Narco Terrorism - The attack on the soul of a nation.

Since the 60's, our people, our children, our countrymen have been under siege.

This siege has cost the lives of untold numbers. My feeling would be that if you added up all the victims in the US alone, it would likely be a kind of number you might expect to lose after a series of large scale attacks from enemy fighter planes dropping bombs.

Millions even. Young and promising lives. Gone. Families utterly destroyed. This trend has infected most Western countries since the 60's, and yes, while I appreciate that there are historical examples that go further back, it has never been as it has been since the 60's, and with such aggression.

The narco terrorism aimed at reducing your people and your society, to a drug addled nation of physically, mentally, and emotional addicts and defects.

That which was clearly soul and socially destroying was often made (on purpose and with full knowledge of the harm) to appear seductive, cool.

It was from the 60's onwards that these liberal attitudes toward even heroin began to take hold.

People that saw the eventual car crash of the future were silenced and written off as 'fuddy duddy'.

It was encouraged. No question. I would say even promoted.

50yrs on?

Well, one need only look at the shambles that often passes for our fellow citizens today. Is it any wonder that cities and towns are so messed up and often dangerous, when 50yrs of promoting the bad as 'cool' has finally caught up?

Don't hold your breath on the state gov and their yawning BS about 'war on drugs'.

It's just a mantra for them. A few high profile busts, and that is job done as far as they and the cops are concerned.

They don't care if masses of your fellow citizens die or if society goes even further to crap.

Why would they? They have every motive not to care.

And now, because this narco terrorism is perpetual and aggressive, a drug a cited months back appears to have made it to the US.

It is one of the worse one's I have ever heard of.

Story follows...

**

Flesh-rotting ‘krokodil’ drug makes it to US, ‘frightens’ Arizona medics



Arizona doctors and law enforcement officials are warning the public about a dangerous homemade narcotic that can cause human flesh to quickly decay and drastically reduce users’ life expectancy after the drug surfaced in the US state.

Desomorphine, known in Russia as “krokodil,” or crocodile, is an extremely toxic drug made from codeine-based pills that are then mixed with iodine, paint thinner, gasoline, alcohol or oil. The concoction is injected, leading to a shorter but more powerful high that’s often found with heroin or morphine use.

While krokodil’s popularity quickly grew in Russia in the recent decade, as heroin is much more expensive and difficult to obtain, experts think it has made it to the southwestern United States.

“We’ve had two cases this past week that have occurred in Arizona,” Dr. Frank LoVecchio, the co-medical director at Banner’s Poison Control Center, told KLTV. “As far as I know, these are the first cases in the United States that are reported. So we’re extremely frightened.”

The drug is known for being heavily addictive, with just one or two injections needed to get someone hooked, as well as for its dire side effects.

With krokodil, users’ skin rots from the inside out, and they develop what is known as alligator skin, complete with visible scaly contusions. Long-time krokodil users literally have their skin fall off the bone due to ruptured blood vessels and damage to the surrounding tissues.

Irreversible damage to a krokodil addict’s health comes within a month of starting to use the drug, as the brain and liver also start to rot, and the limbs become paralyzed. A user’s average life expectancy does not exceed two to three years.

According to Russian anti-drug activist Yevgeny Roizman, who was earlier this month elected mayor of Yekaterinburg, krokodil is now one of Russia’s top homemade drugs.

A controversial public figure, Roizman has for years campaigned for a ban on the unlimited distribution in Russian drugstores of codeine-based pills, which he says are widely used by dealers and addicts to make krokodil. The founder of the City Without Drugs and Country Without Drugs NGOs, Roizman has described horrific cases of krokodil use in his blog, saying that for many young Russians it becomes “the first and the last” drug.

The director of Russia’s Federal Drug Control Service, Viktor Ivanov, has admitted that the surge in desomorphine use across Russia correlated with the sharp increase of drugs containing codeine in drugstores. A legal ban on the non-prescription sale of such drugs in Russia came into force in 2012.

According to figures from Russia’s Bureau of Forensic Medical Examination, cited by Country Without Drugs, deaths in Russia from drug overdoses in 2012 rose by 20 percent. In total, some 150,000 Russians died from drug use last year, according to Ivanov, the Drug Control Service chief. Ivanov has estimated that in some regions of the country 90 percent of registered drug addicts use krokodil.

