December 15, 2017

MONSANTO – THE BAD SEED: The Future Of Food – The Danger of Genetically Modified Food


Bad Seed Danger of Genetically Modified Food

This documentary exposes a vast conspiracy to contaminate and control the world’s food supply through genetic engineering of food crops. Leading scientists, researchers and activists present the facts that you need to know about genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

The methods used to genetically engineer plants are imprecise and extremely dangerous. Eighty percent of food sold in North America already has ingredients made of GMOs that have not been adequately tested for safety. This program presents all the facts about this alarming controversy and features the best-known, most credible bio tech / agriculture authorities in the world today.


The Future of Food

There is a food revolution happening in America today. People are seeking out farmers’ markets, organic produce and good restaurants. At the same time, our food supply is increasingly controlled by multi-national corporations. Over the past 10 years, with the advent of genetic engineering and the massive expansion of pesticide companies, like Monsanto, into the seed business, the very nature of our food system has radically changed with potentially disastrous effects on our food security. Patenting of life is now permitted, no labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) in food is required, research is conducted on these issues by universities beholden to the “agri-corps” who fund them, and the major regulatory agencies are run by former execs from these very companies. All the while, the average citizens remain blissfully unaware that they are eating GMO food and supporting the aggressive “corporatization’ of their food sources. In fascinating and accessible terms, ‘The Future of Food’ illuminates the major issues ultimately affecting us all — some surreal, some futuristic, many frightening. Yet, ‘The Future of Food’ is a hopeful film, featuring insightful and moving interviews with farmers, agriculture and business experts and policymakers. It sees a future in which an informed consumer can join the revolution by demanding natural, healthy food sources that insure environmental integrity.


Bad Seed: The Truth About Our Food (Part 1 of 5)

This bold and convincing documentary grabs you in the guts and doesn’t let go. When Adam Curry and Timo Nadudvari first learned about the hidden consequences of the genetic engineering of food crops they were shocked and appalled – then they decided they had to tell others what they had learned. The video examines the issue of genetic engineering of food from the real-world perspectives of leading scientists, farmers, food safety advocates and the victims of genetically engineered products. It exposes a heinous scheme by large corporations with long criminal histories to gain control over the world’s food supply by infecting food crops with patented DNA. It also exposes Agro-Tech lies, the corruption within the US FDA and the all-too-real risks to human health.

[ BAD SEED: Truth About Our Food – Website/News ]

monsanto pdf1

monsanto pdf2

Overview
Monsanto is known for producing the dioxin-containing defoliant Agent Orange, which was used extensively in the Vietnam
War; for forcing the evacuation of the community of Times
Beach, Missouri, by contaminating it with dioxin; and for
refusing to accept full responsibility for the PCB contamination
of an Alabama town. Monsanto has also gained notoriety for
suing a Canadian farmer who unintentionally grew genetically
engineered (GE) Roundup Ready canola after pollen from GE
seeds drifted into his fields and contaminated his crop.
Monsanto’s disregard for corporate social responsibility is
summed up in a quote from Phil Angell, Monsanto’s director
of corporate communications, to the New York Times, October
25, 1998: “Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety
of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is [the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration]’s job.”

1 Information and media manipulation
Monsanto funded and published numerous studies during the
1980s arguing that dioxin was harmless. Dr. Cate Jenkins of
the EPA testified that “there are numerous…flaws in the
Monsanto health studies. Each of these misrepresentations and
falsifications served to negate any conclusions of adverse health
effects from dioxins.” In 1991, a National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health study refuted Monsanto’s
claims, proving that dioxin exposure can lead to cancer.

2 In 1991, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration stated that
Monsanto’s promotional materials on recombinant bovine
growth hormone (rBGH) went “beyond the legitimate
exchange of scientific information,” ordering Monsanto to stop
making unsubstantiated claims through advertisements and
promotional videos. Monsanto also threatened to file lawsuits
against any companies that advertised “no rBGH” on their
food products.

3 Canadian government officials, speaking on camera, have said
that they believe Monsanto tried to bribe them with offers of
US$1 to $2 million to gain approval for rBGH in Canada.
Monsanto officials say the Canadians misunderstood their offer
of “research” funds.

