Prohibition KILLS

America is the largest drug market in the world. We’re 5 percent of the world’s population — we consume 25 percent of the world’s illegal drugs. Mexico has the misfortune to share a 2,000 mile border with the largest drug market in the world. At the end of the day, they’ll run out of products. It’s the illegality that makes those territories so valuable. If you criminalize anything only criminals can sell it. If only criminals can sell it, there’s no recourse to law, there’s only recourse to violence. That’s created the cartels. It’s our simultaneous appetite for — and prohibition of — drugs that makes those border territories worth killing for.

On the effect legalizing marijuana (just in Washington and Colorado) has had on Mexican trafficking

Just two states that have legalized marijuana, do you know what’s happened in Mexico? Forty percent of Mexican marijuana imports, they’ve been cut by 40 percent. In Durango and Sinaloa, where most of the marijuana is grown, they’ve almost stopped growing it now, because they can’t compete with the American quality and the American market. I’m not making this up; you get this from Customs and from DEA, from the people who are trying to intercept it on the border and judge how much is coming through as a percentage of how much they seize, and what they’re telling us is it’s down 37 percent over the last two years. So by stopping fighting, just two states stopping fighting the war on that drug, it has been effective.

Recognize drug laws as the price-support program that they are. If this stuff was trading at its actual cost, without the illegality premium, there wouldn’t be enough money in drugs to support the cartels. But don’t take my word for it, just ask Al Capone. Notice gangsters don’t sell liquor any more. And there are no more drive-bys by bootleggers.

The US drug policy has caused the deaths and incarceration of hundreds of thousands, as prohibition did in the 30’s with booze. It has allowed these cartels to become powerful and deadly. Now the US has created this monster and it’s loose. And as long as drugs remain illegal the dead bodies will continue to pile up.

Prohibition didn’t work in the ’30’s and it didn’t make any one’s family safer, just the opposite. How dumb are American voters? To allow politicians to fleece them for wars they know can’t be won. Obviously, since the American voter continues to elect these “law and order” assholes they must be as dumb as bricks. 

Legalization of Marijuana

The US war on drugs places great emphasis on arresting people for smoking marijuana.

Since 1990, approximately 17 million Americans have been arrested on marijuana charges, a greater number than the entire populations of Alaska, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming combined.

In 2010, state and local law enforcement arrested 746,000 people for marijuana violations. This is an increase of 800 percent since 1980 and the highest per capita in the world.

As has been the case throughout the 1990s, 2000’s and continues that the overwhelming majority of those charged with marijuana violations were for simple possession, around 88%. The remaining 12% were for “sale/manufacture”, an FBI category which includes marijuana grown for personal use or purely medical purposes. These new FBI statistics indicate that one marijuana smoker is arrested every 45 seconds in America. Taken together, the total number of marijuana arrests for 2010 far exceeded the combined number of arrests for violent crimes, including murder, manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault.

Like most Americans, people who smoke marijuana also pay taxes, love and support their families, and work hard to make a better life for their children. Suddenly they are arrested, jailed and treated like criminals solely because of their recreational drug of choice. State agencies frequently step in and declare children of marijuana smokers to be “in danger”, and many children are placed into foster homes as a result. This causes enormous pain, suffering and financial hardship for millions of American families. It also engenders distrust and disrespect for the law and for the criminal justice system overall.

Responsible marijuana smokers present no threat or danger to America or its children, and there is no reason to treat them as criminals, or to take their children away. As a society we need to find ways to discourage personal conduct of all kinds that is abusive or harmful to others.

Responsible marijuana smokers are not the problem and it is time to stop arresting them.

Once all the facts are known, it becomes clear that America’s marijuana laws need reform. This issue must be openly debated using only the facts.

Groundless claims, meaningless statistics, and exaggerated scare stories that have been peddled by politicians and prohibitionists for the last 60 years must be rejected.

Marijuana does not cause brain damage, genetic damage, or damage the immune system. Unlike alcohol, marijuana does not kill brain cells or induce violent behavior

A 1997 UCLA School of Medicine study (Volume 155 of the American Journal of Respiratory & Critical Care Medicine) conducted on 243 marijuana smokers over an 8-year period reported the following: “Findings from the long-term study of heavy, habitual marijuana smokers argue against the concept that continuing heavy use of marijuana is a significant risk factor for the development of chronic lung disease.”

Neither the continuing nor the intermittent marijuana smokers exhibited any significantly different rates of decline in lung function as compared with those individuals who never smoked marijuana.”

The study concluded: “No differences were noted between even quite heavy marijuana smoking and non-smoking of marijuana.”

Marijuana does not cause serious health problems like those caused by tobacco or alcohol (e.g., strong addiction, cancer, heart problems, birth defects, emphysema, liver damage, etc.). Death from a marijuana overdose is impossible. In all of world history, there has never been a single human death attributed to a health problem caused by marijuana.

The Illegalization of Marijuana: A Brief History By Stephen Siff

Drugs and the “Law and Order” Presidency

Elected to the presidency in 1968 on a promise to restore “law and order” to a nation jolted by riots, protests, and assassinations, Richard Nixon aggressively recruited journalists and media executives to participate in what he declared would be a War Against Drug Abuse.

The public relations push included attempts to strong-arm radio broadcasters to cease playing drug-themed music and recruiting television personality Art Linkletter and (oddly) the pill-popping Elvis Presley as anti-drug spokesmen. (Presley never actually did any work on behalf of the anti-drug campaign but did request that Nixon give him a badge from the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. The photo of their meeting has become the most requested item from the National Archives.)

At a White House event for television executives in 1970, Nixon obtained pledges that anti-drug themes would be inserted in twenty prime-time shows, ranging from “Hawaii Five-O” to “Marcus Welby M.D.” (Prior to this time, television programing, like studio films, avoided drug themes.) By applying pressure to television stations and sponsors, the Nixon administration collected $37 million worth of commercial airtime for anti-drug messages by 1971.

Changes in federal drug policy during the Nixon administration loosened penalties for some kinds of drug violations, while expanding the powers of law enforcement (including the creation of no-knock and late-night search warrants) and reshaping the federal anti-drug agencies to be more directly responsive to White House control.

In 1970, Congress passed the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, which placed marijuana in the most restrictive category of drugs having no permissible use in medical practice. The scheduling of marijuana was suggested by an Assistant Secretary of Health pending the report from a Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, headed by a former governor of Pennsylvania Raymond Shafer with members appointed by the president, speaker of the House, and the president pro tem of the Senate.

The report, which was released in its final form in 1973, called for an end to criminal penalties for marijuana possession and also an end to the government’s anti-drug education efforts, which the report decried as wasted money. White House tapes recorded Nixon pressuring Shafer to reject the committee’s findings, and the president refused to receive the report in public.

Nixon’s director of the Narcotics Treatment Administration recalled to Frontline documentarians that when he joined the administration the president told him, “You’re the drug expert, not me, on every issue but one, and that’s decriminalization of marijuana. If you make any hint of supporting decriminalization, you are history. Everything else, you figure it out. But that one, I’m telling you, that’s the deal.”

There was a tautological aspect to Nixon’s opposition to marijuana. The president, whose preferences ran toward mixed drinks, detested marijuana precisely because the drug was illegal, and to smoke pot was to embrace the lawlessness that he saw as sweeping the country.

“Believe me, it is true, the thing about the drug [marijuana], once people cross that line from [unintelligible] straight society to the drug society, it’s a very great possibility they are going to go further,” Nixon told Linkletter in a private conversation preserved by the White House’s secret taping system. “You see, homosexuality, dope, immorality in general. These are the enemies of a strong society. That’s why the communists and left-wingers are pushing the stuff, they are trying to destroy us.”

As the particular fears that motivated anti-marijuana legislation dissipated, attitudes toward marijuana prohibition became a litmus test for attitudes about the relationship between law and personal judgment. The laws gave the drug an extra attraction for youth experimenting with rebellion, but within the logic of “law and order,” disrespect for the law seemed to be the root of many problems.

The anti-war protesters, Nixon believed, were “all on drugs.”

An Easing of Attitudes in the 1970s

Despite Nixon’s unyielding anti-marijuana stance, during the early and middle 1970s, there was a growing consensus that criminal punishments for pot were contrary to the public interest; and medical and legal authorities were disputing the logic of harsh anti-marijuana laws.

The National Parent Teacher Association Congress, American Medical Association, American Bar, American Public Health Association, National Education Association, and the National Council of Churches all passed resolutions endorsing decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana.

The Committee for Economic Development and the Consumers Union agreed.

The New York Times, Washington Post, and the conservative National Review all editorialized in favor of decriminalization. The film Reefer Madness—which had been made to scare the nation about the dangers of marijuana—was now being released by pro-marijuana campaigners as a comedy on the midnight movie circuit.

By 1977, the use of the drug seemed so commonplace and the fears so archaic that President Jimmy Carter called for the decriminalization of marijuana. As Carter pointed out in a message to Congress in 1977, anti-marijuana laws cause more harm to marijuana users than the drug itself.

Drugs and the Media in the Age of “Just Say No”

Still, not everyone had grown comfortable with drugs’ increasing prevalence and the loosening of attitudes about them.

In 1976, Marsha “Keith” Schuchard and her husband, Ronald, were appalled when confronted with evidence that their 13-year-old daughter was smoking pot. With a neighbor in their suburban Atlanta neighborhood, Sue Rusche, Schuchard formed Families in Action, a parents’ group that promoted anti-drug education and zero-tolerance policies.

Within a few years, they had formed organizations that offered support to thousands of similar groups around the country. Under commission from the federal National Institute on Drug Abuse, Schuchard wrote a handbook for parent organizations, Parents, Peers, and Pot. More than a million copies were distributed and more than 4,000 parents’ groups formed by 1983.

Schuchard stated in the book that her goal was to protect psychologically vulnerable children from a popular culture that pushed them toward drugs, not to advocate prohibition for adults. However, the fine distinction was lost by politicians who built on the movement’s support.

Ronald Reagan had opposed decriminalization of marijuana as governor of California and, as president, showed no sympathy for drug use or users.

Prompted largely by fear over crack cocaine, Congress passed three major pieces of anti-drug legislation during the 1980s, each more punitive than the last. In 1986, Reagan called for the implementation of drug testing to ensure that schools and workplaces remained “drug-free.”

As in the past, the generalized fear of “drugs” distinguished only between teetotalers and criminals. Drugs were drugs, albeit federal sentencing guidelines made some drugs much worse.

During the Reagan administration, the White House spearheaded an extensive anti-drug media campaign that was soon joined by nonprofit and independent groups. Soon after the election of her husband, First Lady Nancy Reagan took on the mission of spreading an anti-drug message, unveiling her “Just Say No” slogan at an elementary school in 1982.

In the years that followed, Nancy Reagan recited the slogan at rallies and public appearances across the country, in public service announcements designed by the Ad Council, in thousands of billboards, and on dozens of talk shows.

The Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) program, which brought police into schools to lecture against drugs, was also founded during this period, as were clubs in many schools that enticed pupils to sign anti-drug pledges.

The Partnership for a Drug-Free America, founded by a group of advertising executives in 1985, introduced its “This is your brain on drugs” public service advertisements a few years later.

Highlights in the media barrage must also include the White House-sponsored “Stop the Madness” music video starring, among many others, New Edition, LaToya Jackson, and Whitney Houston, with a brief appearance by Nancy Reagan.

Government surveys showed that drug use declined during the 1980s, but ending “the scourge of drugs” was still a successful campaign issue for George H. W. Bush when he pursued the presidency in 1988.

Concern over drug use appeared to peak in September the following year, when 64 percent of respondents in a New York Times/CBS News poll identified drugs as the single most pressing issue facing the nation, not long after Bush gave an Oval Office speech on the subject.