The use and preparation of krokodil has been spreading to countries neighboring Russia and farther into Europe, according to various media reports. In December 2011, Poland’s Medical University of Silesia reported at least one death from krokodil use in Warsaw, and also said cases of the drug being used had been confirmed in Germany, the Czech Republic, Ukraine, France, Belgium, Sweden and Norway.

http://rt.com/usa/desomorphine-drug-arizona-flesh-decay-426/

 

If by "narco terrorism", you mean the War on Drugs, I agree.

People should be free to use whatever substance they want to for recreational use. They just have to accept the consequences of doing so.

Policing people's personal lives isn't the job of government nor is it even in society's best interests.

 

Thanks, Jack, for the up-date on our "war on drugs".
Mostly, the only people who go to jail for marketing drugs are those who under cut the drug sales of the super-rich pillars of society.
They got relatively harmless plants banned so that they could sell a replacement drug.
We invaded China, Afghanistan, and Columbia to protect the profits of the super-rich.
Maybe we deserve it all.

 

On the contrary.

If your path were to be followed, it would be back to the 60's mentality that has managed to put more people in the ground, than probably any war that America have been involved in, in terms of Americans dead.

I would make an exception for cannabis, on the basis that I do not consider it to be a drug per se, and even if it is, then it is light years aware from heroin, cocaine, and now, this horrible and nasty crap.

The one thing you fail to understand, or perhaps misunderstand, is the concept of freedom.

No offence, because I do respect a fair amount of what you write, plus a lot of people do misunderstand the abstract concept of freedom.

Since the 60's, and it is worse today of course, the concept of freedom appears to = allowed to do whatever you want, no matter the wider implications.

This is not 'freedom', since logical conclusion dictates that in pursuit of freedom in this ego centric, hedonistic manner, you inevitably impact on the freedoms of people of many.

It's not an expression of 'freedom', but one of chaos.

As to anything that the Fed Gov are involved in(in apparent fight against it), I would take that with a pinch of salt. I would bet your life that the CIA are central to a lot of drug flow into and out of the US, whether the daft President knows about it is not his business.

- - - Updated - - -

Want me to name the biggest drug dealers and threat to the health of Americans today?

Corporate pharma companies.

All of them.

There should be no corporate pharma, all of it should be nationalised.

 

The drug war has put a lot of people in the ground, but not drug use itself.

And since you used Russia as an example, I think you'll find that they are tougher on drugs than we are. It hasn't done them much good, has it?

The only thing the Drug War has accomplished for America is given us the highest incarceration rate in the world.

The reason nations like Russia and Iran suffer so much from drug use is two fold.

1) They have societies that are overtly oppressive and don't leave much hope for the individual in his/her pursuits. I'm not saying America is peachy keen either, but we're not on their level (yet anyway).

2) They have stricter drug laws than us, which drives up the profit for said drugs -- meaning more criminals involved in it.

If they decriminalized drugs and gave their people more freedoms, you'd see a decline in drug use over the next decade.

It's only when things are banned that the problems begin.

 

Again, you misunderstand the concept of 'freedom'.

You are stuck on this idea of it being a self centred, ego centric imposition onto the freedoms of others, and their lives, and the greater society.

I can only say that this freedom has brought all countries that have engaged in it to their knees.

 

Every society has limits to freedoms for the sake of a "common good", but so far, I'm unconvinced that drug prohibition has ever served that end.

The only countries that seem to have handled drugs well tend to be less strict about them -- like Portugal.

After Portugal decriminalized all drugs, drug-related crimes plummeted.

 

After Lincoln's Communist Revolution put the corporations in control of America, most drugs were still legal and available. A large segment of society was very poor and overworked. Yet, drugs were not a serious problem for most.

But then, the super-rich out-lawed most harmless drugs. So, smugglers concentrated plant drugs to facilitate smuggling. For example, instead of cocaine leaves, they sold concentrated cocaine that causes serious damage.

Now, people are not as poor, but are more desperate because our current Communist system prevents millions from even being able to try and get out of poverty.

People should be free to buy what ever sort of food or drug they can afford.

But, we are under the Curses of the Law, where "Those who hate you rule over you." Moses, Leviticus 26:17

 

I wondered how long it would take before you pulled Portugal out of the air.

Have you actually read the studies and fully analysed the data?

Was it ALL drugs and in all of Portugal?

I somehow don't think that what you cite would stand up to closer scrutiny, besides which, Portugal is not the US, and you cannot have a one size fits all, esp between a small country in the S of Europe and the US.

