After recently reading Drugs and Narcotics in History I came accross the ideas of Ann Dally – somebody who you could pretty safely say is not a big fan of the War on Drugs.

One thing that struck me about Dally’s arguments was the passion with which she argued that the War on Drugs is a manufactured event.

Her logic maintains that certain drugs are deemed unacceptable by the government (and medical industry) despite being no worse (and in some cases far less dangerous) than many legal and socially acceptable drugs. By manufacturing this misconception and promoting fear and misunderstanding about these drugs, the powers that be provide themselves with leverage that can be exploited.

By diverting fear and attention away from “real issues,” according to Dally, governments have the perfect means by which to interfere in the affairs of other nations, “even to the extent of sending spies and troops.”

In turn, the extent of this interference gives rise to an entire industry of law enforcement, military and government bureaucracy that is, in effect, depend on the sale of illegal drugs for their very survival.

The main question this raises, according to Dally is how much the actions of the governments responsible for intiatives against the drugs they deem illegal, are actually profitin from or involved in the industry of providing those drugs.

While I don’t necessarily agree with all of Dally’s arguments in Drugs and Narcotics in History the passion with which she argues her points is undeniable and it is pretty easy to pick out examples in the world where she would appear to be correct.

What do you think?

Technorati Tags: drugs, troops, narcotics