Discussion with Cat regarding narcotics and solutions was vivid. She strongly disagrees with my proposal to take the war to the poppy fields and this is tremendously exciting to me because she is concerned enough to address it with such passion.
Note: we do not use terms such as 'put simply' because we loathe the patronizing dolts who exploit such expressions to belittle their audiences.
The first point of disagreement is a war against the poppy fields is a war against the farmers and does not solve the problem insofar as it only punishes the peons and others elsewhere will make up the loss.
The second is the belief is insufficient focus is given to solutions within whichever countries the narcotics may reach and her position is based on professional experience as a provider and not a recipient of such support.
Those foundations give the primary basis for the difference in approach. We should address specifically the problems of those who consume the drugs within whichever country rather than punishing the ones who cultivate the poppy fields.
My offering is nothing else has worked anywhere in the world and note, specifically, my point is not locked to any single solution. I suggest a war against the production of the drugs is not sufficient to eliminate the problem altogether because there will always be people whose drive for self-destruction will find a way. As we see with flakka, when heroin is not available people will use anything else they can find even when they know it will kill them. That will not stop them because self-annihilation in a narcotic or psychological sense was their purpose in the first place.
However, we believe the war against the fields is a necessary and required step to the solution.
A primary point of disagreement on that war was the U.S. Army hasn't helped anywhere since the end of WWII and the proof is all over the Middle East or, conversely, the success of Vietnam after America was ejected. Vietnam didn't descend into some mythical Communist hell but rather became a destination for tourism for some.
My response in that context is America has never tried to wipe out the drugs and, in fact, appears to give tacit approval to them because we do not see any possible way the weight of heroin and cocaine imported into the United States could possibly happen without some collusion with the government, whether through bribery of border guards or much higher-level corruption. The poppy fields are not growing here and the coca plants are not cultivated here either so the only possible way of obtaining these narcotics is through importation.
While we do not consider eliminating psychotherapy for addressing the problems of people who fall victim to narcotics, we consider this an individual solution to a larger social problem which, we submit, psychotherapy on an individual level can never solve.
Our backgrounds are similar insofar as she has a great deal of professional experience and also personal experience with people who died from such drugs. My own experience is the latter personal observation and the one which horrified me to my soul was watching people injecting themselves when I was a wee lad. I watched them spike one arm and they could inject it but they don't. Then they spike the other arm because always there is that anticipation of the big payoff when they led that payload go. That observation kept me away from such narcotics through all my life and I have never injected anything.
For my own use of narcotics, I have snorted cocaine enough to know the addictive power of it and you must absolutely run away when the Snow Queen calls you. If you answer her, you will never stop answering and soon you will be on your knees. I also snorted heroin one time at about sixty years and this was motivated by nothing left to lose thinking. Fortunately, the amount I was given overdosed me and I was deeply ill for about three days or so. There is no chance I will ever use it again. Lessons come hard and any idea anyone, anywhere, is safe from it is flat-out false.
I've seen children from wonderfully loving homes with strong spiritual belief and powerful minds succumbing to the narcotics, not once but many times. More than likely you have personal experience with this as well; if it hasn't happened in your own family then likely you know of one close to you which has.
Therefore, we submit solutions such as enforcement and psychological support have not been effective anywhere in the world and the only ones with even a small measure of success in controlling it have been absolutely ruthless (ex: Saudi Arabia where they will behead you for jaywalking).
We do not want to see that kind of ruthlessness anywhere and suggest there's got to be a better way.
The primary solution offered is an all-out war on the fields. Yes, it will kill peons but we will make every effort to warn them we are coming. If anyone stays behind to defend the fields or the Mafia chiefs send their squads to do it, we will kill them, all of them.
Perhaps this is effective but we don't know it because it has never been tried except, arguably, by the Taliban which was as ruthless as Saudi Arabia but they reduced opium / heroin exportation from the country to almost nothing. That does not affect heroin consumption in the United States so much because of the poppy fields in Mexico.
Cat argues, despite all the force of the U.S. military, poppy / heroin cultivation in Afghanistan went back to the highest production in the world. My response is the U.S. Army did nothing about it, just as it did not in Southeast Asia and even sustained it through the Iran/Contra scandal under Reagan. While Nancy Reagan was saying 'just say no,' Ronald Reagan was working his insidious deals.
In conclusion, we don't believe there has been any serious effort to wipe out the fields except for Bolivian military efforts and others in South America to burn the fields. We further observe this campaign has not stopped production and does not appear to have had a significant impact to the flow of narcotics. We submit that problem may result from lack of support, insufficient resources, etc but we do not know that for fact.
We further conclude another option is to take the war to the banks. All over we hear of the immense wealth of the really big narcotics traffickers and the billions they have taken but where can they possibly store such wealth. Find it and take it. We observe the massive potential for corruption in such an endeavor because it has the same vulnerability as with border guards (i.e. anyone can be bribed and narcotics kings have the money to do it).
Far from being enraged for the dissent to my positions, it excites me and I told Cat she is a fascinating woman.
