Drugs and lucrative dealings

Drugs: any curtailment of operations like destroying crops will not necessarily affect the potency of street supply. This will make no immediate change to the diluted ('cut') street product as the stock of pure product would last a long time anyway, although the longer term outlook may be more encouraging. It will probably drive up prices though. A 'scarcity' will happen.

It is more effective, though more difficult, to educate potential users before starting and becoming another stastistic: an addict waiting to die. But that won't happen. Too much control, power and money. For most of those who are already addicts, it is probably too late. Sad maybe, but it's reality. Nobody asked them to become addicts. To start taking drugs. It's self imposed. Short term stupid thinking. Like government. So 'short term' it can actually last a decade.

Goverments aren't inept. They are not incompetent, but the illusion is created to justify so many 'mistakes'. Mistakes happen. Occasionally. But a string of mistakes followed by another string of mistakes? This is the crude deviousness of a well-constructed and very long-term game plan. What one goverment starts the next one will continue. It takes so long to undo anything. Years and years, but it's almost immediate to add to the 'mess'.

To make things worse, but with the illusion of trying to change things.

By doing nothing? Nothing at all? For years. And years and ...

Illegal-drug manufacture, distribution and supply is unofficial government: making money without 'official tax'. Like the tax on the class A drug nicotine (tobacco, doesn't that sound less dangerous than nicotine, a class A deadly alkaloid drug, the most addictive natural drug known to mankind).

Make it all legal and instantly reduce crime. That's much more likely. The crime no longer exists. Think Human Rights and the potential for a violation by simply being accused of an alleged crime. It's come that little bit closer by decriminalising cannabis. Sharpening that thin end of the wedge ready to drive it home.

Perhaps it's time goverment came clean and admitted that's what it'd like to do? What? Come clean? Be straight and honest? I am not that naïve, really. It was a purely rhetorical question.

Suppliers are not in business other than to make money. The end-user, the hapless addict, pays more for a 'hit' and as a consequence crime rates go up. A viscious circle.

The more effective crime busting becomes, the more money that is made. The number of addicts never comes down. Like smokers: they die early from their habit, but are always replaced by more children. All this advertising ban effort. Doesn't work, does it? Why not? Because stupid overpaid minor 'celebrities' are seen and photographed indulging in their habit. They don't actually have to 'smoke'. Just be seen and photographed with a 'fag'. Get paid a lot for maintaining the illusion that smoking is 'cool'.

Incredibly stupid, but cool.

It is not just the 'drug lords', street sellers or addicts who suffer. It is not a self enclosed society. Like villains who never 'hurt' anybody outside their circle. Rather naïve. Everybody in society is affected somehow. Everybody. The bystander gets 'hurt' for being in the wrong place at the right time. The mugging victim. The victim of burglary. Addicts feed their habit off 'petty' crime.

What crime is ever 'petty'? Never, ever to the victims of crime.

This American 'War on Drugs' and 'War on Terror'. Not very effective is it? Well, it is really. The Afghanistan 'farce'. The US justification to invade Europe and the first step to the oil of Iraq. Oppressive regimes like the Taliban or Saddam Hussein. What about Robert Mugabe? Remember that other black African Idi Amin? And who is getting killed? British soldiers, not many Americans. Bliar again.

Ask yourself why British soldiers are in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Why a British presence ever happened in Iraq.

This illegal war that took place. Even Bush now admits (5 years later) that WMD that were supposed to exist never did. It was enough though that they may have existed. Like Bliar admitting that he's a liar. Not impossible, but not particularly likely either. Or that he's in politics not only for what he can get out of it, but most importantly what controls on the population he can impose.

Cynical isn't it.

A plan?

Think about it. Allow crime to escalate then introduce more state control of the ordinary law-abiding model citizen. The majority of people are the law-abiding, but that's not the message we all get, is it?

Create the problem and
provide the solution

We all want to be controlled???

It is accepted as necessary to get control of society. Justified as regaining control. That hasn't happened yet, but it is the plan. To acquire complete control by allowing society to 'descend' into the pit and then be in need of a controlling, parental-type, helping hand.