3 ms·
The propaganda was not particularly effective while aimed at children since its primary vehicle was tying opposition of drug use as a way to signal and support
by wfo 11y ago
The propaganda was not particularly effective while aimed at children since its primary vehicle was tying opposition of drug use as a way to signal and support racism which was a particular societal trait the children had not yet learned. Opposition of drug use was a way to express racism without actually expressing it once it became taboo following the civil rights era.
The racism strategy was a much more powerful and effective tool for the older generation. There has been an attempt to continue to artificially associate drugs with other 'bad things' (terrorism, for example) now that associating something with black people isn't a guaranteed way to make people hate it, but success has been limited.
- DanBC 11y agoThe illegality of drugs means that criminal organisations use the manufacture and supply of drugs as one way to make money. Terrorist organisations need to smuggle things into and out of their target country (weapons, money, people) and so they have expertise that they can use to smuggle drugs. This link between terrorist groups and drugs is not new. Even groups who are strongly anti-drugs end up having connections to drug dealing groups. The Provisional IRA was anti-drug, the Real IRA is so anti-drug that it's joined up with anti drug vigilantes, but there are links as far back as 1990 between pIRA and FARC and Columbian drug money. To try to deny the links between terrorist groups and drug smuggling is weird in the face of so much evidence. Drugs were used as payment for the Madrid bombings.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- EdHominem 11y agoThere's no intentional link usually. It's just the best illegal source of income. If it dried up they'd be smuggling blood diamonds, etc. Terrorism is a gateway crime. :D
- ufmace 11y agoThis reminds me of an article I read where somebody recommended abolishing the $100 note, as it was too associated with crime, and it would inconvenience criminals to have to carry bigger bundles of $20s. I wonder if/how often criminal organizations use drugs as a substitute for money for being easier to transport, verify, etc. I wonder how much that would increase if they did abolish the $100.
- DanBC 11y agoIt might help, but drug dealers are pretty resourceful. England has seen people using Fixed Odds Betting machines to launder money. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/08/gambling-machines-drug-money-laundering-bookies http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/08/gambling-mach... > James, 24, looks like just another lost soul in the high street, shuttling between the six betting shops in an east coast seaside town. It's a weekday morning and if you catch up with him inside a bookmaker, you'll find him peering intently into the green glowing screen of an electronic gambling machine – feeding in £200, "a score at a time". > But this is not a young gambler blowing his meagre wages. James is a drug dealer and his interest in the bookmakers – and the fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs) in each shop – is all about laundering money. "That's what turns dirty money clean," he says. Dealers feed their drug money through the machines, losing a little and then cashing out with the vast majority of their stake, James says. They can then collect a printed ticket showing they have gambled that day – meaning that if stopped by police, they can answer questions about why an apparently unemployed young man carries hundreds of pounds in rolled-up cash. > Earlier this month the Gambling Commission, the industry regulator, fined Coral bookmakers £90,000 in profits it made from one drug dealer who had laundered almost £1m in its shops. I don't think the gamblers care. It's unlikely he was feeding £50 notes into the machines, but £20s and £10s.