4 Environmental contamination
Dioxin
Dioxin from a Monsanto plant contaminated the community
of Times Beach, Missouri. In 1982, 2,000 people were permanently relocated by the state government and the U.S. EPA—
11 years after the contamination was first discovered, and eight
years after the cause was identified as dioxin. Mental dysfunctions and immune system disorders have been found in children from the area.

5 PCBs
PCB contamination from a Monsanto factory in Anniston,
Alabama has produced widespread health and environmental
consequences. The results of studies showing potential impacts
of PCBs were disregarded by Monsanto, leading to multi-million dollar negligence settlements in recent years. After the first
lawsuit was filed by a local church, Monsanto attempted to
purchase the church building; eventually the Alabama Supreme
Court forced the company to pay US$2.5 million to the
church’s members.

6 In February 2002, a jury found that the Anniston plant was
responsible for polluting the community with PCBs, although
the amount to be paid in damages has yet to be determined.
The PCBs are believed to be responsible for causing multiple
types of skin ailments, reproductive disorders, liver disease, cancers, cerebral palsy and other diseases. One of the findings
against Solutia (Monsanto’s chemical spinoff ) is called a “tort
of outrage.” According to the defense attorney, “This is
reserved for conduct that is so reprehensible that it shocks any
civilized person.” He said that this charge is very difficult to
prove, and demonstrates a high level of liability on Solutia that
is likely to result in a large damage claim.

7 Monsanto
Company Profile
In 2000, Monsanto merged with Pharmacia & Upjohn to
become one of the “life science” industry’s largest companies,
the Pharmacia Corporation. By the end of that year, however,
Monsanto had become an independent subsidiary focusing
solely on agricultural products-genetically engineered seeds,
pesticides and recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH-a
genetically engineered hormone designed to increase milk
production when injected into dairy cows). Monsanto, a
U.S.-based multinational corporation with over 14,700
employees worldwide, is now one of the largest pesticide
companies in the world.

1 In 2000, Monsanto’s total sales, including seeds, pesticides
and rBGH, were US$3.9 billion, more than 8% higher than
the previous year.

2 Notes

1 PANUPS, Top Seven Agrochemical Companies in 2000, May 23, 2001.

2 Agrow: World Crop Protection News, March 2, 2001.Pesticide Action Network North America
49 Powell St., Suite 500 • San Francisco, CA 94102
Tel 415.981.1771 • Fax 415.981.1991 • panna@panna.org • www.panna.org
Pesticide Action Network North America World Bank Accountab

Harassing farmers
Monsanto tracks down farmers who replant seed
from Monsanto’s genetically engineered crops. In
the company’s own words, “Monsanto is vigorously
pursuing growers who pirate any brand or variety
of its genetically engineered seed, such as Roundup
Ready soybeans and cotton and Bollgard cotton.”
The company has hired full-time investigators to
follow up on seed saving leads it receives.
Monsanto has pursued over 500 cases in the U.S.
in at least 20 states. Monsanto maintains that seed
saving is illegal even if a farmer did not sign an
invoice statement for the seed at time of purchase.

8 A Canadian federal judge ruled that Saskatchewan
farmer Percy Schmeiser had infringed the patent
on Monsanto’s Roundup Ready canola because the
crop was found on his land. Even information that
Monsanto divulged before the trial—that a neighbor had planted Monsanto’s transgenic canola next
to land that Schmeiser seeded the following year—
made no difference. Once conventional seed that
Schmeiser had been developing for 50 years was
found to contain Roundup Ready genes, it became
property of Monsanto. The judge ordered
Schmeiser to pay all profits from his 1998 crop to
Monsanto.

