REPORTED BY
NORMAN J CLEMENT RPH., DDS, NORMAN L.CLEMENT PHARM-TECH, MALACHI F. MACKANDAL PHARMD, JOSEPH SOLVO ESQ., REV. C.T. VIVIAN, JELANI ZIMBABWE CLEMENT, BS., MBA., WILLIE GUINYARD BS., WALTER L. SMITH BS,MS., BRAHM FISHER ESQ., JOSEPH WEBSTER MD., ESTHER HYATT PHD., MICHELE ALEXANDER, CUDJOE WILDING BS, MICHELLE LYNN CLARK RPH., DEBRA LYNN SHEPHERD, BERES E. MUSCHETT, STRATEGIC ADVISORS
BY
THE NORTH STAR RESEARCH GROUP
CONGRESS MUST REORGANIZE THE UNITED STATES DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION (DEA)
THE DRUG WARS AND COLOR CASTE
NIXON AND THE WAR ON DRUGS
The War on Drugs is a phrase used to refer to a government-led initiative that aims to stop illegal drug use, distribution, and trade by dramatically increasing prison sentences for both drug dealers and users. The movement started in the 1970s and is still evolving today. Over the years, people have had mixed reactions to the campaign, ranging from full-on support to claims that it has racist and political objectives. (1)
In June 1971, Nixon officially declared a “War on Drugs,” stating that drug abuse was “public enemy number one.”
Nixon’s invention of the War on Drugs as a political tool was cynical. Still, every president since — Democrat and Republican alike — has found it equally useful for one reason or another. Meanwhile, the growing cost of the Drug War is now impossible to ignore: billions of dollars wasted, bloodshed in Latin America and on the streets of our own cities, and millions of lives destroyed by draconian punishment that doesn’t end at the prison gate; one of every eight black men have been disenfranchised because of a felony conviction. (2)
The War on Drugs Begins
Drug use for medicinal and recreational purposes has been happening in the United States since the country’s inception. In the 1890s, the popular Sears and Roebuck catalogue included an offer for a syringe and a small amount of cocaine for $1.50. (At that time, cocaine use had not yet been outlawed.) In some states, laws to ban or regulate drugs were passed in the 1800s, and the first congressional act to levy taxes on morphine and opium took place in 1890.
However, understanding of “The War on Drugs” is understanding the rape of China and that racism is an integral part of the structure of the economy of the United States of America. If one has properly been studied in pharmacy and the origins of medicinals such as Opium and the cultivation of the poppy seed plant then it is nearly impossible to not stumble upon the “Opium Wars.”
In the United States, the Smoking Opium Exclusion Act in 1909 banned the possession, importation, and use of opium for smoking. However, opium could still be used as a medication. This was the first federal law to ban the non-medical use of a substance, although many states and counties had banned alcohol sales previously. In 1914, Congress passed the Harrison Act, which regulated and taxed the production, importation, and distribution of opiates and cocaine.
Yet our foreign policy and treatment of China were far different and understanding “The Opium War” is also understanding that much of the wealth of the American Elite was built upon the forced imposition of opium onto China. The gold mine of drugs (opium) for the American elite in the 19th century funded much of the industrial revolution endowed universities such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Brandeis, while China and its people were victims; “the sick man of Asia.”
They’ve introduced, promoted, and controlled through law enforcement, non-medical narcotic analgesic analogs (heroin), analogs of cocaine (crack), and then arrested, convicted, and imprisoned all to suppress progressive thought and actions. One should note this strategy is not new and was used effectively by England against China, which led to the Boxer War for the same purpose, to suppress progressive thought and actions.
Thus it is acid etched into the minds of every living person within the Chinese State one will never be allowed to forget the 100 years of humiliation. Stratification of the Chinese Economy by Britain, the United States, Japan, and other Colonial powers was an essential component in controlling the people of China. (3)
HISTORIC BACKGROUND OF THE DRUG WAR: RACE, TRADE, AND SUPPRESSION
UNDERSTANDING STRATIFICATION ECONOMICS AND HOW IT PLAYS AN INTEGRAL PART IN MAINTAINING RACIAL ORDER IN ALL POPULATION
BY PETER COY
The required audio narrative to be listened to by all readers of this article presentation is from Bloomberg Business-week, By Peter Coy, June 4, 2020, 5:00 AM EDT, “Racial Repression Is Built Into the U.S. Economy,” One hundred fifty years after the Civil War, the color of money is still white states:
“The economics profession has had a hard time getting a fix on racial discrimination. Quite apart from its cruelty, it seems … illogical…….the question is urgent because racial discrimination is the fuel of the anger and discontent that have spilled onto the streets. The trigger was the asphyxiation death of George Floyd in Minneapolis under the knee of police officer Derek Chauvin, who’s been fired and charged with second-degree murder”………Can economists help us find a way out of the chaos?