The media campaign against drugs persisted well into the 1990s, in every medium imaginable, from television to t-shirts to milk cartons, as a cause ostensibly absent of political overtones.

Evidence is mixed on whether anti-drug media campaigns served their purpose of reducing drug use. A study of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign from 1998 to 2004 found that the $1.2 billion federal initiative was not effective in reducing drug use, and may even had the reverse effect on some youth, by sparking teens’ curiosity.

The DARE program was curtailed in many parts of the country after a number of studies found no evidence that it resulted in decreased drug use among children.

These programs certainly seem to have been effective in raising the profile of the drug issue and maintaining public concern. Even for a president such as Bill Clinton, who admitted smoking (but not inhaling) marijuana, continuing to warn the public against the threat while pledging an undying effort to fight it must have seemed better politics than suggesting a compromise.

In 1998 and 1999, Clinton’s drug czar, Barry McCaffery, paid out $25 million to five major television networks for writing anti-drug messages into specific prime-time shows, with the White House reviewing and signing off on scripts in advance.

The Road to Legalization?

Over the past few decades, it was possible to joke about weed in the media—there were of course still Snoop Dogg, Willie Nelson, and Cheech and Chong—but decades of intense anti-drug propaganda have made it awfully hard for anyone to credibly support something called “drugs.”

Since the beginning of the twentieth century, there have been persistent links between political decisions about drug policy and efforts to influence public opinion.

Following the anti-drug campaigns of recent years, it is fascinating to note that today’s liberalization efforts have largely succeeded not by trying to shift attitudes about drugs, but by redefining marijuana as medicine and by focusing on the economic and social costs of the incarceration that has resulted from drug laws.

About 800,000 Americans are arrested annually for marijuana offenses, mostly simple possession.

Few wind up in prison as a result of a first offense, but this encounter with the criminal justice system can have serious consequences, including the loss of eligibility for federal student financial aid and subsidized housing.

And the “three-strikes laws,” which 22 states and the federal government passed between 1993 and 1995 and which mandated stiff prison sentences for a person convicted of a third felony, ensure that marijuana offenses can lead to dire results.

Although black Americans smoke pot at a nearly identical rate as whites, they are nearly four times more likely to be arrested because of it.

“It’s important for it to go forward because it’s important for society not to have a situation in which a large portion of people have at one time or another broken the law and only a select few get punished,” President Barak Obama said in a January interview with the New Yorker.

And all taxpayers contribute to the billions of dollars a year required to enforce anti-marijuana laws and punish the offenders. Pot often inspires giggles, but marijuana prohibition has serious implications.

To the extent that these arguments to end the illegalization of marijuana have been persuasive it has largely been the result of voter initiatives, rather than the efforts of politicians.

Further liberalization seems likely. According to Gallup, 58 percent of Americans now favor legalizing marijuana. This has been the first time the firm has recorded a pro-legalization majority since it began asking the question in 1969.

It seems unlikely that “doing drugs” will become acceptable any time soon.

Obviously from a law enforcement (LE) perspective it is more difficult to get real criminals to talk than drug users who have a monkey on their back. A real criminal can hold out making the job for LE that much more difficult. While a drug user will snitch on his whole crew in a matter of hours to get his next fix. (See: Snitches pictures/locations)

Drug cases keep cops busy, courts busy and jails to over capacity. Which makes it possible to farm out prison construction and control to private industries. Private prison companies can then trade prison slave labor on Wall Street at a profit. Which makes slavery legal.

My state spends more money on incarceration than they do on higher education. And have made LE profitable through asset forfeiture which is the equivalent of a snake eating its own tail for nourishment. This system is unsustainable. And what is worse is that the drug war actually makes our families less safe since drug dealers can not call the police like other business owners so they are forced to turn to violence to settle their debts. Drugs are also not regulated on the black market causing overdoses due to cheaper cuts like fentanyl. And LE budgets and time are being used up on non-violent drug users while violent crimes go unsolved due to a “lack of funds”.

More than 1.4 million murders, rapes, robberies and assaults are committed around the United States every year, or a violent crime every 22 seconds, the FBI says. Tell your reps to stop wasting tax dollars on drug wars. To call your Member of Congress: US Capitol Switchboard (202) 224-3121 To locate your Member on-line: U.S. House of Representatives: www.house.gov U.S. Senate: www.senate.gov

The only way this will ever change is if you become a lobbyist to end the drug war because the alcohol and pharmaceutical industries lobby Congress everyday they are open to the tune of $1m a day. People are only motivated by two things: greed and fear. You and I can not compete with the drug companies money which leaves fear. Our reps must fear that they will lose their jobs if they continue to spend our hard earned dollars on this scam.

Related:

Tips for Spotting an Undercover Cop

I Smoke Two Dabs

I Love Drugs

PCP

DMT

Codeine and Barbiturates

Crystal meth

Crack cocaine

Heroin

Magic Mushrooms

Molly/MDMA/E

China White: Fentanyl or Heroin

Beat any drug test for free

The Fix: Drug Informants

Real Snitches (pictures/locations) 

The CIA And The Drug Trade

C.I.A. Secrets: Afghanistan Heroin

Opium: The Other Failed US War in Afghanistan

Drug money is an inherent part of the American economy

100 years of the war on drugs

By Tom de Castella, BBC

Today it is taken for granted that governments will co-operate in the fight against the heroin and cocaine trade.

But 100 years ago, narcotics passed from country to country with minimal interference from the authorities. That all changed with the 1912 International Opium Convention, which committed countries to stopping the trade in opium, morphine and cocaine.

Then, as now, the US stood in the vanguard against narcotics. While the UK’s position is unequivocal today, a century ago it was an unenthusiastic signatory, says Mike Jay, author of Emperors of Dreams: Drugs in the Nineteenth Century. 

The real concern a century ago was over alcohol, he argues. “There was a big debate over intoxication as there was concern about the heavy, heavy drinking culture of the 19th Century.”

Ambivalence towards opium was understandable. Britain had fought two wars in favour of the opium trade in the 19th Century, crushing Chinese efforts to restrict its importation. 

And opium use was viewed in the mid-19th Century in a very different way from modern beliefs about drug use. It was possible to walk into a chemist and buy not only opium and cocaine, but even arsenic. 

If you had been in a major British port in the 18th or 19th Century, you would have seen opium arriving alongside ordinary cargo. In February 1785 The Times listed opium from Smyrna (now Izmir) between oil from Leghorn (Livorno) and peas from Dantzic (Gdansk) in its roundup of goods unloaded at the port of London.

In the early 19th Century, travellers to Norfolk were warned to treat their pint in the pub with caution. Beer could be laced with opium to ward off the malaria that flourished in the Fens.

Opium, the dried residue of poppies, was usually consumed for its anaesthetic properties.

Queen Victoria’s coterie ordered opium from the royal apothecary. She is also believed to have taken cocaine gum with a young Winston Churchill. Prime Minister William Gladstone is said to have taken opium in tea or coffee before making important speeches.

In 1868 the Pharmacy Act brought in restrictions. In theory, it became tougher to get hold of opium – with the user having to provide a name and address and other details to the chemist. But it made little difference.

There was another side to the opium story. It was also smoked recreationally – a practice brought in by Chinese sailors who settled in the East End area of Limehouse. Opium dens became a much mythologised world, where aristocrats could stumble in and discover a cornucopia of vice.

“There were opium dens where one could buy oblivion, dens of horror where the memory of old sins could be destroyed by the madness of sins that were new,” wrote Oscar Wilde in The Picture of Dorian Gray.

But the fashion in drugs was changing from the “downer” of opium to the “upper” of cocaine – hence Arthur Conan Doyle making Sherlock Holmes a cocaine injector.

Marek Kohn, author of Dope Girls: The Birth of the British Drug Underground, argues that Holmes was typical of a view at the time that cocaine was for “brainy, highly-strung” people who needed constant stimulation. It was a “personal shortcoming” but not a sign of the depravity that drugs would later be associated with.

But in the US, cocaine came to be associated with street gangs, alongside racist propaganda that the drug sent black men insane and put white women at risk.

So these domestic concerns helped drive the international agreement in the form of the 1912 treaty. But while it tackled the trade, in the UK at least, the authorities were slow to crack down on individual users.

When World War I broke out, opium and cocaine were still legal drugs in Britain.

The turning point had come more than a year into the war, says Kohn. There was a fear that the drinking culture was harming the war effort. In 1915 the licensing laws were tightened.

The unintended consequence was to create the conditions for the first underground drug scene in Britain, says Kohn. It criminalized a small number of people in London’s theater district and a scene developed in which opium, cocaine, sex and prostitution overlapped. With so many soldiers passing through London, it was little surprise that emergency regulation to ban drugs soon followed.

The fact that opium and cocaine-dealing were closely identified with the Chinese merely fanned the flames in a war-time atmosphere of general xenophobia, Kohn says.

“There was intense paranoia about foreign subversion, ostensibly by the Germans,” says Kohn. “And in the middle of this you have a drug panic in which the ‘outsider’ is central.”

In the years after the war, concern crystallized, driven by a media hungry for scandal. The stories would seem familiar to any modern reader.

A young actress dies from an overdose of cocaine. The inquest whips up a storm of intrigue and exposes the widespread use of drugs among her social circle.

This was the death of Billie Carleton in 1918. The actress had attended an opium party the night before her death and a coroner’s inquest found she had died of a cocaine overdose.

Her friend Reginald De Veulle was charged with manslaughter and conspiracy to supply a prohibited drug. He had bought the drug from a Scottish woman Ada and her Chinese husband Lau Ping You, in Limehouse.

De Veulle was acquitted of manslaughter but found guilty of supplying her with cocaine and sentenced to eight months in prison, Ada was sentenced to five months hard labour while Ping You was fined £10.

The emergency legislation brought in during WWI was made permanent in the Dangerous Drugs Act 1920.

Two years later came another notorious case of a young woman whom the media decided had been seduced and corrupted by a charismatic Chinese entrepreneur known as “Brilliant” Chang.

Freda Kempton, a young dancer, was found dead after taking an overdose of cocaine. At the inquest it emerged that she had been with Chang on the night she died. These two cases hardened feeling against the Chinese community and the sense that they were using drugs to ensnare innocent white women.

The media presented her as a vulnerable ingenue, says Kohn. “There was already a moral panic associated with drugs but it was prostitutes who weren’t seen as sympathetic,” he says. “But Billie Carleton was seen as different, she was portrayed as this waif-like figure when she was nothing of the sort.”

The cases prompted many to become aware of cocaine as a serious menace for young innocent women. But almost as soon as panic reached its peak with the Kempton case it dissipated.

In reality, there was no “drug scene” in Britain back then, says Jay. What existed was confined to a few streets in Soho and a handful of dealers in Limehouse.

And once the drug laws came in banning cocaine and opium, the problem was easily contained by the police.

“Victorian Britain had been awash with opium but you wouldn’t smoke it in a den, you’d get it from the chemist as a gloopy liquid. The opium dens were largely fictional constructs encouraged by stories like Sherlock Holmes and the writings of Oscar Wilde,” Jay notes.

Today, when the efficacy of anti-drug measures is constantly debated, it seems curious that the 1912 treaty was an effective measure. Domestically, in the UK, the police had the upper hand.

The big changes in the West’s attitude to drugs came after World War II, Jay argues.

“The baby boomers were the first generation in history to become real global consumers. People were suddenly going to Morocco to smoke hash, or hitching with lorry drivers who were using amphetamines.”

So the floodgates opened. Where once the authorities were fighting relatively small groups of offenders in a tiny drugs subculture, now they must fight millions of users and powerful international cartels.

To support this work donate HERE And thank you for your support.

