Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: bigsky on July 02, 2005, 08:28:36 AM
-
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-drugs28jun28,1,898329.story?coll=la-headlines-world&ctrack=1&cset=true
# Despite $5.4 billion spent since 2000, coca growth in the Andes is high and prices in America low. More money is on the table.
By Sonni Efron, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON The Bush administration and congressional allies are gearing up to renew a plan for drug eradication in Latin America despite some grim news: The $5.4 billion spent on the plan since 2000 has made no dent in the availability of cocaine on American streets and prices are at all-time lows.
United Nations figures released this month show that coca cultivation in the Andean region increased by 2% in 2004 as declines in Colombia were swamped by massive increases in Peru and Bolivia. And the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said last week that the anti-drug effort had had "no effect" on the price or purity of drugs in the United States.
ADVERTISEMENT
The findings have fueled skepticism in Congress, where conservative groups have joined efforts to lobby against continued funding. The National Taxpayers Union called the anti-drug program a "boondoggle."
Nonetheless, a House committee last week approved the administration's request for $734.5 million for next year as part of a foreign aid bill. Debate on the bill could start as early as today. President Bush also may unveil a renewed multiyear commitment to South American anti-drug efforts this year when Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, a staunch U.S. ally, is expected to visit.
"We are heading in the right direction and we are winning," the federal drug czar, John P. Walters, told Congress last month.
"Plan Colombia" a six-year effort by Washington and Bogota to eliminate drug trafficking, end more than 40 years of armed conflict with rebels and promote economic and legal reform in Colombia expires this year. The Bush administration wants to continue it, a senior State Department official said.
"You adjust your tactics and you adjust your resources," the official said. "There's no inclination on the part of our administration to give up just because it's tough."
Negotiations with Bogota over details of a successor program to Plan Colombia will begin next month, the official said.
Administration and some congressional officials say Plan Colombia has had some striking success. Killings, massacres of villagers and other attacks blamed on drug trafficking all have fallen sharply since 2002, and kidnappings have fallen by half, according to Colombian Defense Ministry figures, even though this year has seen a resurgence of violence.
Drug crop eradication and drug interdictions are cutting into the profits of Colombia's right-wing paramilitaries and leftist rebels, Walters told Congress last month.
Walters testified that "cocaine production in the Andes has declined by 29% since 2001, and Colombia's opium crop was cut in half from 2003 to 2004." He said the reason that price and availability had not been affected was the lag of six months to a year between the time when the coca plant was harvested and when its cocaine was available on American streets.
The reports call the administration's assessment into question. Whereas cocaine production fell 11% in Colombia in 2004, it soared by 23% in Peru and 35% in Bolivia, according to the report by the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime. Overall, coca cultivation in the region increased 2%, the U.N. study said.
"The [U.N.] numbers are devastating," said Adam Isacson of the Center for International Policy, which has argued that eradication campaigns must be accompanied by large-scale development efforts that offer peasants alternative livelihoods.
"The spraying, when it isn't accompanied by any alternative development, doesn't seem to discourage [coca farmers] from trying again, because there just aren't a lot of other good choices out there," Isacson said.
Peasants have responded by planting even more coca, hiding it under trees and among other crops, and turning to varieties that produce a higher yield, the U.N. report said.
Whether or not the anti-drug effort is succeeding, the U.S. foreign aid budget is under new scrutiny, especially with the war in Iraq costing more than $4 billion a month and a $379-billion deficit looming for 2006. Colombia, the fifth-largest recipient of U.S. aid after Iraq, Israel, Egypt and Afghanistan, could be a target for cuts.
The Congressional Research Service tallied State Department and Defense Department spending on the Andean Counterdrug Initiative at $5.4 billion since 2000. Though the anti-drug program aids Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil, Panama and Venezuela, Colombia has received most of the money, about $4.5 billion."While there has been measurable progress in Colombia's internal security, as indicated by decreases in violence, and in the eradication of drug crops, no effect has been seen with regard to price, purity and availability of cocaine and heroin in the United States," the research agency report said.
The report said Colombia was no closer to ending its decades-long armed strife.
The conservative National Taxpayers Union last week called for the program to be cut back or killed.
"By all measurable criteria, Plan Colombia's effectiveness is dubious," said Paul Gessing, governmental affairs director of the anti-tax group. "It's a big taxpayer boondoggle."