9 March 2002
Notes
1 Pollan, M., “Playing God in the Garden,” New York Times, October 25, 1998.
2 Testimony before EPA dioxin reassassment panel, December 1994, by L. C. Casten,
Environmental Task Force Chair, Chicago Media Watch, http://www.greens.org/s-r/078/07-
47.html; memorandum to the EPA from W. Sanjour (policy analyst), July 1994,
http://pwp.lincs.net/sanjour/monsanto.htm; “Monsanto: A Checkered History,” the Institute
for Social Ecology, http://www.social-ecology.org/learn/library/tokar/monsanto_2.html;
Fagin, D. and M. Lavelle., 1999, Toxic Decption: How the Chemical Industry Manipulates
Science, Bends the Law and Endangers your Health, Common Courage Press, Monroe, Maine.
3 Fagin and Lavelle, op. cit., p. 190; ”Monsanto: Greenpeace Corporate Criminal Report,”
http://www.greenpeace.org/~usa/reports/biodiversity/corpcrim.html.
4 “Milk, rBGH, and Cancer,” Rachel’s Environment & Health Weekly #593, April 9, 1998.
5 “Another accidental release of dioxin at Times Beach heats up the debate over the incinerator’s safety,” Riverfront Times (St. Louis), May 15, 1996, http://lists.essential.org/1996/
dioxin-l/msg00249.html; “Monsanto: A Checkered History,” the Institute for Social Ecology,
http://www.social-ecology.org/learn/library/tokar/monsanto_2.html; “A Corporate Giant,”
News in Review, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, http://www.cbc.ca/insidecbc/newsinreview/mar99/milk/corp.htm; “Times Beach Deleted From National Priorities List,” EPA—
OECA, Fall 2001, http://es.epa.gov/oeca/osre/cleanupnews.html#times.
6 “In Dirt, Water and Hogs, Town Got Its Fill of PCBs,” Washington Post, January 1, 2002;
“PCBs Drenched Ala. Town, But No One Was Ever Told,” Washington Post, January 1, 2002;
“Environmental Justice Case Study: The People of Anniston, Alabama v. Monsanto,”
http://www.umich.edu/~snre492/Jones/anniston.htm#Problem.
7 “Judge in PCB case presses for settlements,” St. Louis Post Dispatch, February 26, 2002.
“Jury decides against Monsanto, Solutia in PCB case, “ Reuters, February 25, 2002.
8 “Monsanto Prosecutes U.S. Seed Violators,” PANUPS, December 14, 1998.
9 “Monsanto engineers the road to serfdom,” Cropchoice, May 29, 2001

Monsanto’s Notorious Pesticides
Roundup—Roundup (active ingredient glyphosate) is Monsanto’s flagship
weed killer (or herbicide), accounting for 67% of the company’s total sales
or about $2.6 billion annually.

1 The amount of Roundup sold has grown
by around 20% each year over the past five years.

2 Monsanto has expanded its capacity to produce Roundup nearly five-fold since 1992.

3 While Monsanto maintains that Roundup is safe, many others disagree,
including the New York State Attorney General. Based on its investigation,
the Attorney General’s office filed a lawsuit arguing that the company’s
advertising inaccurately portrayed Monsanto’s glyphosate-containing products as safe and as not causing any harmful effects to people or the environment. As part of an out-of-court settlement, Monsanto agreed to discontinue use of terms such as “biodegradable” and “environmentally
friendly” in all advertising of glyphosate-containing products in New York
state and paid US$50,000 toward the state’s costs of pursuing the case.

4 There are a number of environmental and human health problems associated with glyphosate. For example, in studies of people (mostly farmers)
exposed to glyphosate, exposure is associated with an increased risk of miscarriages, premature birth and the cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

5 In one case, Monsanto paid a US$225,000 fine for having mislabeled
Roundup containers on 75 separate occasions. It was the largest settlement
ever paid for violation of U.S. Worker Protection Standards. The labels
had claimed that the restricted entry period after application of Roundup
was four, rather than the actual 12 hours.

6 Agent Orange (2,4,5-T and 2,4-D)—Monsanto was one of the primary
producers of Agent Orange, a defoliant used by the U.S. in the Vietnam
War. Monsanto resisted compensating U.S. veterans for health problems
caused by exposure to Agent Orange until it was forced to pay by a judge
in 1984. In Vietnam, the impacts of Agent Orange and dioxin, present as
a contaminant in Agent Orange, are overwhelming. Some estimates have
put the number of dioxin-related deformities of Vietnamese children at
500,000.

