Why Drugs Are Illegal

It is well to state some things up front, for the record, just so no one says I haven't.

I have a criminal record for drugs related offences, specifically, possession of Ecstasy with intent to supply.
This happened sufficiently long enough ago for it not to actually affect my day to day life.
For the record, I have no criminal record for any other offences of any type, indeed the only other laws I ever broken, relate to purchasing of alcohol when I was underage, breaking speed limits and recently- smoking cigarettes in a pub.

Like many people who would otherwise be law abiding citizens, I have fallen foul on this particular law. Taking 'drugs' is illegal. Possessing a sufficient quantity for it be reasonably assumed you are buying bulk to sell on to your mates, very much so. Which was what I was doing. I don't deny that. Nor, actually do I apologise for it.

I think the law on the subject is an ASS. I think drug laws bring the whole legal system into disrepute. Because no matter what argument you come up with about the perceived damage drugs may or may not do, you still have to justify why adults can't make that decision for themselves. And there is no justification for denying adults that decision.
I would even take that as far as heroin. I wouldn't touch the stuff myself, but if people want to, let them. They've been warned. They know damn well the likely consequences. If their addiction then leads them to commit crime, then punish them for those crimes. But; no victim no crime.

It's a bit like witchcraft. Time was when the main argument against witches was they used their witchly powers to commit crimes. And the thing is, most of these witches DID believe they were witches. In the sense that they were practising witchcraft, that bit was usually true. Thing is, in reality it wasn't harming anyone. Because in fact, witchcraft doesn't actually work. It wasn't until 1737 that someone had the bright idea; let them do they want. If they want to dance naked round fires worshipping Satan, let them. If they kill people, try them for murder. But if their 'witchcraft' doesn't actually lead to them committing other crimes, let them be.

Heroin aside, the vast majority of people who use recreational drugs, commit no other crimes aside from breaking drug laws.

Again, for the record, I personally believe that in the cases of Cocaine, Ecstasy and Cannabis, certainly, like with Alcohol, there are pros and cons. Alcohol can be very damaging. But on the whole, it seems to give more to society, than it costs society. My personal experience is that Cocaine, Ecstasy and Cannabis actually offer far more rewarding experiences, and have far less disruptive consequences. In the case of these three drugs, I don't merely support their legalisation, but were they to be legalised, I'd recommend their use.

The question I think, we really have to ask ourselves, is WHY the law is the way it is?
Because it's a very odd position for a free society to take.
And the answer is, history.

None of these things were illegal in the nineteenth century. It is in the temperance and prohibitionist movements of the end of that century that we must look.
Even Opium wasn't illegal in Victorian London, don't forget.

It was in the '20s that the prohibitionist mindset achieved it's victories. Some historians suggest that it was a curious consequence of women getting the vote. Prohibitionist movements were often supported strongly by women, in those days far more often the victims of drunken violence than they are today.





And the twenties saw their new found political power give a boost to the prohibition lobby.
In the US, an amendment was passed prohibiting the sale of Alcohol.
But even in the UK, the movement reached it's peak. The Prohibitionist movement actually won a seat in parliament- defeating Churchill.
And the laws on Alcohol sale had been getting gradually tougher.

It's not generally realised, but most of the stringent anti-drugs laws start at this time. It was merely that the main stimulant used in the west then, was alcohol. So at the time, it was the one received most attention. But both Britain and America outlaws Cocaine, Opium and Cannabis at this time. And the reality was, nothing much was known about Cannabis- or Hatchis as they called it then- except it was kind of Eastern, made people chilled out, so was thought be much the same as Opium. Pure ignorance really. But with American campaigners making films called 'Reefer Madness' involving youngsters getting stoned and going on murder sprees, the unknown toke had little chance.

The Mexicans, incidently, knew better. Did you know 'La Cucuracha' is about a cockroach who has run out of pot to smoke?

Anyway, several international conferences in the twenties had created an international framework against the drug trade.
Which continued long after America had given up on prohibition of Alcohol. And the rest of the world learned from that.

So, one can see the mindset that brought drug prohibition IN.
But why does it continue?

The real answer, has nothing at all to do with anyone giving a damn about your health.
The real point is about protecting something. And that's not your streets. Your streets certainly WOULD be safer with no drug dealers, part of the crime drug laws create. And those dealers wouldn't be on the streets if the drugs were sold in a licensed shop.

The point is, if they legalise Cannabis, then we'll ask why Ecstasy is illegal, seeing as the evidence against it is somewhat shaky. And then, if logic gets its why and Ecstasy is legalised then Cocaine and Heroin being illegal is harder to justify.

And they CAN'T be legalised.

Especially not Cocaine.

In fact, the one they DON'T want to legalise, is Cocaine. Which is why they portray it as so much more damaging than it is. It's the one they don't want to legalise.

No country will dare legalise Cocaine, for fear of upsetting the US.
It is vested US interests retain things as they are.
The Monroe doctrine.

The way the US maintains its economic power over much of the Americas, is very simple. It has come to find the 'war on drugs' suits it fine.

Colombia's biggest legal export, is coffee. It's biggest ACTUAL export, is Cocaine. The US retains effective control of countries like this by maintaining a perpetual civil war. It arms an urban creole elite and supports their creole Apartheid, against a First Nations MAJORITY, because First Nations peoples ARE a majority in most of these countries, by continuing to prevent the majority of the people from actually engaging in the form of agricultural production that would bring most wealth to the country. Of course, they continue to do so.

Marxist Organisations like FARC are blamed for encouraging the Cocaine trade, indeed, using it to fund themselves.
But FARC get the real point. There at the 'coal face of the drugs trade', if you like, it's not a war against drugs. It's war by an American supported creole elite to keep control of the country as a US puppet state, rather than becoming a true democracy, governed by the majority of the people.
Of course FARC support the Cocaine trade. The Cocaine trade would be a vital part of a free, Democratic Colombia, free from us control.

A Colombia run by First Nations Majority rule, where peasant farmers grow prosperous by freely providing for the west one of its most coveted luxury items- Cocaine.



The US decided to fight the mother country by throwing her imports into the sea. Now it maintains supremacy over the other countries by doing the same to their exports.

The War on Drugs isn't about anything other than the US being able to keep the world economy the way it likes it. And to make sure that as much of the Americas is run the way it wants it, as it possibly can. By US supported creole elites.

Drug laws are about control- about telling you how you can and cannot spend your time and money.
But they're also about making sure that American vested interests keep 'Latin' America as 'Latin' America and that brown-skinned peasant farmers don't mean that actually, First Nations people get back one of the continents that got stolen from them.