So, there you have the gist of the discussion and make of it whatever you will. My personal summation is I am not locked to any single solution, my only requirement is for something which works given nothing else has succeeded thus far.
Note: we do not use terms such as 'put simply' because we loathe the patronizing dolts who exploit such expressions to belittle their audiences.
The first point of disagreement is a war against the poppy fields is a war against the farmers and does not solve the problem insofar as it only punishes the peons and others elsewhere will make up the loss.
The second is the belief is insufficient focus is given to solutions within whichever countries the narcotics may reach and her position is based on professional experience as a provider and not a recipient of such support.
Those foundations give the primary basis for the difference in approach. We should address specifically the problems of those who consume the drugs within whichever country rather than punishing the ones who cultivate the poppy fields.
My offering is nothing else has worked anywhere in the world and note, specifically, my point is not locked to any single solution. I suggest a war against the production of the drugs is not sufficient to eliminate the problem altogether because there will always be people whose drive for self-destruction will find a way. As we see with flakka, when heroin is not available people will use anything else they can find even when they know it will kill them. That will not stop them because self-annihilation in a narcotic or psychological sense was their purpose in the first place.
However, we believe the war against the fields is a necessary and required step to the solution.
A primary point of disagreement on that war was the U.S. Army hasn't helped anywhere since the end of WWII and the proof is all over the Middle East or, conversely, the success of Vietnam after America was ejected. Vietnam didn't descend into some mythical Communist hell but rather became a destination for tourism for some.
My response in that context is America has never tried to wipe out the drugs and, in fact, appears to give tacit approval to them because we do not see any possible way the weight of heroin and cocaine imported into the United States could possibly happen without some collusion with the government, whether through bribery of border guards or much higher-level corruption. The poppy fields are not growing here and the coca plants are not cultivated here either so the only possible way of obtaining these narcotics is through importation.
While we do not consider eliminating psychotherapy for addressing the problems of people who fall victim to narcotics, we consider this an individual solution to a larger social problem which, we submit, psychotherapy on an individual level can never solve.
Our backgrounds are similar insofar as she has a great deal of professional experience and also personal experience with people who died from such drugs. My own experience is the latter personal observation and the one which horrified me to my soul was watching people injecting themselves when I was a wee lad. I watched them spike one arm and they could inject it but they don't. Then they spike the other arm because always there is that anticipation of the big payoff when they led that payload go. That observation kept me away from such narcotics through all my life and I have never injected anything.
For my own use of narcotics, I have snorted cocaine enough to know the addictive power of it and you must absolutely run away when the Snow Queen calls you. If you answer her, you will never stop answering and soon you will be on your knees. I also snorted heroin one time at about sixty years and this was motivated by nothing left to lose thinking. Fortunately, the amount I was given overdosed me and I was deeply ill for about three days or so. There is no chance I will ever use it again. Lessons come hard and any idea anyone, anywhere, is safe from it is flat-out false.
I've seen children from wonderfully loving homes with strong spiritual belief and powerful minds succumbing to the narcotics, not once but many times. More than likely you have personal experience with this as well; if it hasn't happened in your own family then likely you know of one close to you which has.
Therefore, we submit solutions such as enforcement and psychological support have not been effective anywhere in the world and the only ones with even a small measure of success in controlling it have been absolutely ruthless (ex: Saudi Arabia where they will behead you for jaywalking).
We do not want to see that kind of ruthlessness anywhere and suggest there's got to be a better way.
The primary solution offered is an all-out war on the fields. Yes, it will kill peons but we will make every effort to warn them we are coming. If anyone stays behind to defend the fields or the Mafia chiefs send their squads to do it, we will kill them, all of them.
Perhaps this is effective but we don't know it because it has never been tried except, arguably, by the Taliban which was as ruthless as Saudi Arabia but they reduced opium / heroin exportation from the country to almost nothing. That does not affect heroin consumption in the United States so much because of the poppy fields in Mexico.
Cat argues, despite all the force of the U.S. military, poppy / heroin cultivation in Afghanistan went back to the highest production in the world. My response is the U.S. Army did nothing about it, just as it did not in Southeast Asia and even sustained it through the Iran/Contra scandal under Reagan. While Nancy Reagan was saying 'just say no,' Ronald Reagan was working his insidious deals.
In conclusion, we don't believe there has been any serious effort to wipe out the fields except for Bolivian military efforts and others in South America to burn the fields. We further observe this campaign has not stopped production and does not appear to have had a significant impact to the flow of narcotics. We submit that problem may result from lack of support, insufficient resources, etc but we do not know that for fact.
We further conclude another option is to take the war to the banks. All over we hear of the immense wealth of the really big narcotics traffickers and the billions they have taken but where can they possibly store such wealth. Find it and take it. We observe the massive potential for corruption in such an endeavor because it has the same vulnerability as with border guards (i.e. anyone can be bribed and narcotics kings have the money to do it).
Far from being enraged for the dissent to my positions, it excites me and I told Cat she is a fascinating woman.
So, there you have the gist of the discussion and make of it whatever you will. My personal summation is I am not locked to any single solution, my only requirement is for something which works given nothing else has succeeded thus far.
No comments:
Post a Comment