War on drugs a trillion-dollar failure By Richard Branson

(CNN) In 1925, H. L. Mencken wrote an impassioned plea: “Prohibition has not only failed in its promises but actually created additional serious and disturbing social problems throughout society. There is not less drunkenness in the Republic but more. There is not less crime, but more. … The cost of government is not smaller, but vastly greater. Respect for law has not increased, but diminished.”

Here we are, four decades after Richard Nixon declared the war on drugs in 1971 and $1 trillion spent since then. What do we have to show for it?

The U.S. has the largest prison population in the world, with about 2.3 million behind bars. More than half a million of those people are incarcerated for a drug law violation. What a waste of young lives.

The facts are overwhelming. If the global drug trade were a country, it would have one of the top 20 economies in the world. In 2005, the United Nations estimated the global illegal drug trade is worth more than $320 billion. It also estimates there are 230 million illegal drug users in the world, yet 90% of them are not classified as problematic.

In the United States, if illegal drugs were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco, they would yield $46.7 billion in tax revenue. A Cato study says legalizing drugs would save the U.S. about $41 billion a year in enforcing the drug laws.

Have U.S. drug laws reduced drug use? No. The U.S. is the No. 1 nation in the world in illegal drug use. As with Prohibition, banning alcohol didn’t stop people drinking — it just stopped people obeying the law.

About 40,000 people were in U.S. jails and prisons for drug crimes in 1980, compared with more than 500,000 today. Excessively long prison sentences and locking up people for small drug offenses contribute greatly to this ballooning of the prison population. It also represents racial discrimination and targeting disguised as drug policy. People of color are no more likely to use or sell illegal drugs than white people — yet from 1980 to 2007, blacks were arrested for drug law violations at rates 2.8 to 5.5 times higher than white arrest rates.

How would our society, our communities and daily lives improve if we took the money we use running a police and prison state and put it into education and health? Treating drugs as a health issue could save billions, improve public health and help us better control violence and crime in our communities. Hundreds of thousands of people have died from overdoses and drug-related diseases, including HIV and hepatitis C, because they didn’t have access to cost-effective, life-saving solutions.

A Pew study says it costs the U.S. an average of $30,000 a year to incarcerate an inmate, but the nation spends only an average $11,665 per public school student. The future of our nations and our children should be our priority. We should be helping people addicted to drugs break their habits rather than putting users in prison.

When it comes to drugs, we should focus on the goals we agree on: protecting our kids, protecting public safety and preventing and treating drug abuse and addiction. To help unlock barriers to drug reform, last June, I joined the Global Commission on Drug Policy, which is bringing global leadership to drug reform to make fact-based research public and draw attention to successful alternative approaches. Continue reading: Prohibition Kills

To support this work donate HERE And thank you for your support.

Related:

Tips for Spotting an Undercover Cop

I Smoke Two Dabs

I Love Drugs

PCP

DMT

Codeine and Barbiturates

Crystal meth

Crack cocaine

Heroin

Magic Mushrooms

Molly/MDMA/E

China White: Fentanyl or Heroin

Beat any drug test for free

The Fix: Drug Informants

Real Snitches (pictures/locations) 

The CIA And The Drug Trade

C.I.A. Secrets: Afghanistan Heroin

Opium: The Other Failed US War in Afghanistan

Drug money is an inherent part of the American economy

Orwellian terms like “War on Drugs” are meant to CONFUSE you

By Christopher R Rice, Underground Resistance Network
Support a free press by donating/subscribing here

It’s not a War on Drugs. It’s a War on People The War on Drugs is a WAR fought on American soil against American CITIZENS. No Victim, No Crime.

Joseph McNamara, a former San Jose police chief from the Hoover Institute at Stanford University, published some really telling figures. In 1972, when Richard Nixon started the War on Drugs, the annual federal budget allocation was 110 million dollars a year for enforcement. In fiscal year 2000, 28 years later, the budget allocation was 17 billion dollars a year, and yet, in the year 2000, there were more drugs in this country, they were cheaper, and more potent than they were in 1972. That has to tell you that there’s some other agenda going on here.  

Clark Clifford, who was a Wall Street banker and lawyer, wrote the National Security Act that created the CIA in 1947. He brought us BCCI. John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles gave both law partners in the Wall Street law firm of Sullivan and Cromwell wrote the outline for the CIA, the design for the Agency, to Clark Clifford. In 1969 after Nixon came in, the Chairman of SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission] was William Casey – who was Ronald Reagan’s Director of Central Intelligence. And the Vice President in charge of enforcement for the New York Stock Exchange was Dave Dougherty, a retired CIA General Counsel. The CIA is Wall Street, and vice versa. When you understand that, and that money is the primary objective, everything else just falls into place.  

The distinctions drawn between business, politics, and organized crime are at best artificial and in reality irrelevant. Rather than being dysfunctions, corporate crime, white-collar crime, organized crime, and political corruption are mainstays of American political-economic life.

Related articles: Prescription Drugs Now Kill More People In The US Than Heroin And Cocaine Combined

Organized Crime aka the Mafia is just another arm of the government like the Army or the Navy

Investigations of organized crime in the United States, Europe, and Asia have all uncovered organized crime networks operating with virtual immunity from law enforcement and prosecution. Chambliss’ study of organized crime in Seattle exposed a syndicate that involved participation by a former governor of the state, the county prosecutor, the police chief, the sheriff, at least 50 law enforcement officers, leading business people, including contractors, realtors, banks, and corporation executives, and, of course, a supporting cast of drug pushers, pimps, gamblers, and racketeers (Chambliss, 1978). The Chambliss study is not the exception but the rule.

Other sociological inquires in Detroit, Texas, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York have all revealed similar patterns (Albini, 1971; Block, 1984; Block and Chambliss, 1981; Block and Scarpitti, 1985; Jenkins and Potter, 1989; 1986; Potter and Jenkins, 1985; Potter, 1994).

As Chambliss comments:  In the everyday language of the police, the press, and popular opinion, “organized crime” refers to a tightly knit group of people, usually alien and often Italian, that run a crime business structured along the lines of feudal relationships.

This conception bears little relationship to the reality of organized crime today. Nonetheless, criminologists have discovered the existence of organizations whose activities focus on the smuggling of illegal commodities into and out of countries (cocaine out of Colombia and into the United States and guns and arms out of the United States and into the Middle East, for example); other organizations, sometimes employing some of the same people, are organized to provide services such as gambling, prostitution, illegal dumping of toxic wastes, arson, usury, and occasionally murder.

These organizations typically cut across ethnic and cultural lines, are run like businesses, and consist of networks of people including police, politicians, and ordinary citizens investing in illegal enterprises for a high return on their money.

Catherine Austin Fitts, who was a Managing Director at Dillon Read before becoming Assistant Secretary of Housing under George Bush and who holds an MBA from Wharton makes things very simple. She points out that the four largest states for the importation of drugs are New York, Florida, Texas and California. She then points out that the top four money-laundering states in the U.S. (good for between 100 and 260 billion per year) are New York, Florida, Texas and California. No surprise there.

Then she rips the breath from your lungs by pointing out that 80 per cent of all Presidential campaign funds come from – New York, Florida, Texas and California.

Civics test: Who were the governors of Texas and Florida?

Using testimony of law enforcement officers and U.S. Government records, Dominican drug gangs, who dominate the trade in the northeast United States – especially New York and Pennsylvania – have been making regular campaign donations. California drug sales are currently split between Democratically allied crime factions and entrenched hard-core Republican strongholds from the Reagan era.

People who shudder at the thought of the Chinese buying into presidential politics would choke if they knew how much drug money was involved.

The Department of Justice estimates that $100 billion in drug funds are laundered in the U.S. each year. Other research, including research material from the Andean Commission of Jurists cited by author Dan Russell in his soon to be published book Drug War place the figure at around $250 billion per year. Catherine Austin Fitts places the figure at $250 to $300 billion.

Given the fact that the UN estimated that in the early 1990s world retail volume in the illegal drugs was $440 billion, $250 billion seems about right. Fitts, using her Wall Street experience as an investment banker, is then quick to point out that the multiplier effect (x6) of $250 billion laundered would result in $1.5 trillion dollars per year in U.S. cash transactions resulting from the drug trade. How many jobs does $1.5 trillion represent? Why do President’s get re-elected? As Bill Clinton’s staff recognized in 1992, “It’s the economy -Stupid!”

During the Contra years, when the CIA and Bill Clinton were swimming in cocaine, and Arkansas became the only state in the Union to ever issue bearer bonds (laundry certificates), employment in Arkansas rose to an all time high because there was so much money floating around. So what if they don’t count all the dead bodies “It’s the economy – Stupid!”

The Pop: Corporations trading on Wall Street, including many implicated in money laundering schemes where products are sold with questionable bookkeeping throughout drug producing regions, all have stock values that are based upon annual net profits. Known as “price to earnings” or “The Pop” the multiplier effect in stock values is sometimes as much as a factor of thirty. Thus, for a firm like GE or Piper Aircraft to have an additional $10 million in net profits based upon the drug trade, the net increase in these companies’ stock value could be as much as $300,000,000. Did GE make a $10 million net profit on consumer products in Latin America last year? Easily.

And since GE owns NBC is there a chance that accurate reporting on the drug trade and CIA’s involvement therein might hurt their stock?

Disney owns ABC and has a huge retail, resort and entertainment empire that benefits from the “drug multiplier.” Would ABC consider hurting its parent’s stock value? Ronald Reagan’s CIA Director, William Casey had been Chief Counsel to Cap Cities Broadcasting until 1981. His old law firm represented Cap Cities when it bought the ABC network in 1985. ABC’s Peter Jennings, by the way, had been doing a series of investigative reports on the CIA drug bank (and successor to the Nugan Hand bank) Bishop, Baldwin, Rewald, Dillingham and Wong when the buyout was initiated. Cap Cities (not surprisingly) secured SEC approval in record time and effectively and immediately silenced Peter Jennings who had previously refused to back down from Casey’s threats. Thereafter, ABC was referred to as “The CIA network.”

I have no doubt that the ABC “object lesson” was front and center for CNN founder Ted Turner and Time-Warner when Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell and (CIA vet) John Singlaub put the pressure on in the wake of April Oliver’s 1998 “dead bang accurate” Sarin gas stories connecting CIA to the killing of American defectors.

Every major media corporation in the country trades on Wall Street. There are no “independents” left and the American people are left with the increasing thought conflict of recognizing that they are being fed useless bullshit. I wonder how they would respond to real a news corporation if they saw or heard one. 

Related article: Cannabis Compounds Can Kill Cancer Cells

Despite president Trump’s announced US troop withdrawals, the Afghan opium trade continues to be protected by US-NATO occupation forces on behalf of powerful financial  interests. Afghanistan’s opium economy is a multibillion dollar operation which feeds the surge of the US heroin market which is currently the object of debate and public concern. It should be noted that the relationship between the surge in Afghanistan’s opium production and the US opioid crisis is more complex. 

In the course of the last decade, there has been a surge in Afghan opium production. In turn the number of heroin addicts in the US has increased dramatically. Is there a relationship?  

“There were 189,000 heroin users in the US in 2001, before the US-NATO invasion of Afghanistan. By 2016 that number went up to 4,500,000 (2.5 million heroin addicts and 2 million casual users). Heroin deaths shot up from 1,779 in 2001 to 10,574 in 2014 as Afghan opium poppy fields metastasized from 7,600 hectares in 2001 (when the US-NATO War in Afghanistan began) to 224,000 hectares in 2016. (One hectare equals approximately 2.5 acres). Ironically, the so-called US eradication operation in Afghanistan has cost an estimated $8.5 billion in American taxpayer funds since the US-NATO-Afghan war started in October 2001.” ( See the article by Sibel Edmonds, August 22, 2017)

Afghanistan produces over 90 percent of the opium which feeds the heroin market.