The Fed Gov's 'war on drugs' may look like it has 'failed' to you. Guess what? It has not 'failed' for them. That's the thing, you are viewing it as if they began with good intent and objectives, when in fact, almost everything the Fed Gov do is tainted from the outset. It suits them more to have this dramatic narrative of a 'war on drugs', while ensuring that they do just enough to trick people into thinking they are 'tough on the problem', but it's a façade.

It simply would not suit Fed Gov and law enforcement agencies if everyone just stopped drug dealing today.

On the contrary, this would be a huge blow to them.

So, on a state level, yes you could purge all the bid drug dealers, with less budget and men than they have now, and within a few years. But you would require a Fed Gov who approached the task with sincerity and out of care, not as a means to create a cash cow for themselves.

Then you would also need to understand the basic principle that the more unhappiness there is in a society, the more drug users there will be(pres drugs included).

Thus, if you can record a lot of drug users of all kinds in your society, esp v those recorded in others, then you know that beyond the dealers there is something gravely, dare I say spiritually wrong with the people.

And that would have to be addressed.

Anything else is simply irresponsible.

 

Serfin' made a point I'd like to see further addressed; which is that Russia, where Croc started and seems to be flourishing at, has little to none of the cultural openness to a drug culture that the US has, and yet - there they are. DRINKING, sure - but drugs?

 

Don't forget, that unlike the US, Russia are a country and people who, for many years, lived under absolute horrific commie rule, with almost 60million or so being butchered. Their 'own' people. And I would imagine that when this happens, and when you lived under that for so long, then it could literally create an almost aftershock effect on generations to follow, esp when brutal communism was then replaced by unbridled capitalism, and the birth of what were called the 'eight Russian oligarchs' etc.

You have to understand the cultural nuance of each country, like I said to Serf, Russia is not Portugal and Portugal is not the US.

 

For what it's worth, I'm gravitating towards Jack on this one. Serfs point that as human beings we ought to be free to do to our bodies as we personally see fit does not really hold water since this implies family members' whose relatives are saddled with the after-effects of drug misuse of their nearest and dearest would somehow be immune from the said use. Too often, we see that the impacts of drugs not only has devastating consequences for the user, but breaks down the bonds between families themselves.

I disagree with the arguments put forward by people like Serf who claim that the role of the state is not that of a 'nanny' on this issue. On the contrary, I think that if the notion of the state is to have any meaning at all, then it is to act as a moral arbiter within the social realm. It's true that the war on drugs is being lost and cannot be won, but nevertheless, it's morally wrong in my view that governments' give the 'green light' to drug use which is what legalisation implies. Legalisation, in other words, sends out all the wrong signals.

I think that places which are going down the legalisation route such as Colorado, are motivated in doing so, not out of any rational compulsion, but to appease multi-national capitalists. These capitalists are itching to be the first to the market to brand marijuana in a ways that legitimise its use akin to the promotion of tobacco back in the day. Their target audience is young kids which is why we are already seeing some 'cool' pop stars wearing 'designer labels' with the marijuana motif emblazoned on their bags and clothes.

Young kids, in other words, are already being 'primed' by the multi-national companies. I recently saw a Channel 4 documentary here in the UK which highlighted some of the marketing techniques used by these companies which include branding marijuana like candy which they are aiming directly at the youth market. Remember, this isn't some kind of relatively harmless hash of the kind that was used by a minority of rich kids in the 60s, but a substance that has extremely high THC levels being aimed at young kids for the mass market.

 

First, if someone wants to use a substance recreationally that decrease their life span or even has a risk of overdose, that is their choice. Some drugs have greater risks than others.

Psychedelics like LSD and shrooms are some of the safest with practically zero chance of overdoes or addiction.

There is a slightly increased risk of at least becoming psychologically addicted to pot, but it is still fairly benign.

Tobacco and alcohol are fairly addictive for people with addictive personalities and it can harm the healths of such people as well. You can even OD on alcohol.

The so called "harder" drugs like heroin, cocaine and such may be even more addictive for people with addictive personalities. And yes, they are even easier to OD on.

But here is the thing, even with the harder drugs there are MANY people who use them "responsibly". I know some people will scoff at that phrasing but there are many people who use even the hard drugs moderately, for years, without becoming addictive. Without it interfering with their lives. You don't hear about these people because they don't get in trouble with the law, or their employers, they aren't being rushed to the hospital.

