I appreciate all the threads I've read on this

and also appreciate the mini education I have received because of it.I too,would like to see some serious major change in the war on drugs.I was hoping Obama would effect some change,but was bummed when he chose Biden as a running mate.

I still have hopes that there might be change coming,especially on Cannabis,but we may have a long wait,as Obama recently said that he wasn't a supporter of Decrim.I was really saddened to hear that.If I thought that there might be one President who might be supportive of Decrim,I would have thought it would be Obama.

What a crock of shit.Politicians telling me what I can and cannot do as an adult,what a shame!

[StreetKnowledge]

159. Folks, Let's Consider the Source Here

While I don't doubt that the DEA does have corrupt members (probably more than a few), does anybody think that Washington is going to take Morales seriously? He's sucking off Chavez's tits, and while Obama may not have an issue with that, much of Congress will, especially since Chavez is an irritating pain in the ass.

And boy, we got a lot of conspiracy theorists on this board about funneling drugs into the USA. If that got out it would be beyond explosive, and don't you think that somebody like Kucinich would point it out?