Lest we forget, the surge in opium production occurred in the immediate wake of the US invasion in October 2001.

Who is protecting opium exports out of Afghanistan?

In 2000-2001,  “the Taliban government –in collaboration with the United Nations– had imposed a successful ban on poppy cultivation. Opium production declined by more than 90 per cent in 2001. In fact the surge in opium cultivation production coincided with the onslaught of the US-led military operation and the downfall of the Taliban regime. From October through December 2001, farmers started to replant poppy on an extensive basis.”

The Vienna based UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) reveals that poppy cultivation in 2012 extended over an area of  more than  154,000 hectares, an increase of 18% over 2011. A UNODC  spokesperson confirmed in 2013 that opium production is heading towards record levels.

In 2014 the Afghan opium cultivation hit a record high, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime’s 2014 Afghan Opium Survey.( See graph below). A slight decline occurred in 2015-2016. War is good for business. The Afghan opium economy feeds into a lucrative trade in narcotics and money laundering.

“Opium production in Afghanistan rose by 43 per cent to 4,800 metric tons in 2016 compared with 2015 levels, according to the latest Afghanistan Opium Survey figures released today by the Afghan Ministry of Counter Narcotics and the UNODC. The area under opium poppy cultivation also increased to 201,000 hectares (ha) in 2016, a rise of 10 per cent compared with 183,000 ha in 2015. According to the YNODC 

Related article: Marijuana Kills Cancer Cells, Admits the U.S. National Cancer Institute

Washington’s Hidden Agenda: Restore the Drug Trade

In the wake of the 2001 US bombing of Afghanistan, the British government of Tony Blair was entrusted by the G-8 Group of leading industrial nations to carry out a drug eradication program, which would, in theory, allow Afghan farmers to switch out of poppy cultivation into alternative crops. The British were working out of Kabul in close liaison with the US DEA’s “Operation Containment”.

The UK sponsored crop eradication program is an obvious smokescreen. Since October 2001, opium poppy cultivation has skyrocketed.   The presence of occupation forces in Afghanistan did not result in the eradication of poppy cultivation. Quite the opposite.

The Taliban prohibition had indeed caused “the beginning of a heroin shortage in Europe by the end of 2001”, as acknowledged by the UNODC.

Heroin is a multibillion dollar business supported by powerful interests, which requires a steady and secure commodity flow. One of the “hidden” objectives of the war was precisely to restore the CIA sponsored drug trade to its historical levels and exert direct control over the drug routes.

Immediately following the October 2001 invasion, opium markets were restored. Opium prices spiraled. By early 2002, the opium price (in dollars/kg) was almost 10 times higher than in 2000.

In 2001, under the Taliban opiate production stood at 185 tons, increasing  to 3400 tons in 2002 under the US sponsored puppet regime of President Hamid Karzai.

The role of the CIA, which is amply documented, is not mentioned in official UNODC publications, which focus on internal social and political factors. Needless to say, the historical roots of the opium trade have been grossly distorted.

(See UNODC http://www.unodc.org/pdf/publications/afg_opium_economy_www.pdf

According to the UNODC, Afghanistan’s opium production has increased, more than 15-fold since 1979. In the wake of the Soviet-Afghan war, the growth of the narcotics economy has continued unabated. The Taliban, which were supported by the US, were initially instrumental in the further growth of opiate production until the 2000 opium ban.

(See UNODC http://www.unodc.org/pdf/publications/afg_opium_economy_www.pdf

This recycling of drug money was used to finance the post-Cold War insurgencies in Central Asia and the Balkans including Al Qaeda. (For details, see Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalization, The Truth behind September 11, Global Outlook, 2002,  http://globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/truth911.html )

Related article: Federal Agents Allowed Tons Of Cocaine To Be Smuggled Into The U.S.

Narcotics: Second to Oil and the Arms Trade

The revenues generated from the CIA sponsored Afghan drug trade are sizeable. The Afghan trade in opiates constitutes a large share of the worldwide annual turnover of narcotics, which was estimated by the United Nations to be of the order of $400-500 billion. (Douglas Keh, Drug Money in a Changing World, Technical document No. 4, 1998, Vienna UNDCP, p. 4. See also United Nations Drug Control Program, Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 1999, E/INCB/1999/1 United Nations, Vienna 1999, p. 49-51, and Richard Lapper, UN Fears Growth of Heroin Trade, Financial Times, 24 February 2000). At the time these UN figures were first brought out (1994), the (estimated) global trade in drugs was of the same order of magnitude as the global trade in oil.

The IMF estimated global money laundering to be between 590 billion and 1.5 trillion dollars a year, representing 2-5 percent of global GDP. (Asian Banker, 15 August 2003). A large share of global money laundering as estimated by the IMF is linked to the trade in narcotics.

Based on recent figures (2003), drug trafficking  constitutes “the third biggest global commodity in cash terms after oil and the arms trade.” (The Independent, 29 February 2004).

Moreover, the above figures including those on money laundering, confirm that the bulk of the revenues associated with the global trade in narcotics are not appropriated by terrorist groups and warlords, as suggested by the UNODC report.

There are powerful business and financial interests behind narcotics. From this standpoint, geopolitical and military control over  the drug routes is as strategic as oil and oil pipelines.

However, what distinguishes narcotics from legal commodity trade is that narcotics constitutes a major source of wealth formation not only for organised crime but also for the US intelligence apparatus, which increasingly constitutes a powerful actor in the spheres of finance and banking.

In turn, the CIA, which protects the drug trade, has developed complex business and undercover links to major criminal syndicates involved in the drug trade.

In other words, intelligence agencies and powerful business syndicates allied with organized crime, are competing for the strategic control over the heroin routes. The multi-billion dollar revenues of narcotics are deposited in the Western banking system. Most of the large international banks together with their affiliates in the offshore banking havens launder large amounts of narco-dollars.

This trade can only prosper if the main actors involved in narcotics have “political friends in high places.”  Legal and illegal undertakings are increasingly intertwined, the dividing line between “businesspeople” and criminals is blurred. In turn, the relationship among criminals, politicians and members of the intelligence establishment has tainted the structures of the state and the role of its institutions.

Related article: CNN: CIA admits it overlooked Contras’ links to drugs

The Laundering of Drug Money

The proceeds of the drug trade are deposited in the banking system. Drug money is laundered in the numerous offshore banking havens in Switzerland, Luxembourg, the British Channel Islands, the Cayman Islands and some 50 other locations around the globe.  It is here that the criminal syndicates involved in the drug trade and the representatives of the world’s largest commercial banks interact. Dirty money is deposited in these offshore havens, which are controlled by the major Western commercial banks. The latter have a vested interest in maintaining and sustaining the drug trade. (For further details, see Michel Chossudovsky, The Crimes of Business and the Business of Crimes, Covert Action Quarterly, Fall 1996)

Once the money has been laundered, it can be recycled into bona fide investments not only in real estate, hotels, etc, but also in other areas such as the services economy and manufacturing. Dirty and covert money is also funneled into various financial instruments including the trade in derivatives, primary commodities, stocks, and government bonds.

Concluding Remarks: Criminalization of US Foreign Policy

US foreign policy supports the workings of a thriving criminal economy in which the demarcation between organized capital and organized crime has become increasingly blurred.

The heroin business is not  “filling the coffers of the Taliban” as claimed by US government and the international community: quite the opposite! The proceeds of this illegal trade are the source of wealth formation, largely reaped by powerful business/criminal interests within the Western countries. These interests are sustained by US foreign policy.

Decision-making in the US State Department, the CIA and the Pentagon is instrumental in supporting this highly profitable multibillion dollar trade, third in commodity value after oil and the arms trade.

The Afghan drug economy is “protected”.

The heroin trade was part of the war agenda. What this war has achieved is to restore a compliant narco-State, headed by a US appointed puppet.

The powerful financial interests behind narcotics are supported by the militarisation of the world’s major drug triangles (and transshipment routes), including the Golden Crescent and the Andean region of South America (under the so-called Andean Initiative).

To support this work donate HEREAnd thank you for your support.

This problem is unlikely to go away anytime soon. There are as many opioid prescriptions written annually in the US as there are adults. With just 5% of the world’s population, the US consumes 80% of its opioids. And the impact goes beyond the health and wellness of the population.

Afghanistan supply’s about 90% of the worlds opium. We arrived in 2001. In the following nine years opium production has surged 700%. Recording all time record harvests beginning around 2010.

During the time opium production was being ramped up in Afghanistan, Mexico was retooling their ability to convert ever larger supply’s of opium into increasingly potent heroin and developing new infrastructure to transport it.

During the decade or so all this was going on in Afghanistan and Mexico, scripts here in America for Oxycontin, Fentanyl, Hydrocodone and the like were wildly available to any person claiming chronic pain. Nothing was done to confirm the claims of pain, sorta like the stated income, liar loans that set up the housing collapse. Basically scripts were available to almost anyone for the asking.

That all ended one day in 2011.

Almost overnight The Oxycontin and Fentanyl was turned into useless plastic and millions of scripts across the country were shut down with the exception of those few in truly chronic pain.

Simultaneously and amazingly as if by magic, that very day every city in America suddenly had a fresh two ton supply of high quality vary affordable heroin. In fact the prices have never been lower and the quality never higher.

Related:

Tips for Spotting an Undercover Cop

I Smoke Two Dabs

I Love Drugs

PCP

DMT

Codeine and Barbiturates

Crystal meth

Crack cocaine

Heroin

Magic Mushrooms

Molly/MDMA/E

China White: Fentanyl or Heroin

Beat any drug test for free

The Fix: Drug Informants

Real Snitches (pictures/locations) 

The CIA And The Drug Trade

C.I.A. Secrets: Afghanistan Heroin

Opium: The Other Failed US War in Afghanistan

Drug money is an inherent part of the American economy

The War on Drugs is Racist and Corrupt

They told this DEA agent not to enforce drug laws in white areas

Meet Matthew Fogg, a former U.S. Marshal whose exploits led him to be nicknamed “Batman.” When he noticed that all of his team’s drug raids were in black areas, he suggested doing the same in the suburbs. His boss didn’t take kindly to the idea.

Ex-Baltimore Cop Michael Wood Exposes Police Culture Of Corruption & Abuse

Former U.S. Marine and Baltimore police officer Michael A. Wood, Jr. made headlines when he Tweeted about the abuses he witnessed fellow Baltimore police officers perpetrating. In this interview with The Young Turks’ Cenk Uygur Wood reveals the truth behind the “us vs. them” siege mentality pervading urban police forces that leads to a culture of corruption, racism and abuse, and what can be done to bring change for the better to policing in the United States.

The US Government And CIA Run The Drug Trade

Stunning revelations of CIA, law enforcement and Government complicity in the trafficking and distribution of illegal drugs.

Why the racial disparity in marijuana arrests? By Claudine Ewin, WGRZ

When it comes to marijuana possession in the City of Buffalo, it’s clear there is a racial disparity in who is arrested.

“18% of the population of Erie County are people of color, but they made up 76% of the arrests for marijuana possession,” according to the Partnership for Public Good.

“In Buffalo about 80% of marijuana arrests are African American” said Rebecca Town, a public defender for the Legal Aid Bureau in Buffalo. She is in City Court daily and sees the faces of those going before judges. “If I get a White client who has been arrested for marijuana, usually they’ve been a little more blatant in the use of marijuana, they might have been smoking in public at a park, or a concert.”

Andrea Ó Súilleabháin, Deputy Director for the Partnership for the Public Good, backs up the reason to legalize recreational marijuana. “We believe that regulating and legalizing marijuana and having it be a substance that’s out there in a similar way to alcohol where it’s legal for people 21 and over it’s actually highly restricted for those who are not, would improve public safety, would restrict access to marijuana for minors and youth, and would actually save public money because we wouldn’t be wasting as many dollars as we are on arresting people for simple possession and moving them through the criminal justice system.”