7 Notes
1 Agrow: World Crop Protection News, March 2, 2001.
2 Agrow: World Crop Protection News, January 1, 2000.
3 Monsanto, “A Single Focus,” 2000 Annual Report, http://www.monsanto.com.
4 “Monsanto Agrees to Change Ads and EPA Fines Northrup King,” PANUPS, January 10, 1997; “Monsanto Strategies,” The
Guardian (UK), September 17, 1997.
5 Herbicide Factsheet: Glyphosate (Roundup), Journal of Pesticide Reform, Fall 1998, updated November 1998.
(http://www.pesticide.org)
6 “EPA reaches settlement with Monsanto over labeling violations,” EPA press release, March 24, 1998.
7 “A Corporate Giant,” News in Review, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation,
http://www.cbc.ca/insidecbc/newsinreview/mar99/milk/corp.htm; testimony before EPA dioxin reassessment panel,
December 1994, by Liane C. Casten, Environmental Task Force Chair, Chicago Media Watch, http://www.greens.org/sr/078/07-47.html; memorandum to the EPA from William Sanjour, July 1994, http://pwp.lincs.net/sanjour/monsanto.htm.

PRISON PLANET: ALEX JONES ARE COINTELPRO – Counter Intelligence Program “Some people are so poisonous, they need to be exposed” – Alex Jones Agent Provocateur

Alex Jones Blows His Cover In Austin


Alex Jones goes ape sh*t on an OLD LADY CALLER


William Cooper on the Alex Jones Show 1998


Alex Jones Exposed by Milton William Cooper


Alex Jones: Zionist Disinfo Agent


Jack Blood – The Ugly Truth About Alex Jones 1of8


Jack Blood – The Ugly Truth About Alex Jones 2of8


Jack Blood – The Ugly Truth About Alex Jones 3of8


William Cooper – The Alex Jones Deception – (1-4-2000)

SWEET MISERY – ASPARTAME: Poisoned World! Full Length – Fluoride Deception “Poison Water”

The Dangers of Aspartame (Artificial Sweeteners Sugarfree Diet Coke Zero No Sugar Added E951)

Aspartame – Sweet Misery, A Poisoned World! Full Length

Fluoride in Your Tap Water is Industrial Toxic Waste (Literally)
http://youtu.be/3QQIoWV5AIw

‪The Fluoride Deception – FULL LENGTH

Hailed as a harmless chemical that would prevent tooth decay, new evidence shows how fluoride could be linked to serious health problems.

Fluoridation was first advanced in the US at the end of the second World War. Proponents argued that fluoride in water and toothpaste would help to protect teeth and prevent decay. Over the following decades, fluoride was added to public water supplies across the country.

While the benefits of fluoridation have been held to be unquestionable, accumulating evidence points to a frightening prospect: that fluoride may have serious adverse health effects, including infant mortality, congenital defects and IQ.

Now a new book, titled “The Fluoride Deception” by Christopher Bryson examines the background of the fluoridation debate. According to Bryson, research challenging fluoride’s safety was either suppressed or not conducted in the first place. He says fluoridation is a triumph not of medical science but of US government spin.

ASPARTAME SECRET GOVERNMENT POISONING PROGRAM

Fluoride, Aspartame and Population Control

DAMAGE DONE – THE DRUG WAR ODYSSEY: 40 Years of Drug War Hasn’t Worked; “Time for a Change,” Says 9-Year Veteran

Viewing this film and reading this Article may change your answers to these questions: Should law enforcement officers be expected to enforce laws that don’t make sense? What happens if the police don’t believe in the laws?

What if nobody believes in them? Does drug prohibition actually do more harm than drug use?

Our primary characters, all current or former law enforcement officers, say that as much as 80% of all felony crime is caused by drug addiction prohibition.

“Legalize, regulate and tax” is their mantra now.

Our heroes believe that all illicit drugs should be under the control of government, not left in the hands of criminals.

