Perhaps the biggest joke is that the War on Drugs is fought to reduce drug use. No doubt many people involved in the domestic enforcement side of the Drug War actually believe this, but the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand’s doing. The narcotics trade is an enormous source of money for the criminal gangs that control it, and guess what? The US intelligence community is one of the biggest criminal drug gangs in the world, and the global drug trade is a great way for it to raise money to do morally repugnant stuff it can’t get openly funded by Congress.

Feed 44:

• http://www.c4ss.org/
• http://www.youtube.com/user/c4ssvideos
• https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/c4ss-media/id872405202?mt=2
• http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/smash-walls-radio/c4ss-media?refid=stpr
• https://twitter.com/C4SSmedia

Bitcoin tips welcome:

• 1N1pF6fLKAGg4nH7XuqYQbKYXNxCnHBWLB

In questo modo, l’Fbi ha dimostrato una volta di più che la guerra alla droga non ha niente a che vedere con quello che sostengono i suoi propagandisti. Se la criminalizzazione della droga è un problema di pubblica sicurezza (lotta al crimine violento e alle bande di strada, eliminazione del rischio di overdose e intossicazione) la chiusura di Silk Road è uno degli atti più stupidi che i federali possano commettere. Silk Road rappresentava un mercato sicuro e anonimo in cui acquirenti e venditori potevano fare affari senza incorrere in quei rischi associati al commercio che avviene per strada. Il sistema che permetteva di valutare la reputazione del venditore significava che le droghe vendute su Silk Road erano molto più pulite e sicure delle loro controparti della strada.

Questo vale anche per tutti gli altri punti di vendita nel mirino della guerra alla droga. Hillary Clinton, con uno dei commenti forse più stupidi mai fatti da un essere umano, dice che la legalizzazione dei narcotici è una cattiva idea “perché ci sono troppi soldi in gioco”, riferendosi, immagino, al lucroso traffico di droga e ai cartelli che ci fanno sopra la guerra.

Ma se ci sono così tanti soldi, e i cartelli si fanno la guerra per controllare il traffico, è solo perché le droghe sono illegali. Questo è ciò che accade quando si criminalizza la roba che la gente vorrebbe acquistare: si dà vita ad un mercato nero con prezzi molto più alti, mercato per il cui controllo le bande si fanno la guerra. Il proibizionismo degli alcolici, ad esempio, è alla base della cultura dei gangster degli anni venti, cultura che è rimasta. Quando fu abolito, la criminalità organizzata semplicemente passò alla guerra per la conquista di altri mercati illegali. Più le attività consensuali e non violente vengono bandite, e più è grande la parte dell’economia che si trasforma in mercato nero per la conquista del quale le bande combattono.

Notizia interessante, si dice che i cartelli della droga messicani guadagnino meno da quando l’erba è stata legalizzata o decriminalizzata in alcuni stati degli Stati Uniti. Chissà perché.

La battuta più divertente è forse dire che questa guerra serve a ridurre l’uso delle droghe. Non dubito che molti di quelli che sono coinvolti nella guerra alla droga ci credano davvero, ma la mano sinistra non sa cosa fa la destra. Il traffico di droga è un’enorme fonte di ricchezza per le bande che lo controllano. Ma sono i servizi segreti americani ad essere una delle più grosse bande di narcotraffico al mondo. Per loro il traffico mondiale di droga rappresenta un modo egregio per raccogliere denaro, usato poi per fare quelle cose ripugnanti per le quali il Congresso non dà fondi. Sono passati vent’anni da quando il giornalista Gary Webb rivelò le collusioni dell’ufficio di gabinetto di Reagan con i cartelli della cocaina negli Stati Uniti, al fine di raccogliere fondi da destinare alle squadracce di destra, i Contras, in Nicaragua. Per queste rivelazioni, servizi segreti e stampa tradizionale esercitarono sul giornalista una violenza psicologica tale da portarlo al suicidio.