According to the Partnership for Public Good, in Erie County from 2012-2016, nearly 2,700 people were arrested for simple low level possession of marijuana. 2,100 of them were in the City of Buffalo.

New York State Assemblywoman Crystal Peoples-Stokes calls it “madness,” but she’s not just talking she’s pushing for action. There’s a proposal in the New York State Legislature to deal with people caught with a small amount of marijuana. “I think marijuana should be legalized, taxed and regulated in the state of New York.”

Assemblywoman Crystal Peoples Stokes wants to end the marijuana prohibition, even seal records for prior marijuana arrests. “I’m not the person who thinks people should use marijuana, but I know that they do and because they do, they’re going to go to where it is legal. Quite frankly those are dollars that are walking out the door.”

In 1977 New York State decriminalized the use of marijuana. You can have 25 grams or under for your personal use right now. “The thing is you can’t have it in public. It can’t be in public view.

There’s this loophole in the law that allows folks to be arrested if they get stopped and asked to empty their pockets.”

For the Assemblywoman, it’s a social justice issue. “If you think about the mass incarceration of black and brown people based on marijuana arrests alone and the number of their families and children that have been destroyed putting them through a court system where they have done nothing violent, these are non-violent crimes. Children are in foster care, families are separated, communities are destroyed. All of that costs a lot of money,” said Peoples-Stokes.

Sherman Webb-Middlebrooks is an Open Society Fellow who was arrested in the past for a low level marijuana charge. He ended up in the Erie County Holding Center thinking “why am I sitting in the same room with murderers, rapists, thieves, drug dealers,” for a little bit of weed.

The impact of the arrest can alter a person’s life forever. “Being unable to get financial aid to further their education because they might have slipped up and sold some weed back in the day, but didn’t hurt anybody,” according to Webb-Middlebrooks.

Governor Andrew Cuomo wants a feasibility study to examine legalizing marijuana for recreational use. It could be a game-changer when it comes to people being arrested and ending the racial disparity.

An Emerson College poll found that legalizing and taxing marijuana was favorable to 60% of Voters as a way to erase New York’s budget deficit.

Ó Súilleabháin said, “it would take the profit from the new marijuana industry and reinvest it into communities that were most effected by the war on drugs.”

Here’s how it would be broken down:

25% of proceeds and tax revenues would be invested into education.

25% into drug treatment and addiction programs

50% into local initiatives through small grants that improve the health and well being and education opportunities in communities effected by racial disparity enforcement.

Kids Escaping Drugs is against legalizing marijuana. Jodie Altman said their young clients have told them that they “started with marijuana, alcohol and nicotine. 27 years later kids are shooting heroin and using pills, and using meth and everything else. They will tell you, that’s where they started when the marijuana didn’t do it anymore for them then they progressed on. To me that says it’s a gateway and in terms of legalizing it, why would we do that.”

What is not disputed is the racial disparity and the underground economy of selling marijuana that police will tell you leads to violence.

© 2018 WGRZ

Ocasio-Cortez Slams The ‘Racial Injustice’ Of The Cannabis Business As White Men Profit By Mary Papenfuss, HuffPost

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) earned praise from “drug justice” advocates after criticizing a growing marijuana legalization and business model that is paving the way for white male investors to reap major profits after minorities spent decades in prisons for selling pot.

She made her comments during a House Financial Services subcommittee hearing this week on banking services for the burgeoning cannabis industry as more states legalize the sale and use of marijuana.

She suggested the growing industry was “compounding the racial wealth gap”  by allowing wealthy white-dominated companies to gain a quick advantage in the industry. She complained that communities most affected by drug incarcerations are the “last in the door” when it comes to profiting now from legalized cannabis.

The nonprofit Drug Policy Alliance praised her position. “We must legalize marijuana in a way that recognizes and repairs the disastrous, disproportionate harms of the drug war … on people of color,” the organization tweeted after the hearing.

Ocasio-Cortez cited statistics from Colorado and Washington, where marijuana is legal for recreational use, that 73 percent of cannabis business executives are male and 81 percent are white.

She raised the possibility of “affirmative-action licensing” to boost the number of minorities in local cannabis businesses so that “frontline communities” could now “reap the benefits or recoup some segment of costs that they bore in the 1990s during the war on drugs.”

She noted that some big-pocket investors in private prisons — who have made money as inmates served time for drugs — could now be profiting from the very drugs that landed people in their prisons. She did not, however, provide any examples.

The situation is a “justice issue,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted before the hearing Wednesday.

“Communities decimated by mass incarceration need to see investments with legalization,” she added.

The full hearing is in this video. Ocasio-Cortez begins to speak at 4:12:10.

Related:

Tips for Spotting an Undercover Cop

I Smoke Two Dabs

I Love Drugs

PCP

DMT

Codeine and Barbiturates

Crystal meth

Crack cocaine

Heroin

Magic Mushrooms

Molly/MDMA/E

China White: Fentanyl or Heroin

Beat any drug test for free

The Fix: Drug Informants

Real Snitches (pictures/locations) 

The CIA And The Drug Trade

C.I.A. Secrets: Afghanistan Heroin

Opium: The Other Failed US War in Afghanistan

Drug money is an inherent part of the American economy

The final punishment of Julian Assange reminds journalists their job is to uncover what the state keeps hidden

By Robert Fisk

I’m getting a bit tired of the US Espionage Act. For that matter, I’ve been pretty weary of the Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning saga for a long time. No one wants to talk about their personalities because no one seems to like them very much – even those who have benefited journalistically from their revelations.

From the start, I’ve been worried about the effect of Wikileaks, not on the brutal Western governments whose activities it has disclosed in shocking detail (especially in the Middle East) but on the practice of journalism. When we scribes were served up this Wikileaks pottage, we jumped in, paddled around and splashed the walls of reporting with our cries of horror. And we forgot that real investigative journalism was about the dogged pursuit of truth through one’s own sources rather than upsetting a bowl of secrets in front of readers, secrets which Assange and Co – rather than us – had chosen to make public.

Why was it, I do recall asking myself almost 10 years ago, that we could read the indiscretions of so many Arabs or Americans but so few Israelis? Just who was mixing the soup we were supposed to eat? What had been left out of the gruel?

But the last few days have convinced me that there is something far more obvious about the incarceration of Assange and the re-jailing of Manning. And it has nothing to do with betrayal or treachery or any supposed catastrophic damage to our security.

In the Washington Post this week, we’ve had Marc Theissen, a former White House speechwriter who defended CIA torture as “lawful and morally just”, telling us that Assange “is not a journalist.

He is a spy… He engaged in espionage against the United States. And he has no remorse for the harm he has caused.” So forget that Trump’s insanity has already turned torture and secret relations with America’s enemies into a pastime.

No, I don’t think this has anything to do with the use of the Espionage Act – however grave its implications for conventional journalists – or “reputable news organisations,” as Thiessen cloyingly calls us. Nor does it have much to do with the dangers these revelations posed to America’s locally-hired agents in the Middle East. I remember well how often Iraqi interpreters for US forces told us how they had pleaded for visas for themselves and their families when they came under threat in Iraq – and how most were told to get lost. We Brits treated many of our own Iraqi translators with similar indifference.

So let’s forget – just for a moment – the slaughter of civilians, the lethal cruelty of US mercenaries (some involved in child-trafficking), the killing of Reuters staff by US forces in Baghdad, the army of innocents held in Guantanamo, the torture, the official lies, the fake casualty figures, the embassy lies, the American training of Egypt’s torturers and all the other crimes uncovered by the activities of Assange and Manning.

Let’s suppose that what they revealed was good rather than bad, that the diplomatic and military documents provided a shining example of a great and moral country and demonstrated those very noble and shining ideals which the land of the free has always espoused. Let’s pretend that US forces in Iraq repeatedly gave their lives to protect civilians, that they denounced their allies’ tortures, that they treated the inmates of Abu Ghraib (many of them completely innocent) not with sexual cruelty but with respect and kindness; that they broke the power of the mercenaries and sent them back to prison in the US in chains; that they owned up, however apologetically, to the cemeteries of men, women and children whom they sent to an early grave in the Iraq war.

Better still, let’s just think for a moment how we might have reacted to the revelation that the Americans had not killed these tens of thousands of people, had never tortured a soul, that the prisoners of Guantanamo – every man jack of them – were provably sadistic, cowardly, xenophobic, racist mass murderers, the evidence of their crimes against humanity proved before the fairest courts in the land. Let’s even fantasise for a moment that the US helicopter crew who cut down 12 civilians in a Baghdad street did not “waste” them with its guns. Let’s imagine that the voice on the helicopter radio cried: “Wait, I think these guys are civilians – and that gun might just be a television camera. Don’t shoot!”

As we all know, this is escapism. For what these hundreds of thousands of documents represented was the shaming of America, its politicians, its soldiers, its torturers, its diplomats. There was even an element of farce which, I suspect, enraged the Thiessens of this world even more than the most terrible of revelations. I’ll always remember the outrage expressed by Hillary Clinton when it was revealed that she had sent her flunkies to spy on the United Nations; her State Department slaves had to study the encryption details of delegates, credit card transactions, even frequent flyer cards. But who on this earth would want to waste their time studying the tosh emanating from the UN’s hopelessly incompetent staff? Or, for that matter, who in the CIA wasted their time listening to Angela Merkel’s private telephone conversations with Ban Ki Moon?

One of the cables Assange revealed went right back to the 1979 Iranian revolution and attache Bruce Laingen’s assessment that “the Persian psyche is an overriding egoism”. Interesting, but Iranian students had painstakingly stuck together all the shredded US embassy papers in Tehran in the years after 1979, and had already published Laingen’s words decades before Wikileaks gave them to us. So vast was the first 250,000 document hoard – which Hillary denounced as “an attack on the international community” while still calling the papers “alleged documents” (as if they might be a hoax) – that few could discover what was new and what was old. Thus the New York Times breathlessly highlighted the Laingen quote as if it was an extraordinary scoop.

Some of the material was not so obvious before – the suggestion that Syria had allowed anti-American insurgents to pass through its territory from Lebanon, for example, was absolutely correct – but the “evidence” of Iranian bomb-making in southern Iraq was far more doubtful. This story had already been happily farmed out to the New York Times by Pentagon officials in February 2007, to be reheated in more recent years, but was largely nonsense. Iranian military equipment had been lying around all over Iraq since the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war and most of the bomb-makers who used it were Iraqi Sunni Muslims.

But this is nit-picking amid the garbage tip of paper. Such tomfoolery is insignificant compared to the monstrous revelations of American cruelty; the account, for example, of how US troops killed almost 700 civilians for coming too close to their checkpoints, including pregnant women and the mentally ill. And the instruction to US forces – this bit of history from Chelsea Manning – not to investigate when their Iraqi military allies whipped prisoners with heavy cables, hung them from ceiling hooks, bored holes into their legs with electric drills and sexually assaulted them. In the secret US assessment of 109,000 deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan (itself a gross underestimation), 66,081 were officially classified as non-combatants. What, I wonder, would have been the American reaction to the killing of 66,000 US citizens, 20 times more than the dead of 9/11?

None of this, of course, were we supposed to know. And you can see why not. The worst of this material was secret not because it accidentally slipped into a military administration file marked “confidential” or “for your eyes only”, but because it represented the cover-up of state crime on a massive scale.

Those responsible for these atrocities should now be on trial, extradited from wherever they are hiding and imprisoned for their crimes against humanity. But no, we are going to punish the leakers – however pathetic we may regard their motives.