*******

*******

*******

40 Years of Drug War Hasn’t Worked; “Time for a Change,” Says 9-Year Veteran

The public understands how disastrous it’s been — now it’s time for the politicians and law enforcement to change course.
June 15, 2011 |

The “War on Drugs” was launched by President Richard Nixon 40 years ago this week. In 1980, at the end of its first decade, I began a nine-year career as a “captain” in the war on drugs. I was the attorney in the U.S. House of Representatives principally responsible for overseeing DEA and writing anti-drug laws as counsel to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime.

*******

White House leadership

The heart of Nixon’s 5,300-word message to Congress on June 17, 1971 was a plan “to consolidate at the highest level a full-scale attack on the problem of drug abuse in America” in a White House Office. The office was dismantled soon after Nixon resigned having been resisted by Cabinet secretaries and anti-drug agencies.

Soon after the Reagan Administration took office in 1981, Democrats in Congress began attacking the disorganization of the anti-drug effort, and mocked administration witnesses who insisted that President Reagan was really in charge. Senator Joseph Biden’s (D-DE) proposal to create a “drug czar” passed Congress in 1982 but led to President Reagan’s only veto of an anti-crime, anti-drug package. The resulting political outrage led to appointment of then-Vice President George H.W. Bush to lead a South Florida anti-drug task force, a “mini drug czar.”

Hearings I set up for the House Judiciary Committee helped lead to the 1984 enactment of an anti-drug strategy board led by the attorney general, and then its replacement in 1988 with our current White House “drug czar,” the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). But, 40 years on, our anti-drug effort is no better managed now than when Nixon decried bureaucratic red-tape and jurisdictional disputes among agencies.

After 22 years, ONDCP has proven to be an ineffectual waste of money. Anti-drug efforts remain haphazard and uncoordinated. Federal anti-drug prosecutions are unfocused, wasteful and racially discriminatory. An examination of the 25,000 federal drug cases concluded each year reveals two outrageous facts. First, instead of high-impact investigations targeting the most dangerous and powerful drug traffickers, the typical federal cases target the lowest level offenders: local street dealers, lookouts, bodyguards, couriers, “mules,” etc. selling small quantities of drugs that are tiny specks in the picture of the national and global drug trade. Second, the defendants in these cases are overwhelmingly black and Hispanic. Only about one in four federal drug defendants is white.

This regular pattern of mostly unimportant cases with very long sentences imposed predominately on racial minorities makes out a prima facie case of a pattern or practice of racial discrimination. But this well-known pattern has been ignored by the attorney general and the director of ONDCP in an egregious abandonment of their leadership responsibilities.

Another issue crying out for high-level coordination reveals the fundamental failure of the drug war approach. For most of the history of ONDCP, it has campaigned against state medical marijuana laws. Since 1996, 16 states have passed laws that recognize patient use of marijuana for medical treatment. But this conflicts with current federal law. As the leader of the drug war, the drug czar has done nothing to coordinate federal research, regulatory and enforcement efforts necessary to resolve this conflict that leads medical patients and doctors to legal danger and unsatisfactory medical care.

ONDCP’s signature “achievement” has been to spend $1.4 billion in a youth anti-drug media campaign that has been demonstrated by the government’s independent evaluators and the GAO to be utterly ineffectual.

*******

Death and Disease

In his 1971 message, Nixon lamented 1,000 narcotics deaths in New York City in 1970, then the epicenter of the heroin addiction problem. At the end of 1979, the annual number of drug abuse deaths was 7,101, which grew to 9,976 in 1986, the year basketball star Len Bias died from a cocaine-induced seizure. But the death rate from illegal drugs has exploded! In 2007, there were an estimated 38,000 drug overdose deaths nationwide. The death rate has grown from 3.0 per 100,000 in 1980 to 12.8 in 2006.

Since 1981, when HIV entered the bloodstream of America’s injecting drug users, epidemiologists’ projects to protect the lives of drug users have been stymied by drug warriors. In 1998, HHS Secretary Donna Shalala endorsed sterile syringe exchange as scientifically proven to prevent the spread of blood-borne disease among injecting drug users. But implementing this lifesaving approach was blocked by White House ONDCP director, General Barry McCaffrey.