Liberals also contend that the program is wasteful. Rep. James P. McGovern (D-Mass.) plans to offer an amendment to the foreign aid bill that would slash $100 million in U.S. military and security aid to Colombia.
One senior U.S. government policy advisor, who spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear he would be excluded from administration policy discussions, agreed with many of the critics.
ADVERTISEMENT
"It's a complete waste of money," the advisor said. "You have to ask yourself, why are we in Colombia?"
He added: "The bottom line is not how much they produce or how much we eradicate, the bottom line is, is there enough supply to meet the demand [in the United States], and there always is
. The traffickers are always one step ahead of us."
Plan Colombia began under the Clinton administration primarily to fight drugs. But after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush administration has emphasized counter-terrorism and regional security.
While some conservatives wish to cut funding for Colombia, many Democrats want to spend less on its military and more on rural economic development. Democratic critics also wonder whether the U.S. has an exit strategy for Colombia.
Rep. Sam Farr (D-Carmel), a former Peace Corps volunteer in Colombia, said the U.S. effort there violates a key principle of international aid: "Work yourself out of a job."
After five years of U.S. funding, American military advisors are still training Colombian troops and American companies are still being paid to maintain expensive U.S. Black Hawk helicopters, Farr said.
"Look at how much attention is being paid to building local capacity in Iraq so we can leave," Farr said. "This is where we're failing in the war on drugs, because we're not developing the capacity of these countries to handle their own problems."
its like a slot machine that never pays, cha-chink.
-
Originally posted by bigsky
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-drugs28jun28,1,898329.story?coll=la-headlines-world&ctrack=1&cset=true
# Despite $5.4 billion spent since 2000, coca growth in the Andes is high and prices in America low. More money is on the table.
Coca is not illegal to grow in Bolivia, unless something has changed recently. You can buy coca leaves at markets. Processed cocaine is a very different matter. If you want to get a buzz legally you'll have to use it in it's tea form.
-
I believe Corporate America would be more successful in alleviating the illegal drug smuggling problem than the Feds, via open market competition.
We're having a lot more luck quelling alcoholism since we eliminated the Prohibition, and the liquor companies tend to be good citizens rather than violent gangsters. Perhaps we should consider the implications where recreational drugs are concerned.
The War On Drugs makes no sense at all, IMO.
culero
-
I can see that working for pot, but not for stronger stuff!
-
[sarcasm]
I disagre. The war on drugs is in a quagmire. We need a clear and defined date in wich we will no longer be engaged in hostilities in the "war on drugs" Clearly this administration needs to set some kind of exit strategy.
[/sarcasm]
on a more serious note, I did read that drug manufacturers are changing chemical properties of over the counter drugs to keep meth cookers from being able to use them.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I did read that drug manufacturers are changing chemical properties of over the counter drugs to keep meth cookers from being able to use them. [/B]
Which, in turn, opens up a whole new illegal market. We are getting pretty good at that.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Which, in turn, opens up a whole new illegal market. We are getting pretty good at that.
The market has ALLWAYS been there. What we did was make it harder for meth cookers to buy the simple ingredients over the counter.
I'm all for legalizing pot or at least efforts to decriminalize it but METH????? no way. I used to see what that did to people on a daily basis when I lived in Arizona.
I'd come home at night and my roomate and 4 of his meth fiend friends would be playing UNO. I'd go to bed, they'd still be playing. I'd wake up at 530...they'd still be playing. I would go to work and they'd still be playing.
The other victory here is that meth is extremly volitile to cook. It's a good thing when you make it harder for the average idiot off the street to cook it in a neighborhood.
-
Yea , I know the meth market has always been there. What I was referring to was the fact of making the over the counter stuff harder to get and changing some of it`s makeup, we in turn, started another illegal market for the supply of ingredients/chemicals.
In other words , instead of stopping or even slowing down the meth market, it did just the opposite by opening up another illegal market.
-
If one set out to design a system from the ground up to be of maximum benefit to all parties in the chain inclucing Juan Valdez, the Cartels, the DEA, the State Department, huge contrators like Computer Sciences Crop. (nee Dyn Corp) assorted judges and law enforcement, and domestic criminal groups, I don't see how one could improve on the system that is already in place. The people that are getting hosed in the deal are the end users and John Q. who has to deal the the fallout from our misguided policy decisions.