Sure, we journalists, we folk from “reputable news organisations”, may worry about the implications of all this for our profession. But far better we hunt down other truths, equally frightening for authority. Why not find out, for example, what Mike Pompeo said in private to Mohamed bin Salman? What toxic promises Donald Trump may have made to Netanyahu? What relations the US still secretly maintains with Iran, why it has even kept up important contact – desultory, silently and covertly – with elements of the Syrian regime?

Why wait 10 years for the next Assange to drive up to us with another dumper truck of state secrets?

But the usual red warning light: what we find out through the old conventional journalism of foot-slogging, of history via deep throats or trusted contacts, is going to reveal – if we do our job – just the same vile mendacity of our masters that has led to the clamour of hatred towards Assange and Manning and, indeed, Edward Snowden. We’re not going to be arraigned because the prosecution of these three set a dangerous legal precedent. But we’ll be persecuted for the same reasons: because what we shall disclose will inevitably prove that our governments and those of our allies commit war crimes; and those responsible for these iniquities will try to make us pay for such indiscretion with a life behind bars.

Shame and the fear of accountability for what has been done by our “security” authorities, not the law-breaking of leakers, is what this is all about. See also: http://iamwikileaks.org/

SPREAD THE WORD, one of the most effective ways to take action is to raise awareness around these issues. And it won’t cost you a dime. Simply re-post this link into your social media accounts, leave in comments and email the link to your friends.

To support this work donate HERE And thank you for your support.

Read more:

WikiLeaks

Julian Assange In Danger of Assassination

Julian Assange is a hero

Justice4Assange

Julian Assange ‘subjected to every kind of torment’ in Belmarsh prison as he awaits extradition

By Christopher R Rice, Underground Resistance Network
Support a free press by donating/subscribing here

The father of Julian Assange has said the WikiLeaks founder is “being subjected to every sort of torment” at Belmarsh prison as he awaits the hearing that could see him extradited to the US.

The whistleblower, who is being held alongside some of the UK’s most infamous criminals ahead of his extradition hearing in February, could face a maximum prison sentence of 175 years under charges laid down by Washington.

Now his father John Shipton has warned his son is suffering mentally and physically in prison.

Mr Shipton, who is due to accept an award from a whistleblower advocacy group on behalf of his son, said it was “extraordinary” that Assange was being held in one of the nation’s most notorious prisons despite calls for his release from the United Nations.

“The only people who are breaking the law are the UK government and the Crown Prosecution Service,” he said.

“I last visited Julian in August – he was a bit shaky, and is suffering from anxiety. He has lost a lot of weight. It is very distressing, and the intensity of his treatment has increased over the past year.

“He is being subjected to every sort of torment.”

Mr Assange was arrested at the London’s Ecuadorian embassy in April, having sought asylum in the building for seven years.

He is wanted on 18 charges in the US, including violation of the espionage act.

Many of the charges relate to founding and working at WikiLeaks – which openly published sensitive and classified documents, including more than a million files leaked by US Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning.

His removal from the embassy also triggered renewed calls for him to stand trial in Sweden – with the nation’s government reopening the case into Mr Assange over allegations of rape made in 2010.

However, Sweden’s call to extradite him was rejected by courts in the country, delaying any potential action and prompting home secretary Sajid Javid to approve the request of the US government pending his trial.

Human rights organizations have raised concerns over the duration of Assange’s incarceration, including his time spent in the Ecuadorean Embassy, where he was left unable to leave for fear of arrest.

In May, Nils Melzer, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, said he condemned the his imprisonment, as well as the “deliberate, concerted and sustained nature of the abuse inflicted on Mr Assange”.

He added: “In 20 years of work with victims of war, violence and political persecution, I have never seen a group of democratic states ganging up to deliberately isolate, demonize and abuse a single individual for such a long time and with so little regard for human dignity and the rule of law. The collective persecution of Julian Assange must end here and now.”

SPREAD THE WORD, one of the most effective ways to take action is to raise awareness around these issues. And it won’t cost you a dime. Simply re-post this link into your social media accounts, leave in comments and email the link to your friends.

To support this work donate HERE And thank you for your support.

Read more:

WikiLeaks

Julian Assange In Danger of Assassination

Julian Assange is a hero

Justice4Assange

Who Killed Malcolm X? Stunning New Info on the Assassination

By DemocracyNow

Historian Manning Marable spent a decade working on a new biography of Malcolm X. He is one of the few historians to see the three missing chapters from “The Autobiography of Malcolm X” that he says paint a very different picture than the book with Alex Haley and Spike Lee’s film. Marable has also had unprecedented access to Malcolm’s family and documents that shed new light on the involvement of the New York Police, the FBI and possibly the CIA in Malcolm X’s assassination. Manning today called on the federal government to release all remaining classified documents on Malcolm X.

40 years ago today on February 21, 1965 Malcolm X was shot dead as he spoke at the Audubon Ballroom in Harlem. He had just taken the stage when shots rang out riddling his body with bullets. Malcolm X was 39 years old.

At his funeral, the actor and civil rights activist Ossie Davis hailed Malcolm as “our Black shining prince.”

Today commemorations are scheduled across the country.

In New York, the Center for Contemporary Black History and the Institute for Research in African-American Studies at Columbia University are sponsoring “Malcolm X: Life After Death — the Legacy Endures” an educational forum and radio broadcast. The program will be chaired by historian Manning Marable, founding director of the Institute for Research in African-American Studies.

The historic Abyssinian Baptist Church is also hosting a national commemoration of Malcolm X with Percy Sutton, Sonia Sanchez, Haki Madhubuti, Dr. James Turner, Gil Noble, Rev. Herbert Daughtry and M-1 of Dead Prez.

Later this year, the Audubon Ballroom is scheduled to reopen as the Malcolm X and Dr. Betty Shabazz Memorial and Education Center on May 19 on what would have been Malcolm’s 80th birthday.

Meanwhile Columbia University professor Manning Marable is working on a major new biography on Malcolm X. Marable has already spent 10 years researching the book which is tentatively titled “Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention.”

Today Professor Marable joins us in our Firehouse Studios to discuss the legacy of Malcolm X as well as some of his new findings.

Marable has said “Malcolm X was potentially a new type of world leader, personally drawn up from the ’wretched of the earth into a political stratosphere of international power. And telling that remarkable, true story is the purpose of my biography.”

Marable’s research has raised new questions about The Autobiography of Malcolm X which was written with Alex Haley. Marable has also examined un-redacted FBI files which provides new insight into the role of FBI and the New York Police Department in the assassination of Malcolm X
We will be joined by Professor Marable in a moment, but first we begin with the words of Malcolm X recorded a month before he was killed. In January 1965 he gave a speech entitled “Prospects for Freedom.”

  • Malcolm X, speaking in January 1965 giving a speech entitled “Prospects for Freedom.” Courtesy of the Pacifica Radio Archives.

Manning Marable, one of America’s most influential and widely read scholars. He is Professor of History and African-American Studies at Columbia University, and founding Director of the Institute for Research in African-American Studies. He has been working on a new biography of Malcolm X for more then ten years. It will be published by Viking in 2008.

AMY GOODMAN: We will be joined by Professor Marable in just a moment, but first we begin with Malcolm X himself in words recorded just a months before he was assassinated. It was January 1965, he gave this speech entitled “Prospects for Freedom.”

MALCOLM X: When this country here was first being founded, there were 13 colonies. The whites were colonized. They were fed up with this taxation without representation. So some of them stood up and said, liberty or death. I went to a white school over here in Mason, Michigan. The white man made the mistake of letting me read his history books. He made the mistake of teaching me that Patrick Henry was a patriot and George Washington — wasn’t nothing non-violent about old Pat or George Washington. Liberty or death was what brought about the freedom of whites in this country from the English. They didn’t care about the odds. Why, they faced the wrath of the entire British Empire. And in those days, they used to say that the British Empire was so vast and so powerful, the sun would never set on it. This is how big it was, yet these 13 little scrawny states, tired of taxation without representation, tired of being exploited and oppressed and degraded, told that big British Empire, liberty or death. And here you have 22 million Afro-Americans, black people today, catching more hell than Patrick Henry ever saw. And I’m here to tell you, in case you don’t know it, that you got a new–you got a new generation of black people in this country, who don’t care anything whatsoever about odds. They don’t want to hear you old Uncle Tom handkerchief heads talking about the odds. No. This is a new generation. If they’re going to draft these young black men and send them over to Korea or South Vietnam, to face 800 million Chinese. If you are not afraid of those odds, you shouldn’t be afraid of these odds.

AMY GOODMAN: Malcolm X, a month before he was assassinated. It was January 1965 at a speech he gave in New York, sponsored by the Militant Labor Forum. This is Democracy Now! We’re joined by Professor Manning Marable, one of America’s most influential and widely read scholars, professor of history and African American Studies at Columbia University, founding director of the Institute for Research in African American studies, again working on a new biography of Malcolm X. Welcome to Democracy Now!

MANNING MARABLE: Thank you. It’s always great to be here.

AMY GOODMAN: It is great to be with you. Why don’t you summarize for us — I mean, you have been studying Malcolm X for more than a decade now–what you think are the most explosive findings and then throughout the hour, we will tease them out and talk about them.

MANNING MARABLE: I think that Malcolm X was the most remarkable historical figure produced by black America in the 20th century. That’s a heavy statement, but I think that in his 39 short years of life, Malcolm came to symbolize black urban America, its culture, its politics, its militancy, its outrage against structural racism and, at the end of his life, a broad internationalist vision of emancipatory power far better than any other single individual, that he shared with Du Bois and Paul Robeson a pan-Africanist internationalist perspective. He shared with Marcus Garvey a commitment to building strong black institutions. He shared with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. a commitment to peace and the freedom of racialized minorities. He was the first prominent American to attack and to criticize the U.S. role in Southeast Asia, and he came out four-square against the Vietnam War in 1964, long before the vast majority of Americans did. So that Malcolm X represents the cutting edge of a kind of critique of globalization in the 21st century. And in fact, Malcolm, if anything, was far ahead of the curve in so many ways.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to break and then when we come back, we are a going to talk about The Autobiography of Malcolm X, the missing chapters, and where they are, which you have got a chance to see excerpts of.

MANNING MARABLE: That’s right.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to talk about how the autobiography was written, and the F.B.I., their relationship with Alex Haley. We will talk about these things and more in just a minute.

AMY GOODMAN: We spend the hour today on Malcolm X, today the 40th anniversary of his assassination. Our guest is Columbia University Professor Manning Marable, writing a biography of Malcolm X, and also the editor of the magazine Souls: A Critical Journal of Black Politics, Culture and Society. The winter 2005 issue, photograph of Malcolm X on the cover, and that’s what the whole issue is devoted to, with a major article by Professor Marable. Let’s talk about The Autobiography of Malcolm X.

MANNING MARABLE: Okay. The — most people who read the autobiography perceive the narrative as a story that now millions of people know, and it was — it’s a story of human transformation, the powerful epiphany, Malcolm’s journey to Mecca, his renunciation of the Nation of Islam’s racial separatism, his embrace of universal humanity, of humanism that was articulated through Sunni Islam. Well, that’s the story everybody knows. But there’s a hidden history. You see, Malcolm and Haley collaborated to produce a magnificent narrative about the life of Malcolm X, but the two men had very different motives in coming together. Malcolm did — what Malcolm did not know is that back in 1962, a collaborator of Alex Haley, fellow named — a journalist named Alfred Balk had approached the F.B.I. regarding an article that he and Haley were writing together for The Saturday Evening Post, and the F.B.I. had an interest in castigating the Nation of Islam, and isolating it from the mainstream of Negro civil rights activity. So consequently, a deal was struck between Balk, Haley and the F.B.I. that the F.B.I. provided information to Balk and Haley in the construction of their article, and Balk was — Balk was really the interlocutor between the F.B.I. and the two writers in putting a spin on the article. The F.B.I. was very happy with the article they produced, which was entitled, “The Black Merchants of Hate,” that came out in early 1963. What’s significant about that piece is that that became the template for what evolved into the basic narrative structure of The Autobiography of Malcolm X.