According to Peter Coy June 4, 2020, writing for Bloomberg Businessweek:
“Any modern analysis of race relation has to be grounded in the fact that the United States of America was built on the backs of enslaved African and that leading thinkers of the day defended slavery based on economic grounds.”
Coupled with the China Trade in Opium that built, fueled, and funded much of the industrial revolution in America generating massive wealth. Most, importantly, this helps further to understanding the attitudes of the Chinese Government and its people toward the United States and European Powers. (LISTEN TO PETER COY’S AUDIO LINK BELOW)
https://apple.news/AvxPYvb8jTuGUGQUvC4VQFQ
China through communism educated its people. The Chinese learned how to integrate socialism and capitalism, (they used socialism to get their act together) to educate and train their own people. When China succeeded at education, they employed capitalism against the West and beat them at their own game. The discussion between communism and capitalism has always been who would control the means of production and distribution, either one can produce or one can’t.
The 100 years of humiliation have further taught China, that no power will ever get close enough to ride its warships (armed with HVP guided projectiles) up the Yangtze and Pearl Rivers without facing a significant deterrent.
RONALD REAGAN AND RICHARD NIXON: “To see those, those monkeys from those African countries”
In 1971, Ronald Reagan, then the governor of California, made racist remarks in a phone conversation with former President Richard Nixon as he denigrated UN delegates who sided against the US in a vote to recognize the People’s Republic of China.
“Last night, I tell you, to watch that thing on television as I did,” Reagan said in newly unearthed tapes published by The Atlantic.
Nixon replied, “Yeah.”
And Reagan went on to say, “To see those, those monkeys from those African countries — damn them, they’re still uncomfortable wearing shoes!”
Reagan was enraged that members of the Tanzanian delegation began dancing in the General Assembly after a vote to seat a delegation from Beijing instead of Taiwan.
Tim Naftali, a clinical associate professor of history at New York University, is behind the release of the exchange, which was recorded by Nixon.
In the article published Tuesday, Naftali, who directed the Nixon Presidential Library from 2007 to 2011, wrote, “When the National Archives originally released the tape of this conversation, in 2000, the racist portion was apparently withheld to protect Reagan’s privacy.”
THE OPIUM WAR’S SECRET HISTORY
The hidden secrets of the drug war waged on China by European Power also involved the Africa Slave Trade across the Indian Ocean, Ivory, Jade, tea which created a trade deficit between Britain and China see the videos:
NEW YORK TIMES
BY KARL E. MEYER
June 28, 1997
According to New York Times article 1997:
Losers rarely name wars, an exception being the conflict between Britain and China from 1839 to 1842, known bluntly ever since as the Opium War. To most Chinese, a century of humiliation began with this war, in which Westerners sought to force a deadly drug on an Asian people, and then imposed an unequal treaty that pried open their country and annexed the island that became Hong Kong.
In embarrassing truth, that is essentially what happened. As Hong Kong reverts to China at month’s end, many of us for the first time may see a bit of history from a different end of the telescope. Yet a further point needs making. Even the authors of the Opium War were ashamed of it, and Western protests against it marked the beginning of a concern with international human rights that in a fresh turn embarrasses today’s leaders in Beijing.
Along with the slave trade, the traffic in opium was the dirty underside of an evolving global trading economy. In America as in Europe, pretty much everything was deemed fair in the pursuit of profits. Such was the outlook at Russell & Company, a Boston concern whose clipper ships made it the leader in the lucrative American trade in Chinese tea and silk.
In 1823 a 24-year-old Yankee, Warren Delano, sailed to Canton, where he did so well that within seven years he was a senior partner in Russell & Company. Delano’s problem, as with all traders, European and American, was that China had much to sell but declined to buy. The Manchu emperors believed that the Middle Kingdom already possessed everything worth having, and hence needed no barbarian manufactures.