In February 2005, Bush White House ONDCP director John Walters was found by the Washington Post to have completely misrepresented the scientific research supporting syringe exchange. The opposition of the White House directors of drug policy is due to the distorting effects of the language and values of war introduced by President Nixon. The emotional mobilization for war against drugs (and drug users) barred acceptance of scientific findings that sterile needle exchange protected drug users from HIV and hepatitis and other blood-borne disease. In a war on drugs, users weren’t supposed to be protected from disease and death, they were to be stopped from using drugs.

I recall a member of Congress in the late 1980s saying that America won’t have to worry about the heroin problem anymore since the addicts will all soon die from AIDS. This indifference to the lives and dignity of drug users has been a hallmark of the war on drugs. Indeed, between 1999 and 2007, over 48,000 persons died in the U.S. from AIDS due to transmission by infected needles. These deaths are in large part due to the absolutist ideology of the drug war that Nixon inspired.

*******

Drug Use and Treatment

Nixon said his initiative “must be judged by the number of human beings who are brought out of the hell of addiction, and by the number of human beings who are dissuaded from entering that hell.”

Most school-based prevention efforts, such as D.A.R.E., have been proven to be ineffective. Yet hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on such efforts by federal, state and local governments and with private contributions. Not surprisingly, drug use has continued to grow, especially marijuana use. In 2009, there were 21.8 million users of illicit drugs.

Nevertheless, Nixon drove a dramatic expansion of federally funded drug treatment using methadone in many cities, and crime went down in time for the 1972 election. But over the long term, as the anti-drug effort conformed to the strident rhetoric of war that Nixon popularized, the supply of drug treatment has not kept pace with the demand. By 2008, an estimated 7,559,000 Americans needed drug treatment, according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, but 6,351,000 did not receive any treatment. From 2002 to 2008, among youth aged 12 to 17, the number who received drug treatment declined from 142,000 to 111,000. Nixon’s goal to expand drug treatment to meet the need has never been met.

*******

Federal Anti-Drug Costs

Nixon asked Congress for $159 million dollars for his initiatives, plus an unspecified amount to pay 325 additional agents for what became the DEA.

Over the past 40 years, the federal government has spent, cumulatively, roughly a half trillion dollars on the “war on drugs.” By FY 1975, federal anti-drug spending had climbed to $680 million. For the past 20 years, federal spending on drugs has exceeded $15 billion per year including the costs of imprisonment.

The costs are now so high, for a decade the “drug czars” seem to regularly conceal almost one-third of the anti-drug spending by excluding it from the formal anti-drug budget they report to Congress. ONDCP says that $14.8 billion was spent in FY 2009 to fight drugs. But another $6.9 billion was also spent in FY 2009 on anti-drug programs such as the incarceration of federal drug prisoners.

The FY 2011 formal anti-drug budget request is for $15.5 billion, excluding imprisonment and the many other costs which remain concealed in the budget submission.

The cost of imprisoning federal drug prisoners has been over $3 billion annually since FY 2008. On June 9, 2011 the total federal prison population exceeded 216,000. As of May 20, 2011, 50.8 percent of convicted federal prisoners were drug offenders.

*******

Economic Impact

Nixon wanted research and “development of necessary reports, statistics, and social indicators for use by all public and private groups.”

Unfortunately, we do not have a clear idea of the cost to the economy from the unemployment and underemployment of tens of millions who have criminal records for drug use or distribution. With criminal records, many such men are unmarriageable and can’t obtain credit.

What has it meant to the shareholders and investment funds that own Ford, General Motors and Chrysler, and the union workers who build cars and components, that instead of the 200,000 prisoners in state and federal prisons in 1972, now there are about 1.6 million adults in prison (and another 600,000 in jails)? This is a population of about 1.4 million mostly young men (prime car owners) who can’t buy a car.

America’s economy is famously consumer driven and is terribly hurt when tens of millions of residents can’t work and can’t buy the goods manufactured and sold by American businesses. This constriction of our domestic market is not a problem our Japanese and German competitors face.