AMY GOODMAN: Did Alex Haley know about this relationship?

MANNING MARABLE: There is no direct evidence that Haley sat down with the F.B.I. Nevertheless, since Balk was the co-author of the piece and it was Balk who talked directly with the F.B.I. —

AMY GOODMAN: Did Haley know —

MANNING MARABLE: One can assume that Haley was involved in it.

AMY GOODMAN: Did Haley at least talk to Balk about — did he know about Balk’s relationship with the F.B.I.?

MANNING MARABLE: One can assume that Haley did because Haley and Balk co-authored the piece, traveled throughout the United States together and collected material together to form an article that they co-authored. It would be highly unlikely that Haley did not know.

AMY GOODMAN: Then the writing of the autobiography, Alex Haley and Malcolm X’s relationship. How did they do it?

MANNING MARABLE: Over a period of —

AMY GOODMAN: And why did Malcolm X choose him?

MANNING MARABLE: Over a period of about year-and-a-half, Malcolm and Haley agreed to work with each other. They met usually after a long business day that Malcolm put in very tired. He would get there at about — either at Haley’s apartment or they would meet at then Idyllwild Airport at a hotel, and Malcolm would be debriefed by Haley. He would talk, Haley would take notes. Malcolm had a habit of scribbling notes in small pieces of paper that Haley would surreptitiously pick up at the end of their discussions. Malcolm’s objective was actually to reingratiate himself within the Nation of Islam, that because he had emerged by the early 1960s as a very prominent figure outside of the N.O.I., there were critics within the organization that were saying to the patriarch of the N.O.I., the Honorable Elijah Mohammad, that Malcolm planned to take over the organization, which was not true. But nevertheless, Malcolm felt that if he could make a public — a prominent public statement to show his fidelity to the Honorable Elijah Mohammad that that might win him back in the good graces of the organization. But there were internal critics, sharp critics, who were very opposed to him, and who were very — some of them were members of Elijah Mohammad’s family, such as Herbert Mohammad, Raymond Shareef, who was the head of the Fruit of Islam, the brother-in-law of — the son-in-law of Elijah Mohammad. They isolated Malcolm X and kept him out of the newspaper of the organization Mohammad Speaks for over a year, which is kind of curious. He was the national spokesperson of the N.O.I., and he wasn’t represented in their own newspaper for over a year. Haley’s objective was quite different. Haley was a republican. He was an integrationist. He was very opposed to black nationalism. His objective was to illustrate that the racial separatism of the N.O.I. was a kind of pathological or a kind of — it was the logical culmination of separatism and racial isolationism and exclusion. He wanted to show the negative aspects of the N.O.I.’s ideology, Yacub’s history, and all of the ramifications of racial separatism that he felt were negative, and that Malcolm, being as charismatic as he was, a very attractive figure, nevertheless, he embodied these kind of negative traits. Haley felt he could make a solid case in favor of racial integration by showing what was — to white America — what was the consequence of their support for racial separatism that would end up producing a kind of hate, the hate that hate produced, to use the phrase that Mike Wallace used in his 1959 documentary on the Nation of Islam. So, the two men for very different reasons came together. What is striking is that from almost from the very beginning of certainly by September and October of 1963, as the book was being constructed, that Haley was vetting — asking questions to the publisher and to the publisher’s attorney regarding many of the things that Malcolm was saying. He was worried that he would not have a book that would have the kind of sting that he wanted. He was also concerned, to use Haley’s phrase, about the purported anti-Semitism of Malcolm X, and so he began to rewrite words or passages in the book without Malcolm’s knowledge. And Haley, in his own — this is prior to emails — Haley had a tendency to write even more frequently and voluminously to his agents and his editors than he did putting pen to paper in his own books. So that one finds in Haley’s archives, or the archives of Anne Romaine, who was going to be his biographer until her tragic death in 1995, one finds a copious series of notes from Haley to his editors and attorneys regarding the construction of the autobiography itself. He wanted to steer the book to accomplish his political goals, as well as Malcolm’s goals.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, Professor Marable, you went to the Haley collection.

MANNING MARABLE: That’s right.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about that experience and how difficult it is, really, to get original information about Malcolm X, and the Haley example is just one.

MANNING MARABLE: That’s right. One of the striking things about doing research on Malcolm X, and I believe that most Malcolm X researchers could tell you their own stories, is that there’s this paradox of the absence of critical information. Malcolm X is a person who has inspired — he has been the muse of several generations of black cultural workers, artists, poets, playwrights. There are literally a thousand works with the title Malcolm X in them. There are over 350 films and over 320 web-based educational resources with the title Malcolm X, yet the vast majority of them are based on secondary literatures, that is, not on primary source material. In the case of Alex Haley, Haley’s material is located at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, primarily. But there are a whole series of elaborate steps that one has to —- has to encounter in order to even begin to do research. There’s an attorney. If you want to photocopy material from that archive, you have to get permission from the attorney beforehand. You have to name the exact pages you want to photocopy before you can photocopy them. So that there are a whole series of steps. You can only use a pencil rather than a pen to copy down material, etc. It’s a laborious process, and it takes a long time just to do a small amount of research. Fortunately, Anne Romaine, who was appointed by Haley just before his death to be his own biographer -—

AMY GOODMAN: She was a folk singer?

MANNING MARABLE: That’s right. A folk singer and a skillful historian, even though she was not formally trained in the field. She collected her own parallel archive to Haley, and without Anne Romaine’s archive, which is also at the University of Tennessee — well, I should — let me put it in a positive light, with that archive, we have gained extensive knowledge about how Haley and Malcolm actually worked and how the book, the autobiography, was constructed. The raw material for chapter 16, a lot of that material, is actually in Romaine’s archives, not in Haley’s, which is interesting.

AMY GOODMAN: Hmm.

MANNING MARABLE: That’s right. But what is most interesting about the book is that as I have read it over the years, something — something was odd to me. It’s like — you know, Malcolm broke with the N.O.I. in March 1964, and in that last 11 chaotic months, he spent most of the time outside of the United States. Nevertheless, he built two organizations in the spring of 1964. First, Muslim Mosque Incorporated, which was a religious organization that was largely based on members of the N.O.I. who left with him. It was spearheaded by James 67X or James Shabazz, who was his chief of staff. Then secondly was the Organization of Afro-American Unity. This was an organization that was a secular group. It largely consisted of people that we would later call several years later Black Powerites, Black nationalists, progressives coming out of the Black freedom struggle, the northern students’ movement, people — students, young people, professionals, workers, who were dedicated to Black activism and militancy, but outside of the context of Islam. There were tensions between these two organizations, and Malcolm had to negotiate between them and since he was out of the country a great deal of the time, it was rather difficult for him to do so. It seemed rather odd that there’s only a fleeting reference to the OAAU inside of the book that’s supposed to be his political testament. I wondered about this. It seemed like something was missing. Well, as a matter of fact, there is. Three chapters. Those three chapters really represent a kind of political testament that are outlined by Malcolm X, and to make a long story short, they’re in a safe of a Detroit attorney by the name of Greg Reed. He purchased these chapters in a sale of the Haley Estate in late 1992 for the sum of $100,000. Since that time, no historian, or at least I suppose I’m the exception, very few people have actually had a chance to see the raw material that was going to comprise these three chapters. The missing political testament that should have been in the autobiography, but isn’t.

AMY GOODMAN: And what is he doing with them?

MANNING MARABLE: Well, they’re sitting in his safe. And, I guess the conundrum — I’m not an attorney or a person who does intellectual property — but my understanding of the situation is that he owns the property, but he doesn’t own — he owns the physical texts of these chapters, but Mr. Reed does not own the intellectual property, the content of these chapters, so he cannot publish them.

AMY GOODMAN: Is this the same attorney Reed who is involved with, perhaps, a lawsuit to do with Rosa Parks?

MANNING MARABLE: That’s right. It’s the same one, with the trial with the hip-hop group that’s based in Atlanta, and Gregory Reed —.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Outkast?

MANNING MARABLE: That’s right, with Outkast. In fact, I was even — I think even Reed sent something to me asking me to be a — to give testimony in this trial, which I promptly said, thanks, but no thanks.

AMY GOODMAN: It’s because Outkast used in their music, they use Rosa Parks’s words, her own voice?

MANNING MARABLE: That’s right.

AMY GOODMAN: How does the family of Rosa Parks feel about this?

MANNING MARABLE: I cannot really say. I just know what I have seep on the media. I know that they weren’t very happy about this.

AMY GOODMAN: Happy about —

MANNING MARABLE: About Greg Reed’s representation, but —

AMY GOODMAN: So, he’s not representing them.

MANNING MARABLE: Well, again, I cannot really characterize what is going on with that lawsuit, because I’m not really a party to it.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, you are the only historian who has seen excerpts of the attorney Reed, the three chapters that he has in his safe?

MANNING MARABLE: I cannot say that for certain.

AMY GOODMAN: One of the few.

MANNING MARABLE: One of — I could say that very few people have seen it. Reed, after a series of conversations — Reed said he would allow me to see this. This was about two years ago. I flew out to Detroit. I asked when could I come over to the office, and he said, no, let’s meet at a restaurant, which struck me as rather odd. We met at a restaurant. He came with a briefcase, and he opened the briefcase and he showed me the manuscripts. He said, I’ll let you take a look at this for about 15 minutes. Well, that wasn’t very much time. I was deeply disappointed, nevertheless, in that 15 minute time, looking at the content, because I’m so familiar with what Malcolm wrote at certain stages of his own life and development, it became very clear that there’s a high probability he wrote this material sometime between August or September 1963 to about January 1964. Now, this is a critical moment in his development. In November 1963, he gives his famous message to the grassroots address in Detroit, which really kind of marks off the real turning point in his own development. But I would argue that equally important is a brilliant address he gives in Harlem in mid-August of 1963, which actually is one of my favorite addresses by Malcolm, which actually is superior in my judgment to the message to the grassroots address, where he lays into a critique of what then is being mobilized, the march on Washington, D.C., the pinnacle of the civil rights movement. Malcolm envisions a broad-based pluralistic united front, which is spearheaded by the Nation of Islam, but mobilizing integrationist organizations, non-political organizations, civic groups, all under the banner of building black empowerment, human dignity, economic development, political mobilization. He’s already envisioning the N.O.I. playing a role cooperatively with integrationist organizations. I believe that if we could see the chapters that are missing from the book, we would gain an understanding as to why perhaps — perhaps — the F.B.I., the C.I.A., the New York Police Department and others in law enforcement greatly feared what Malcolm X was about, because he was trying to build a broad — an unprecedented black coalition across the lines of black nationalism and integration. And in way, it presages 30 years ahead of time, the Million Man March.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Marable, we have to break. When we come back, I want to ask more about the chapters and also about the assassination of Malcolm X, 40 years ago today.

AMY GOODMAN: Our guest is Professor Manning Marable of Columbia University, and long time now writing the biography of Malcolm X, which I see has just been bought by a publisher, and is going to be coming out in few years.

MANNING MARABLE: That’s right, with Viking Penguin. That’s right.

AMY GOODMAN: More on these three chapters, what you saw in the restaurant, and then let’s talk about the assassination of Malcolm X.