The British struck upon an ingenious way to reduce a huge trade deficit. Their merchants bribed Chinese officials to allow entry of chests of opium from British-ruled India, though its importation had long been banned by imperial decree. Imports soared, and nearly every American company followed suit, acquiring ”black dirt” in Turkey or as agents for Indian producers.
Writing home, Delano said he could not pretend to justify the opium trade on moral grounds, ”but as a merchant I insist it has been . . . fair, honorable and legitimate,” and no more objectionable than the importation of wines and spirits to the U.S. Yet as addiction became epidemic, and as the Chinese began paying with precious silver for the drug, their Emperor finally in 1839 named an Imperial Commissioner to end the trade.
Commissioner Lin Tse-hsu proceeded to Canton, seized vast stocks of opium and dumped the chests in the sea. This, plus a melee in which drunken sailors killed a Chinese villager, furnished the spark for the Opium War, initiated by Lord Palmerston, the British Prime Minister, and waged with determination to obtain full compensation for the opium. The Celestial Empire was humbled, forced to open five ports to foreign traders and to permit a British colony at Hong Kong.
But as noteworthy, the war was denounced in Parliament as ”unjust and iniquitous” by 30-year-old William Ewart Gladstone, who accused Palmerston of hoisting the British flag ”to protect an infamous contraband traffic.” The same outrage was expressed in the pulpit and the press, in America and England, thereby encouraging Russell & Company and most other American businesses to pull out of the opium trade.
Warren Delano returned to America rich, and in 1851 settled in Newburgh, N.Y. There he eventually gave his daughter Sara in marriage to a well-born neighbor, James Roosevelt, the father of Franklin Roosevelt. The old China trader was close-mouthed about opium, as were his partners in Russell & Company. It is not clear how much F.D.R. knew about this source of his grandfather’s wealth. But the President’s recent biographer Geoffrey Ward rejects efforts by the Delano family to minimize Warren’s involvement.
The family’s discomfort is understandable. We no longer believe that anything goes in the global marketplace, regardless of social consequences. It is precisely this conviction that underlies efforts to attach human rights conditions to trading relations — to temper the amorality of the market — a point that, alas, seems to elude the Socialist soon-to-be masters of Hong Kong.”
WARREN DELANO: PUTING WARREN DELANO’S HISTORY WHERE THE GOATS CAN GET IT
Simply putting Warren Delano in today’s language, he was both slave trader and international drug dealer on an even higher scale than El Chappo Guzman or Pablo Escobar. Mr. Delano worked for a major drug cartel supported by governments. Mr. Delanoe and other families hid their ill-gotten gains through endowments and support to nearly all Ivy League universities. Through generations, many have benefitted from the education and research received at these universities especially their law schools.
According to Testmax:
“Each of the eight Ivy League schools (Brown, Columbia, Cornell, University of Pennsylvania, Princeton, Harvard, Dartmouth, and Yale) has a reputation for excellence and for producing some of the best minds of the world. It is no surprise, then, that these five Ivy League law schools are preceded by their reputations for developing some of the most brilliant and influential legal professionals. All five schools always rank in the T14 list of law schools, and they each have rigorous academic curricula, tough standards for admission, and unique histories.
STRATIFICATION ECONOMICS AND THE CHINA TRADE(OPIUM TRADE)
The Emergence of the American Community in Shanghai
According to Sibing He, “Hong Kong and America’s China Trade in the Nineteenth Century,” paper presented at the International Conference on Hong Kong in the Global Setting, organized by the Department of History, the University of Hong Kong, 10-12 January 2011:
The first British consul at Shanghai, Captain George Balfour, arrived in the port city in November 1843 and formally declared the post open to foreign trade. British and American trading firms soon rushed to Shanghai, the gateway to the Yangtze valley, in order to gain access to the richest market in central China. This regional entrepôt was immediately transformed into the center of international trade. Henry G. Wolcott, the representative of Russell & Co., went to Shanghai soon after the city was made a treaty port in 1843. In the same year, Russell & Co. also sent G. F. Davidson to the newly established British Crown Colony of Hong Kong to serve as its agent. By 1844, only a year after opening as a treaty port, Shanghai housed eleven British and American mercantile firms with a total of twenty-three traders, including the prominent British firms, Jardine, Matheson & Company, and Dent & Company.