To paraphrase Marie Antionette: "Let them play Uno."
-
i guess your talking about efedra you can cook up psudo-efedra just as easy, just another step for the chemist.
-
Someday all the old geezers will die and someone with common sense will decide to regulate drugs instead of fighting a losing battle.
-
Originally posted by Raubvogel
Someday all the old geezers will die and someone with common sense will decide to regulate drugs instead of fighting a losing battle.
lets regulate terrorists while were at it...give them nice concrete pads where they can blow themselves up without harming anyone else, that sort of thing.
you dong quit just because your fighting poorly, you pull in a better general.
-
Yeah Raub. Let us start by correcting the hilarious lies and misconceptions pumped into the public. Is DARE even around? What a miserable failure that was.
What fuels the 'war' on drugs? Public ignorance and retards in Washington, trying to protect us from ourselves.
-
i sell me brain medicine to the highest bidder:cool:
-
Casca brings up a good point. As it is now it's a win win situation for all involved in the war on drugs.
You see if you attack the supply instead of the demand, you'll have yourself a self perpetuating situation.
Funny thing how all those countries between the US and the Andes, countries in which coca and mota are incredibly cheap, with the exeption of the US-Mexico frontera, don't have a similar monstrous drug problem.
-
In the end the sun will burn out and we will not have developed a way to perpetuate the species beyond this solar system and.......
-
The "War on Drugs" is too big of a moneymaker for law enforcement to let slip away. It would be like WalMart cutting off it's Chinese suppliers.
-
Originally posted by Casca
snip
To paraphrase Marie Antionette: "Let them play Uno."
Yes, exactly.
No matter how well you can make the argument that drugs are bad - whether you say "only the really hard stuff I've seen the effects of and am therefore scared of" or just apply a blanket as official policy does now, you're ignoring reality.
I do NOT contend that drugs are harmless, not even pot. What I do contend is that the fallout created by the prohibition of them is in its aggregate WORSE for our society than the harm drug use itself causes now, and would if these drugs were legal to obtain and use.
Those of you who support the "War", take a step back, clear your mind into an open state for a moment, and think.
Do we know alcohol is dangerous? Do we know it can have very harmful effects on folks who abuse it?
Now, the point - what's been the most effective method to combat the ills caused by alcohol abuse? Prohibition, or what we've been doing the last few decades?
There's a better approach to the problem.
culero
-
RE: Culero's post
I do NOT contend that drugs are harmless, not even pot. What I do contend is that the fallout created by the prohibition of them is in its aggregate WORSE for our society than the harm drug use itself causes now, and would if these drugs were legal to obtain and use.
---snip ---
Just so. Wish I'd said it like that.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Yea , I know the meth market has always been there. What I was referring to was the fact of making the over the counter stuff harder to get and changing some of it`s makeup, we in turn, started another illegal market for the supply of ingredients/chemicals.
In other words , instead of stopping or even slowing down the meth market, it did just the opposite by opening up another illegal market.
Jackal if we are making the ingredients for meth harder to come by then how are we NOT stopping or at least putting a dent in the supply of meth?
Also, the article I read was that the drug manufacturers werent jsut making sudafed harder to get they were changing the chemical composition of it all together. IF a drug isnt readily used in the regular community than it is easier tracked/less available.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Jackal if we are making the ingredients for meth harder to come by then how are we NOT stopping or at least putting a dent in the supply of meth?
That`s the point . They will not be harder to come by. It just starts another illegal trade. The manufacturing of meth will not be stopped or even slowed down. Just another trade has been added. This has been tried to be dealt with for as long as I can remember with exactly the opposite results. It`s smoke and mirrors bud.
Headlines, make do, throw the dog a bone to appear to be doing something.
Also, the article I read was that the drug manufacturers werent jsut making sudafed harder to get they were changing the chemical composition of it all together. IF a drug isnt readily used in the regular community than it is easier tracked/less available.
Hehe. Sudafed is a small, small part of it. Sudafed is not needed.
Do you have any idea how many variants they are? :)
It`s sort of comical in a way.
P2 was sat down on. Big whoop. Another 15 variants before the water could get cold. Back in them days you were looking at about a 3 day process with a fairly sophisticated process. It still was no big deal to learn.
Now you are looking at 3 to 4 hours with so many different directions to go in it is unreal.