MANNING MARABLE: Alright. I think that Malcolm was envisioning, even while he was in the Nation of Islam, a black nationalist progressive strategy toward uniting black people across ideological, class lines, denominational religious lines, Christians, as well as Muslims, to build a strong movement for justice and for empowerment. And I think that that is what frightened the FBI, and that is what frightened the CIA. That is what they had to stop, and if one thinks about it, those listeners and our viewers who know the history of COINTELPRO, the counter intelligence program of the FBI that occurred in the 1960s and 70s, that in 1965 or 6, that J. Edgar Hoover wrote an infamous memo called the Black Messiah Memo. He said, “We must stop the rise of a black messiah.” That was the concern that the FBI had more than anything else. Either Malcolm or Martin could have played the role of a unifier, but it was — Malcolm as long as he remained within the Nation of Islam, talking to the converted, he did not represent a fundamental threat to the American government. But when he began to talk about uniting the very fractious civil rights movement, when he talked — when he began to negotiate with people like A. Philip Randolph and Bayard Rustin and Martin and others, keep in mind that several weeks before Malcolm’s assassination, he went to Selma, Alabama. Dr. King was imprisoned during the mobilization. He went to Mrs. King, and he told Coretta that, you know, that even though we’re very different people, that we’re really about the business of the same struggle. We just use different tactics. And I want you to understand, and I want you to convey to your husband that I deeply respect what he is doing. So, Malcolm had a clear vision and an understanding that we were — that he was a part of a broad freedom struggle. As his vision became more internationalist and pan-African, as he began, especially in 1964, after seeing the example of anti-colonial revolutions abroad and began to articulate and incorporate a socialist analysis economically into his program, he clearly became a threat to the US state.

AMY GOODMAN: And explain how events led to this day, 40 years ago, the assassination of Malcolm X.

MANNING MARABLE: I believe that the evidence will show that there was not so much a conspiracy, but a convergence of interests with three different groups that had an interest in eliminating his voice and his vision. The first group, obviously, is the NYPD, the New York Police Department. They had their own red squad, which was called BOSS, the Bureau of Special Services. They had managed to infiltrate Malcolm’s organization and the nation of Islam. And, of course, the FBI. There were over 40,000 pages of FBI documents of which only about half are currently available to scholars and researchers. I think that this 40th anniversary of the assassination is a good opportunity for us to say that now is the time to declassify all FBI material on Malcolm X. There really is a need for us to challenge the US government for its refusal to open up its own archives 40 years after the death of Malcolm. All of that material should be made available to all researchers and all scholars and to the family of Malcolm X. So that — I believe that the FBI clearly was concerned, wanted to monitor and disrupt Malcolm wherever possible. Gene Roberts, one of Malcolm’s chiefs of security, was an NYPD undercover cop. He later went on to bigger things by being a disruptive force inside of the Black Panther Party. So, that’s one element. A second element was the Nation of Islam. Lynwood X, who was one of the leaders of the New Jersey mosques of the Nation of Islam, was at the Audubon Ballroom sitting on the first row. He came in early to observe the events on the 21st of February. He was taken aside by Benjamin 2X, close associate of Malcolm and also Reuben X, Reuben X Francis, who was the chief of security. Lynwood said he just wanted to check out what Malcolm had to say. But my sense is that perhaps his role was more complicated than simply that of a bystander. We know from Talmadge Hayer, one of the men who carried out the assassination, who was shot by Reuben X as he tried to flee the Audubon after shooting Malcolm X, we know that Hayer confessed years later to his Imam in prison that there had been a walk-through a week prior to February 21st at the Audubon Ballroom. So, there was deep knowledge on the part of members of the Nation of Islam regarding the planning, in sight of the OAAU and the Muslim Mosque Incorporated regarding the events at the Audubon. They knew when they were going to be there, they knew what the schedules were. How did they know this? Well, in part because they had informants inside of the organization, and in part because, obviously, they had information that hardly anybody else had. They also knew something else clearly, that on the day of the assassination, and here we get to the third group — I think the third group are elements within Malcolm’s own entourage. Elements within Malcolm’s own entourage, some of them were very angry with some of the changes that had occurred with Malcolm. One source of anger, curiously enough, was that — was the tension between MMI and OAAU, that the MMI, the Muslim Mosque Incorporated, these were women and men who had left the Nation of Islam out of loyalty to Malcolm, but then Malcolm continued to evolve rapidly. He never renounced and never stepped away from a strong commitment to black nationalism and black self-determination. That’s absolutely clear if you do any analysis of his speeches. But what is clear is that he incorporated within the framework of black nationalism a pan-Africanist and internationalist perspective. In doing so, he began to reassess radically earlier positions sexism and patriarchy. He began to break with notions of sexism that he had long held as a member of the Nation of Islam, and began to advance and push forward women leadership in the OAAU. MMI brothers were very resistant to women such as Lynn Shiflet and others who emerged as leaders within the OAAU, so one of the tensions that occurred was around gender equality and gender leadership inside of Malcolm’s entourage.

AMY GOODMAN: Then, that day, there was the presence, or lack of presence, of the NYPD.

MANNING MARABLE: That’s right. The NYPD was ubiquitous. They were always around Malcolm. Whenever Malcolm spoke, there would be one or two dozen cops all over the place. On this day, the cops were nowhere to be seen. The cops later explained that they had been pulled off the Audubon in order to go across the street. Normally, they were in a command center on the second floor adjacent to the large ballroom in the building. On this day, there were only two cops at moment of the shooting inside of the building, but they were as far away as possible from the site of the ballroom. The man who actually apprehended Talmadge Hayer, the only shooter who was shot at the site, Thomas Hoy, was actually driving by by accident. So, clearly, they had been pulled off the case.

AMY GOODMAN: He was an off duty cop.

MANNING MARABLE: That’s right. Why did the cops disappear quite literally? Then there were other kind of curious things. There was a complete failure of protection of the principal. The MMI brothers, who provided security for Malcolm had been trained by Malcolm himself that inside of the Nation of Islam, whenever there is a diversion, you protect the principal. The principal, in this case Malcolm, clearly was not protected on February 21st. First off, nobody was checked for weapons as they came in. Now, of course, people know that over the last several months prior to February 21st, 1965, the OAAU and MMI tried to get away from the old practices of checking people at the door for weapons. They wanted people to feel more comfortable. But the guards themselves did not carry weapons. Now, Malcolm’s home had just been firebombed a week before. The guards didn’t carry weapons. Malcolm had insisted that the guards not carry firearms that day. I have asked James Shabazz, I’ve asked other people who are members of the OAAU, Herman Ferguson and others, what led to that disastrous decision? James Shabazz said to me with a shrug, you just didn’t know Malcolm. Malcolm was adamant, and that whatever Malcolm wanted, that’s what we just did. But I said, this is highly irresponsible considering that there were death threats that were constant, that there was FBI surveillance and disruption, and that none of you carried weapons? Well, that’s not quite true, because we later learned from unredacted FBI files, that we have discovered and that we have archived in the municipal archives here in the city of New York, that there were at least, according to the district attorney, at least three undercover cops who were at the ballroom that day. We know one of their names. We know that —

AMY GOODMAN: What’s his name?

MANNING MARABLE: Well, we know that Gene Roberts, who was depicted giving mouth to mouth resuscitation to Malcolm —

AMY GOODMAN: We only have a minute.

MANNING MARABLE: Was an undercover cop, but who were the others? Two of the three men, who were imprisoned, Norman Butler and Robert 15x Johnson, convicted and given life sentences, I’m absolutely convinced were innocent. The real murderers of Malcolm X have not been caught or punished. I think that now is the moment for us to rededicate ourselves to learning the truth about what happened on February 21st. The place to begin is to make all evidence public, and we have to begin with the federal government, and the FBI.

AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Manning Marable, I want to thank you very much for being with us.

MANNING MARABLE: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Marable is writing a biography of Malcolm X that will come out in a few years, has a major piece in his magazine, Souls, a critical journal of black politics, culture and society. Tonight, we’ll be at Columbia University talking more about his investigation. Thank you very much.

MANNING MARABLE: Thank you, Amy.

Read more:

About Malcolm X

American Schools Are STILL Racist, Government Report Finds

America’s criminal justice system is racist

Spirit of the underground: the 60s rebel

FBI Spy Plane Snoops Over Dearborn, Detroit News Reports

FBI: Chronic Abuse of Power Goes Unchecked

America’s Gestapo: The FBI’s Reign of Terror

We can’t trust police to protect us from racist violence. They contribute to it

STAY INFORMED: War on Sex Workers

By Christopher R Rice, Underground Resistance Network
Support a free press by donating/subscribing here

We live in a time when elected politicians ignore the needs of their constituents; where the judiciary and police institutions will not uphold the rights of citizens; where the media are afraid to report the truth; where lawlessness abounds and ordinary people are left unprotected and defenseless against the rapacity of a few. The answer to our dilemma is for people of courage to actively help each other. Below you will find a list of free articles to help you stay informed and to keep you ahead of the game. Only if we unite can we succeed. That is the only way. There is no other way. PASS IT ON.

Twitter Is Asking Sex Workers If They’re Bots and Demanding Their Phone Numbers

Across the platform, users—mainly people who tweet adult or NSFW content—are posting screenshots of notices on Twitter that their accounts have been limited or locked. Most of the notices include a message saying that they need to confirm they’re not a bot, and verify their phone number to get account access back. Click link to continue: Twitter Is Asking Sex Workers If They’re Bots and Demanding Their Phone Numbers

After Backpage, U.S. Investigates Massage, Escort Websites That Now Dominate Market

A year after U.S. authorities closed Backpage.com, the biggest player in the online sex-for-sale industry, investigators are focused on three websites now dominant in the American market and the Swiss businessman who they believe may control them. Click link to continue: After Backpage, U.S. Investigates Massage, Escort Websites That Now Dominate Market

Tinder owner sued for using fake profiles in ads

The owner of Tinder and OkCupid is being sued by U.S. regulator for seeking to draw in potential subscribers with emails from fake users expressing interest in pairing up. Click link to continue: Tinder owner sued for using fake profiles in ads

Click link to continue: US law criminalizes sex workers for discussing work online

Click link to continue: WARNING: to all escorts about police sting(s)

Click link to continue: Tips for Spotting an Undercover Cop

Click link to continue: How the cops are tracking you

Click link to continue: Escort website owner arrested 72 counts of child pornography

Click link to continue: STOP SESTA/FOSTA

The Sex Trafficking Panic

It’s bunk, says Reason Associate Editor Elizabeth Nolan Brown.

In the Robert Kraft case, she points out, “They had all these big announcements at first saying they had busted up an international sex trafficking ring, implying these women weren’t allowed to leave.”

But now prosecutors acknowledge that there was no trafficking. The women were willing sex workers.

The police and the media got it wrong. That’s typical. “Ninety-nine percent of the headlines are not true,” says Brown in my latest video. “Sex trafficking and prostitution are sort of used interchangeably.”

What about the headlines that say police are “rescuing victims”?

“By rescue they (mean) put them in jail and give them a criminal record,” says Brown. “The victims are the sex workers…getting harassed and locked up in cages by the cops.” Click link to continue: The Sex Trafficking Panic

Officials in small Ohio town accused of sex trafficking underage girls

A one-way bus ticket and the promise of a modeling contract.

It was the escape Linda Mills had long sought from a life she said was filled with physical and sexual abuse.

Instead, Mills said she was trafficked at age 15, sent to be a prostitute in Chicago by a member of local law enforcement.

“I trusted Phil Malone. I trusted him,” said Mills. “Not once did I ever think he would steer me wrong. Click link to continue: Officials in small Ohio town accused of sex trafficking underage girls

Click link to continue:

FREE VPN

How to Screen Clients

Congress Ramps Up War on Sex Workers and Their Customers With Four ‘Protection’ Laws

Google Alternatives

Backpage Alternatives

Looking for a Good Time in Good Conscience

How to prevent a CPS Investigation and How to get your kids back

How to file a complaint against a police officer

(How to) Beat your court case

Sex Trafficking Resources