Ora dicono che gli Stati Uniti stanno “perdendo la guerra alla droga in Afganistan”. È ovvio: è una guerra pensata per essere persa. Nell’autunno del 2001 fu così facile rovesciare il regime talebano perché stava già cercando di eliminare la coltivazione dell’oppio, e con un certo successo. Questo non stava bene alla popolazione afgana, che tradizionalmente guadagna coltivando il papavero. C’era però l’Alleanza del Nord, trasformata dagli Stati Uniti nel governo nazionale afgano, che era molto favorevole alla coltivazione del papavero nei suoi territori. Quando il regime talebano fu rovesciato, la coltivazione del papavero e la produzione di eroina ripresero ai livelli di prima. Incaricare gli Stati Uniti della “guerra alla droga in Afganistan” è come chiedere ad Al Capone di applicare le leggi proibizioniste.

Se si vuole davvero “vincere” la guerra alla droga bisogna eliminarla. E chi tra le forze dell’ordine americane vuole eliminare questa fonte di miliardi sotto forma di aiuti federali ed equipaggiamenti militari, squadre Swat militarizzate, un sistema di sorveglianza senza precedenti e il potere di confiscare i beni degli accusati? Questa è una guerra pensata per durare all’infinito, come la cosiddetta guerra al terrorismo.

Lo stato incentiva sempre il panico morale e le “guerre” contro questo o quello per tenerci nella paura e costringerci a cedere il potere sulla nostra vita. Non credete a queste bugie.

Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

Rumors, audios, and videos were widely shared though WhatsApp and Facebook while the executions happened, showing what was happening on the outskirts of Belem. There was an unofficial curfew in several places on the periphery, given the expectation that there would be a violent retaliation to the death of the policeman and that the death squads that was wreaking havoc (presumably made up of military policemen) did not intend to take any prisoners. This group supposedly was covered by the official Rotam operation and they intended to kill any suspects.

It is important to highlight here that the deaths did not occur due to gunfights or resisting arrest. They were outright murders. The state government itself recognizes in an official statement that they were homicides, even though it does not conclude that the Military Police took part in them. Luiz Fernandes, Secretary of Public Security of Para, also admits that investigators are working on the hypothesis that death squads were acting there.

However, the sequence of events cannot be understood unless we comprehend their context: The local drug war dynamics.

In Belem, 66% of the population live in irregular buildings, favelas (slums) or the like, which, first, sprouted up near the center of the city (such as neighborhoods Guama, Jurunas, and Terra Firme — the last one being the stage of the murders) and, more recently, in the suburbs. They are very dense areas, with very little space between houses, allowing for the settlement of a large number of migrants from the state’s countryside and from the neighboring state Maranhao.

These areas, however, not unlike many others in Brazil, are marked by precarious access to basic utilities, like sewage disposal, and poor protection of the dwellers’ property rights (despite expropriations and evictions being uncommon in Belem). Moreover, as a result of drug prohibition, they end up under the rule of violent dealers.

Some time ago, it became known that the drug warlords were financing the militias. According to a report from the beginning of the year about the actions of militias in Guama and Terra Firme, these groups were formed by criminals and policemen (generally who are no longer formally affiliated with the Police) for the protection of drug dealers against other dealers and the police. They also regularly extort the local population. According to a Terra Firme dweller, who was quoted on the above report:

They ask people for money and kill whoever gets in their way. It is criminals killing criminals, but there are several honest citizens who are victims as well. When they are bothered by someone, they create a situation for a crime to happen.

The group which acts in the Guama neighborhood, made up mainly by retired police officers, is supposedly involved in the murder of young people, those “who walk around the streets at the wrong time, thieves and drug users,” as a local put it. Out of fear, silence prevails.

The story also tells that the police usually work on the hypothesis that these are hired gunmen, who are paid to enforce debts or murder the borrowers, denying the existence of militias and death squads that are financed by stolen money from the local populations. The events of the 4th seem to have changed that perception, since the government itself has admitted that death squads have been involved.

The general fear after the death of Corporal Figueiredo illustrates how real police, militia, and drug violence is in these areas. This fear has, for the first time, reached the richer areas of Belem, areas unfamiliar with the day to day uneasiness that the poor suffer through. Like never before, the night of November 4th made people, from very different social backgrounds, share the same fear.