About the same time the "big crunch" was supposed to be doing so much, lab grade ether was also sit on real hard. Another big whoop. Brake cleaner, starter fluid, etc. No biggy.
Used to be around here the farmers would have have 5 to 20 anhydrous trailers lined up at the end of the fields way back in the country on unpaved roads. They never worried about them because who in the hell would want to even be around an anhydrous tank, not to mention bother it in any way. Well that changed pretty quick. Any less than moron could make a couple of hundred bucks off of hitting one of these tanks in less than 5 minutes to sell to a meth cook. Got so bad the farmers nearly had to sleep with these things.
Red Devil lye, road flares, brake cleaner, starter fluid, lithium from batteries, Kodak developing chemicals..........hell you name it. Just some of the things that have been used in the process.
I`ve ran into guys that couldn`t spell their own name, but could turn out a couple of grand in crank with no prob in a short time. That`s where all the supposed regulation has gotten so far.
-
well if I stopped the sale of tomatoe sauce tomorrow at all supermarkets. Dont you think it will effect the amount of pizzas made that day?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
well if I stopped the sale of tomatoe sauce tomorrow at all supermarkets. Dont you think it will effect the amount of pizzas made that day?
Not if you didn`t need the the sauce to begin with. That`s the point you are missing.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Not if you didn`t need the the sauce to begin with. That`s the point you are missing.
sorry I must be ignorant in the manufactur of meth. I thaught (my first mistake ig uess) that you could make it using several over the counter products. Guess I was wrong.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
sorry I must be ignorant in the manufactur of meth. I thaught (my first mistake ig uess) that you could make it using several over the counter products. Guess I was wrong.
LOL
Nope, you are right. You can.
It`s just that there are many ways to go about it.
You just don`t need Eckerds, /wally World, Habu-mart, etc to do it.
The availibility of ingredients goes way beyond over the counter.
-
More than a dozen states have restricted access, either by allowing only pharmacies to sell drugs with pseudoephedrine or making retailers sell them from staffed counters. A May report by the Office of National Drug Control Policy found a 50 percent drop in the number of meth labs in Oklahoma and Oregon, two of the first states to enact such restrictions.
link (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0507030262jul03,1,7033001.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed)
Seems like there may be a few effective strategies, at least short term.
-
Hehe! Smoke and mirrors. Give the dog a bone. If he is hungry enough he will bite into it.
I love reports by state and Federal agencies. You can always depend on the accuracy. :)
-
"
Do we know alcohol is dangerous? Do we know it can have very harmful effects on folks who abuse it? "
do you understand how alcohol and meth are different? apparently not.
-
most "precursors" are sold by bulk suppliers to "mega-labs." meth production has been moving away from small time cooks for awhile now. many of the ATF guys in my building are seeing a growing amount of meth coming up from mexico. they can manufacture there with little interefernce and simply have to ship it. this is a consequnce of meth prices becoming high in the midwest--in fact the cases I have been involved with shows that meth prices are on par with cocaine.
The point, moving psuedo-efedra from teh shelf to the pharmacist will not even begin to address the problem. nor will changin the chemical make-up. these are political, and cosmetic manuvoers that signify nothing and have small effect on either demand or supply.
A solution. First legalize all drugs. Next, a condition to using drugs is that they must be consumed in a certain place (say an old army base converted), and the user must stay there until the effects of the particular drug have worn off. Third, that place must be wired for audio and video. Next, send the audio-video of the users to a couple of cable channels (e.g. cspan) for our entertainment, sell commercials on those channels, and volia we have turned our "drug problem" into a revenue stream. Moreover, exposing what these drugs do to people will be quite the deterent.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
"
Do we know alcohol is dangerous? Do we know it can have very harmful effects on folks who abuse it? "
do you understand how alcohol and meth are different? apparently not.
Well as a prior user of copious quantities of both substances I make no moral distinction between them. They are both chemicals that alter mood and physiology. They both have addictive potential if misused. Not having used either for about 20 years now some differences are now apparent to me.
One difference is that the probability of being killed by a drunk driver exceeds the probablility of being killed by a speed freak by several orders of magnitude. Meth actually enhances performance and military pilots are frequently given the first cousin of meth, amphetamine, when arduous duty cycles requre it.