It is wrong to deprive such people from their right use these substances just because other people have addictive natures and self destructive tendencies.

There are lots of "adrenaline junkies" out there as well who like participating in sports and activities that carry an increase chance of mortality. But they enjoy it and they enjoy collecting those experiences. And that should be their right.

 

The problem is not the drug or Drugs. The problem is addiction.

People who are not addicts could probably take Krokodil as much as they want, and stop whenever they noticed it hurting them. People who are addicts can die from the effects of marijuana, because they will spend all their money on it and not get enough to eat.

Addiction is a disease. Like cancer or tuberculosis or diabetes, it's disputed how you get it but that it is a disease, not a character defect or some sort of immorality, is not.

Our society "treats" this disease like medieval society "treated" leprosy. We forbid it; we ostracize, incarcerate and eventually kill the people who have it, if the disease does not kill them first.

It is absolutely useless to argue this point with certain people because, to them, addiction IS a moral failing, and moral failings are one more reason to hate people who are not like them, one more factor to aid them in their ongoing quest to justify hating more and more people; until they finally find a reason to hate everyone in the world.

 

The thing about "choice" is essentially a red-herring. Where does "choice" come into the equation for those family members who are effectively "forced" to pick up the pieces for the devastating "free choices" made by their loved ones? I agree with you that the impacts for the vast majority of those who use drugs is benign and this aspect of the debate rarely,if ever, gets reported on. The issue is more related to the specific personalities of the user than it is to the drug itself, although the significance of latter cannot, or should not, be underestimated either. My main bone of contention, specifically, is with the all-pervasive tendency of those with vested interests to underplay the harmful societal effects of marijuana use, particularly amongst young people. My main concern is that, unlike in the past, THC content levels are ridiculously high and the promotion of this high THC product is undertaken nefariously for profit. The intention is to specifically target this product at young people with the aim of normalising it. The vision I have of a mass of politically passive young people sitting for hours on end playing virtual reality games stoned out of their boxes, is not one that I think is conducive to a health society.

 

I guarantee you that if Russia legalized cannabis and a few other drugs, the use of this crap would be seriously decreased.

Let people have alternatives.

 

Yes, but in the absence of a product, the addict would have nothing to feed on. I accept that this is an absurd and fanciful hypothesis. Nevertheless, the issue is whether legalisation (and therefore state legitimisation) of the product is a good thing. I say it's not. Freedoms are never unconditional. There is always a price somebody somewhere has to pay for the misuse of drugs.

Yes, the war on drugs cannot be won. But that doesn't mean that the state has no role in attempting to de-legitimise and minimise its use, especially among the young. The legalisation of drugs would certainly undermine this effort. I don't think that the state can ever be seen, or ought to be seen, condoning drug use which is what legalisation implies, irrespective of any perceived advantages that legalisation may have in terms of undercutting the criminal element.

In such a scenario, the state itself merely supplants the criminals as a result of codifying illegality. If during the period when alcohol and tobacco became legal we knew then what we know now, there is no way that any responsible state would be seen as legally sanctioning its uses today. So why, when we know about the devastating consequences of high THC marijuana (albeit less significantly so compared to alcohol and tobacco), are US states like Colorado repeating the same mistakes?

The answer to that question, is that cold calculating profit maximisation trumps social cohesion and human welfare.

 

The case is quite the opposite money wise, by the way. You can grow cannabis in your backyard, but good luck growing Xanax or APAP. There is, obviously, some monetary incentive to legalization - you're no longer wasting billions each year on repressing the free choice of individuals, and you can collect some tax off the top - but the pharmaceutical incentive significantly outweighs this where it matters - in campaign donations. Politicians couldn't give a hoot less about state finances, they care about their finances.

Profit maximization isn't trumping social cohesion and human welfare, liberty is. It's not my concern how the health of the alcohol addict user - that's his choice. He's not initiating force against anyone else, and the usual scapegoats (like family breakdown, etc) are irrelevant excuses to make it look like drug use in itself initiates force against others - it does not. The second it does I'm the first to call it out (use of GHB for rape, etc).

Bottom line, you're going to do what you think is right - but don't expect me to pay your order any attention, regardless of whether it's backed by the totalitarian force of the state or not.