*******

Veterans

Nixon asked for $14 million “to make the facilities of the Veterans Administration available to all former servicemen in need of drug rehabilitation.” SAMHSA, using data from National Surveys on Drug Use and Health from 2004-2006 indicate that out of a veteran population of 25.9 million persons, an annual average 7.1 percent of veterans met the criteria for a past year substance use disorder, and another 1.5 percent had co-occurring serious psychological distress and substance use disorder. We all know the population of veterans with physical and psychological injuries is rapidly growing and that substance abuse is growing in that population. The ONDCP focuses on the criminal cases, touting special criminal courts to treat veterans who commit crimes, while treatment in general languishes.

*******

International initiatives

A major feature of Nixon’s message stressed the need for international cooperation. He had already stumbled badly when “Operation Intercept” in September 1969 created enormous traffic jams at the Mexico-U.S. border, and severely damaged trade and bilateral relations.

Opium grown in Turkey was the source of 80 percent of the heroin consumed in the U.S. in 1968. Nixon made an overture to Turkey and they cracked down on illegal opium growing and required cultivation licenses. Opium is now grown legally there to make morphine, and none is diverted to heroin. Instead of following this successful legalization strategy, Nixon’s successors tried to rely only on forceful crop eradication. But enforcement is like squeezing a balloon. The drug production shifts to new countries which render such successes meaningless. Sadly, expanding production of opium and heroin has become a disaster for other nations such as Mexico, Colombia, Guatemala and Afghanistan, fueling insurrection, wholesale corruption and widespread assassination.

*******

Support for Prohibition Is Vanishing

In the face of threats of prosecution from the federal government, stuck in the ideology of the “war on drugs,” state legislatures and governors continue to pass medical marijuana laws. On May 10, 2011, Maryland’s governor signed a law creating a complete medical use defense to a marijuana prosecution and creating a state commission to write a model medical marijuana law. On May 13, 2011, Delaware’s governor signed a medical marijuana law, making it the sixteenth state with a comprehensive law to protect medical use of marijuana. On June 2, 2011, Vermont’s governor signed a law to add medical marijuana dispensaries to that state’s medical marijuana law.

On June 7, 2011, the Connecticut legislature voted to decriminalize possession of less than a half ounce of marijuana and the governor has promised to sign the law. In November 2010, in California, 46.5 percent of the voters supported legalizing marijuana, and polls revealed that 30 percent of “no” voters said they supported legalization but not in the form of Proposition 19 that was the regime on the ballot.

I have been involved in making drug policy professionally for more than 30 years — three-quarters of the war on drugs. On June 14, I joined five veteran police officers (local, state and federal), a former judge, and a corrections commissioner — all speakers from Law Enforcement Against Prohibition – to bring to ONDCP Director Gil Kerlikowske LEAP’s indictment of the failures of war on drugs policy. We held a press conference on the sidewalk outside his office near the White House. As it was breaking up, four construction workers asked my chief of staff what it was all about. She told them it was about legalizing drugs. Immediately they started telling her all the various reasons why our drug policy is a failure.

For 10 minutes they described the racial disparity in arrests, the drug violence in Mexico and in American neighborhoods, the deaths from drug overdose, the pointlessness of arresting a drug dealer who gets immediately replaced or putting drug users in jail. They noted the parallels between the failure of alcohol prohibition and drug prohibition. They noted the tax revenues from drug sales that we are losing. This telling anecdote reveals how broadly the public understands that Nixon’s “war on drugs” has been a widespread failure.

The next step is for the drug policy reform community to present concrete proposals for analysis to legislators and the public. Surely most of us can agree with prestigious groups such as the Global Commission on Drug Policy that the facts of the war on drugs after 40 years are clear signs we need a very different strategy.

Eric E. Sterling has been president of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, a private non-profit educational organization, since 1989.

RELATED POSTS:

[ DAMAGE DONE: The Drug War Odyssey – LAW ENFORCEMENT AGAINST PROHIBITION (L.E.A.P.) Cops Say “Legalize Drugs!” ]

[ ‘OPIUM’ REAL REASON FOR AFGHANISTAN WAR: Why Pat Tillman Was Killed / CIA Suiciding US Soldiers Overseas For Bankers ]