The China trade in the 19th century was the foundation of the wealth of several New England families, who in turn helped to finance the industrialization in the USA, particularly the development of railroads to the American West. At the center of this elite network of families were three brothers: Thomas Tunno, Robert Bennet, and John Murray Forbes. Their mother was the youngest sister of Thomas Handasyd Perkins, a leading public figure in Boston and the founder, with his brother, of the firm J. and T.H. Perkins of Boston and Canton. In 1830 the firm was merged with Russell & Company, a commission agency founded by Samuel Russell in Canton in 1824 to trade opium, woolen and cotton cloth, and other commodities in exchange for silk, porcelain, and tea. The Forbes brothers led Russell & Co. – in its heyday the most powerful American merchant house on the China coast – from 1830 to its dissolution in 1891. (4)
THE NIXON INVENTION OF THE WAR ON DRUGS
According to research scholar Mark J. Perry, @Mark_J_Perry:
“Nixon’s invention of the War on Drugs as a political tool was cynical, but every president since — Democrat and Republican alike — has found it equally useful for one reason or another. Meanwhile, the growing cost of the Drug War is now impossible to ignore: billions of dollars wasted, bloodshed in Latin America and on the streets of our own cities, and millions of lives destroyed by draconian punishment that doesn’t end at the prison gate; one of every eight black men have been disenfranchised because of a felony conviction. (2)
MP: As much as Prohibition (The War on Alcohol) was also an expensive, epic and misguided failure of government policy, it didn’t have its origins in any type of equivalent sinister and evil plot to destroy enemies of the Woodrow Wilson administration in 1919 like Nixon’s War on Drugs. In fact, President Wilson vetoed the Volstead Act, the popular name for the National Prohibition Act, but the House and Senate both voted quickly to override the veto and America started the War on Alchohol Otherwise Peaceful and Innocent Americans Who Voluntarily Chose to Ingest Beer, Wine, and Spirits in 1920.
If the real goal of the War on Drugs was to target, convict and incarcerate subversive anti-war “hippies” and black Americans, as Ehrlichman describes it, it sure worked as the chart above of the male incarceration rate in the US shows. During the nearly 50-year period between 1925 and the early 1970s, the male incarceration rate was remarkably stable at about 200 men per 100,000 population, or 1 US male per 500, according to data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. By 1986, about a decade-and-a-half after the War on Drugs started locking up drug users and dealers in cages, the male incarceration rate doubled to 400 per 100,000 population. Then within another decade, the male incarceration rate doubled again to more than 800 by 1996 before reaching a historic peak of 956 in 2008 (about one in 100) that was almost five times higher than the stable rate before the War on Drugs. The arrest and incarceration data show that the War on Drugs had a significantly much greater negative effect on blacks and Hispanics than whites, making the Drug War even more shameful for its devastating and disproportionately adverse effects on America’s most vulnerable and disadvantaged populations.
Since the 2008 peak, the male incarceration rate has been gradually declining in each of the last seven years of available data through 2016, possibly because of three trends: a) decriminalization of weeds at the city and state level, b) the legalization of medical weeds at the state level, and c) now legalization of recreational weeds at the city and state levels.
While there could have been other factors that contributed to the nearly five-fold increase in the male incarceration rate between the early 1970s and the peak in 2008, research clearly shows that the War on Drugs, along with mandatory minimum sentencing in the 1980s and the disparate treatment of powdered cocaine and “crack cocaine” (powdered cocaine processed with baking soda into smokable rocks) were all significant contributing factors to the unprecedented rate of incarcerated Americans. Here are some conclusions from the 2014 book The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences (my emphasis):
1. The states’ combined incarceration rates increased across all crime categories between 1980 and 2010 (see chart above). Most striking, however, is the dramatic increase in the incarceration rate for drug-related crimes. In 1980, imprisonment for drug offenses was rare, with a combined state incarceration rate of 15 per 100,000 population. By 2010, the drug incarceration rate had increased nearly 10-fold to 143 per 100,000. Indeed, the rate of incarceration for the single category of drug-related offenses, excluding local jails and federal prisons, by itself exceeds by 50% the average incarceration rate for all crimes of Western European countries and is twice the average incarceration rate for all crimes of a significant number of European countries.
2. Arrest rates for federal drug offenses climbed in the 1970s, and mandatory prison time for these offenses became more common in the 1980s. Mandatory prison sentences, intensified enforcement of drug laws, and long sentences contributed not only to overall high rates of incarceration but also especially to extraordinary rates of incarceration in black and Latino communities. Intensified enforcement of drug laws subjected blacks, more than whites, to new mandatory minimum sentences—despite lower levels of drug use and no higher demonstrated levels of trafficking among the black than the white population.