 

I'm afraid I don't by that. Already in Colorado where Marijuana has recently become legal, the multinational companies responsible for targeting young people with their high THC product are failing to produce enough of it to keep up with projected demand. This was admitted by the CEO of one of these companies in a documentary I saw. The intention of the government is to use Colorado as a testing ground for the eventual legalisation of drugs throughout the United States as a whole. The capitalists realize there is a massive as yet untapped market for them to fill. I predict that within a few years the legal sale of high THC product will be commonplace throughout the states. The intention is to create an entire generation of passive people as the precursor to controlling them through drug-addicted related debt.

 

I'm not concerned with the motives of those in power - nothing changes for me, I still smoke weed. The only difference under legalization is that I'm not at risk of being imprisoned or stolen from, by the state.

I'm a little wary of legalization because at the moment you can get stuff home delivered 24/7 if you have the connections. Under my state's alcohol regulations alcohol sold weekdays only, in person, and in daylight hours. That's a big step back in consumer choice for me.

The black market is more responsive to my preferences than the Australian market would be, due to the standard government invasion into the affairs of individuals voluntarily trading goods that comes with all legal sales. In this sense I might actually prefer the current set of circumstances as being more liberal than "legalization" with small print.

Oh, and a pound of weed costs around $3,000. That will last you several months, even smoking daily. Now, $3,000 is no small amount - but a gambling addict can easily lose that in an hour. I see a person do it every night.

 

Family problems are the concern of the family. Gambling, infidelity, living above one's means, medical problems, poor investment choices, flunking out of school, chronic procrastination, taking low paying jobs, taking a dangerous job like the military, police force, or fire fighter, chain smoking, over eating, participating in extreme sports, and so on and so on and so on....

All these things and more can put family members under an unfair burden. They can cause emotional or financial stress. But that is part of being in a family and family problems are for the family to work out.

I agree that such things shouldn't be marketed to minors, though.

 

Yep, there is a financial incentive. That was my point. The government are not making it legal out of the goodness of their hearts but because the massive profits currently going to the criminals will now be diverted to the coffers of a de-facto criminal government. But does that make it morally right? This for me, is the central question, while I accept it's not for you. Two wrongs can never make a wrong right. Like I said, it's the high THC content that's being sold and marketed as something harmless that's the problem I have with the legalisation argument. This then becomes normalised over time. As a political activist, a dumbed down generation of obese, arm chair tied brainwashed passive zombies, controlled by governments' through drug related debt, is not a vision of the world I aspire to. But that's the way we're heading - and fast. You seem to be comfortable with that. I'm not.

 

High THC or low it doesn't matter. The Drug is not the problem but the person's response to it. Does Whisky turn you into an alcoholic quicker than wine or beer? I've known many alcoholics who would never touch whiskey or wine but managed to ruin their lives with beer alone quite handily. And I've known other people who collect Scotch whiskey and/or fine wines in specially built cellars, built with money they made because they are trusted and highly paid employees or business owners, with good health and happy lives, because they do not have the disease of addiction and so have not become victims of our society's pathological response to it.

 

There are financial motives pulling in both directions. What was Colorado meant to do? Ignore the referendum?

I'm no fan of regulation. I think there should be no tax, but that's not the government's view. I am arguing against government coffers being filled with the property of smokers. If you want to argue against the government's position then that's fine, but when you're addressing me it seems reasonable for you to address my position.

Ethics is just the formulation of normative directives based on values. I might not be arguing "protect the children", but that doesn't mean my values aren't influencing my decision: they are most emphatically. My entire position is based off my view of liberty - this worldview is of the same category as your morality.

I dispute that this is a wrong to begin with. You misunderstand my position. I'm not saying that marijuana use is wrong, but eh it's too big a problem to be solved by government so let's just let corporations take over. I'm saying that consumption of cannabis is not wrong in the first place, because use of cannabis does not initiate force.

I'm generally take a deontological view. I agree that two wrongs don't make a right.

We're going that way with the news media. But that's not an argument to abridge freedom of speech and nationalize newspapers, because the media is not initiating force against anyone. If you don't like the information provided by the media, don't watch it. If you don't like the effect provided by cannabis, don't consume it.

 

By that argument the first thing we should get rid of is the Internet, and particularly those black holes of time, the politics boards.

Seriously, if I have just an hour, I might play a game or download porn because they're naturally self limiting, they bore me in under 60 minutes. If I have all day and night to get through, I come here, and it still makes me late sometimes.