Another difference is that, as a taxpayer, I'm required to fund the "war" against these miserable creatures as well as support cell blocks full of them.
As citizens we are required to deal with more robberies, burglaries and turf war homocides that are, ironically, contingent upon the very success of that "war" (simple economics: cheap heroin or speed = fewer stolen color tvs).
We are all required to watch the constitution shredded vis a vis civil forfeiture.
I cook Bratwurst in beer, I think if I cooked them in meth they wouldn't taste right.
And lastly, for those that are sincerely worried about the health of the users, there is a big difference in alcohol and meth in that alcohol has quality controls, and meth is usually adultrated crap.
Those are just a few differences on the spur of the moment although there are probably others. In my estimation most of these problems would be solved by decriminalization.
-
Vorticon, aren't you the guy who looks like a pre-pubescent Harry Potter? I think you should probably defer to folks who have actually walked a mile in the proverbial shoes before you go spouting about the moralities of drugs and alcohol.
Casca has it absolutely right, couldn't have put it any better myself.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
"
Do we know alcohol is dangerous? Do we know it can have very harmful effects on folks who abuse it? "
do you understand how alcohol and meth are different? apparently not.
Heh....do you have any idea how far the point being made sailed over your pointy lil head? :)
culero
-
Originally posted by jEEZY
most "precursors" are sold by bulk suppliers to "mega-labs." meth production has been moving away from small time cooks for awhile now. many of the ATF guys in my building are seeing a growing amount of meth coming up from mexico. they can manufacture there with little interefernce and simply have to ship it. this is a consequnce of meth prices becoming high in the midwest--in fact the cases I have been involved with shows that meth prices are on par with cocaine.
The point, moving psuedo-efedra from teh shelf to the pharmacist will not even begin to address the problem. nor will changin the chemical make-up. these are political, and cosmetic manuvoers that signify nothing and have small effect on either demand or supply.
A solution. First legalize all drugs. Next, a condition to using drugs is that they must be consumed in a certain place (say an old army base converted), and the user must stay there until the effects of the particular drug have worn off. Third, that place must be wired for audio and video. Next, send the audio-video of the users to a couple of cable channels (e.g. cspan) for our entertainment, sell commercials on those channels, and volia we have turned our "drug problem" into a revenue stream. Moreover, exposing what these drugs do to people will be quite the deterent.
Can someone tell me when the next episode of the Twiloght Zone is scheduled to air? :)
-
1)Legalization would allow for taxation, thereby generating revenue that can be used for other things. (education, rehab, terrorism, debt, etc)
2)Opening jails and letting drug (users) out, would also free up money since we wouldnt need as many gaurds and prisons.
3)Law enforcement could actually worry about serious issues instead of wasting their time and our tax dollars chasing down street level dealers.
4)Gangs lose a substantial chunk of their income. No money, no guns, no gang, no violence.
-
Ther was a chemical co. in one of the industrial complexes I had the snow removal contracts for. Year after year, starting about 10 years ago, thgey got bigger and bigger. They would rent the adjacent address, and knock out walls and keep expanding.
On and on it went. Then 2 years ago they moved out completely and built there own building . Well last year they got raided by the RCMP with the DEA and a whole other bunch of folks with big yellow letters on thier backs. Turns out, one of their biggest sellers was that efedra stuff, and yes they sold in BULK. Truckloads.
Their still in court now.
I hate to say I benefitted, but I also got the contract to return all them addresses to normal. I ended up with 5 truckloads of used building supplies, but all the plywood smells like chemicals. Gunna build a big garage with it i figure.
On another note. Did you see the cop in the west , I believe he's in Seattle or sumptin ,who has all the before and after pics of meth users? Just downright gross. I mean you should see this. I'll see if I can't find a web sight with them. Pretty girls turned into ogres, in a few years. Sad, bloody sad.
-
Originally posted by airbumba
snip
On another note. Did you see the cop in the west , I believe he's in Seattle or sumptin ,who has all the before and after pics of meth users? Just downright gross. I mean you should see this. I'll see if I can't find a web sight with them. Pretty girls turned into ogres, in a few years. Sad, bloody sad.
I've seen that, and also many real life examples. Its a tragedy.
Does anyone reckon the "industry" that's supplying those folks their drugs now will pony up any money for programs to help them control their addictions?
Read that twice, vorticon, clue alert! :)
culer