3. As a result of the lengthening of sentences and greatly expanded drug law enforcement and imprisonment for drug offenses, criminal defendants became more likely to be sentenced to prison and remained there significantly longer than in the past. The policy shifts that propelled the growth in incarceration had disproportionately large effects on African Americans and Latinos. Indeed, serving time in prison has become a normal life event among recent birth cohorts of African American men who have not completed high school.”
DESPITE LOWER USAGE AFRICAN AMERICANS AND LATINOS RECEIVED DISPROPOTIONATELY LONGER PRISON SENTENCES AND HAD HIGHER INCARCERATION RATES
“The US ‘War on Drugs has had a profound role in reinforcing racial hierarchies. Although Black Americans are no more likely than Whites to use illicit drugs, they are 6–10 times more likely to be incarcerated for drug offenses. Meanwhile, a very different system for responding to the drug use of Whites has emerged.”
THE NEW YORK TIMES
“A RARE CASE WHERE RACIAL BIASES’ PROTECTED AFRICAN-AMERICANS,”
2019
It is December 5, 2019, New York Times on “A Rare Case Where Racial Biases’ Protected African-Americans,” By Austin Frakt and Toni Monkovic
When the opioid crisis began to escalate some 20 years ago, many African-Americans had a layer of protection against it.
But that protection didn’t come from the effectiveness of the American medical system. Instead, researchers believe, it came from racial stereotypes embedded within that system.
As unlikely as it may seem, these negative stereotypes appear to have shielded many African-Americans from fatal prescription opioid overdoses. This is not a new finding. But for the first time, analysis has put a number behind it, projecting that around 14,000 black Americans would have died had their mortality rates related to prescription opioids been equivalent to that of white Americans.
Starting in the 1990s, new prescription opioids were marketed more aggressively in white rural areas, where pain drug prescriptions were already high. African-Americans received fewer opioid prescriptions, some researchers think, because doctors believed, contrary to fact, that black people 1) were more likely to become addicted to the drugs 2) would be more likely to sell the drugs, and 3) had a higher pain threshold than white people because they were biologically different.
A fourth possibility is that some white doctors were more empathetic to the pain of people who were like them, and less empathetic to those who weren’t. Some of this bias “can be unconscious,” said Dr. Andrew Kolodny, a director of opioid policy research at Brandeis University.
This accidental benefit for African-Americans is far outweighed by the long history of harm they have endured from inferior health care, including infamous episodes like the Tuskegee study. And it doesn’t remedy the way damaging stereotypes continue to influence aspects of medical practice today. “The reason to study this further is twofold,”
Dr. Kolodny said. “It’s easy to imagine the harm that could come to blacks in the future, and we need to know what went wrong with whites, and how they were left exposed” to overprescribing. The prescription opioid-related mortality rates of black and white Americans were relatively similar two decades ago, but researchers found that by 2010, the rate was two times higher for whites than for African-Americans.
Because African-Americans were less likely to receive those prescriptions, they were less likely to become addicted — though they were more likely to endure unnecessary and excruciating pain for illnesses like cancer.
THE DELIBERATE WRONGDOING EXPOSING DEA CORRUPTIONTHEIR INTIMIDATION OF WHOLESALERS
These tribulations are no different from what our forbearers experienced, Predatory Policingthat enforces Regulatory Racism.
Therefore, it is not a matter of what you’re doing right, it is about putting you in your place. A place of eternal servitude, despair, and the maintenance of generational subjectivity (we are but low-hanging fruit). There is absolutely no evidence of diversion not in Pronto, At Cost, Superior Drug Pharmacy, Lincourt Pharmacy what interpretation that corresponding responsibility act as a cop and results in withholding of medications without putting anything in writing.
FOR NOW, YOU ARE WITHIN
THE NORMS
ENDNOTES
1. War on Drugs – Timeline in America, Definition & Facts – HISTORY
2. https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/the-shocking-story-behind-nixons-declaration-of-a-war-on-drugs-on-this-day-in-1971-that-targeted-blacks-and-anti-war-activists-3/; The shocking story behind Nixon’s declaration of a ‘War on Drugs’ on this day in 1971 that targeted blacks and anti-war activists
4. IBID