Therefore, the murders were not a simple “isolated case,” but a perennial reality for the poor people of Belem, many of whom know or are related to someone who was murdered, were evicted from their homes by drug dealers, or just generally avoid staying out late (always!), afraid of what might happen to them.

These people, who suffer in every imaginable way, are denied the most basic and elementary way to reduce violent crime in Brazil: the end of the war on drugs. There is no reason, at all, that Brazilian cities should top the rankings for “most murders” in the world besides the failure of prohibition. Many cities are even more dangerous than Belem, but the causes of violence are similar. Most murders in Belem and elsewhere are related to drug feuds.

One of the main libertarian causes is the end of this abhorrent policy that takes away individual rights, puts behind bars many thousands of peaceful people and kills more than any substance addiction.

People who live in poor areas (and in other places, naturally) are sold the idea that only more repression will be able to solve the problem of public security. The drug user is the scapegoat and their frequent summary executions by the police are often welcomed.

Due legal process seems to be a burden to the police in Brazil, and its very existence seems to provide them with an even broader license to kill. We lose sight of the deep connections between the police, drug dealers and militias. The poor are the ones most exposed to the resulting police state, and the naive faith in the police as a guardian of order can only worsen their condition.

Belem shows vividly the monstrosity that the war on drugs is and its consequences to the urban dynamics in poor areas, marked by violence everywhere.

The main cause of all these deaths is not the lack of police repression or more executions, but the state itself and its criminalizing impetus, that enriches warlords and makes peripheral communities ever more vulnerable.

Translated by Erick Vasconcelos.

In so doing the FBI demonstrated, once again, that the War on Drugs has nothing to do with anything its propagandists claim it’s about. If drug criminalization is a public safety issue — about fighting violent crime and gangs, or preventing overdoses and poisoning — shutting down Silk Road is one of the dumbest things the feds can do. Silk Road was a secure, anonymous marketplace in which buyers and sellers could do business without the risk of violence associated with street trade. And the seller reputational system meant that drugs sold on Silk Road were far purer and safer than their street counterparts.

This is true of all the other selling points for the Drug War. Hillary Clinton, in possibly one of the stupidest remarks ever uttered by a human being, says legalizing narcotics is a bad idea “because there’s too much money in it” — referring, presumably, to the lucrative drug trade and the cartels fighting over it.

But there’s so much money in it, and the cartels fight to control it, only because it’s illegal. That’s what happens when you criminalize stuff people want to buy: You create black markets with much higher prices, which organized crime gangs fight to control. Alcohol prohibition created the gangster culture of the 1920s. It’s been with us ever since. When Prohibition was repealed, organized crime just shifted to fighting over other illegal markets. The more consensual, non-violent activities are made illegal, the larger the portion of the economy that’s turned into black markets for gangs to fight over.

In related news, the Mexican drug cartels are reportedly making less money since the legalization or decriminalization of pot in several American states. I wonder why.

Perhaps the biggest joke is that the War on Drugs is fought to reduce drug use. No doubt many people involved in the domestic enforcement side of the Drug War actually believe this, but the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand’s doing. The narcotics trade is an enormous source of money for the criminal gangs that control it, and guess what? The US intelligence community is one of the biggest criminal drug gangs in the world, and the global drug trade is a great way for it to raise money to do morally repugnant stuff it can’t get openly funded by Congress. It’s been twenty years since journalist Gary Webb revealed the Reagan cabinet’s collusion with drug cartels in marketing cocaine inside the United States, to raise money for the right-wing Contra death squads in Nicaragua — a revelation he was gaslighted and driven to suicide for by the US intelligence community and mainstream press.

Now we hear that the US is “losing the drug war in Afghanistan.” Well, obviously — it’s a war that’s designed to be lost. The Taliban were so easy to overthrown in the fall of 2001 because they really did try to stamp out opium poppy cultivation, and with a fair degree of success. This didn’t sit well with the Afghan populace, which traditionally makes a lot of money growing poppies. But the Northern Alliance — which the United States turned into the national government of Afghanistan — was quite friendly to poppy cultivation in its territory. When the Taliban was overthrown, poppy and heroin cultivation resumed normal levels. Putting the US in charge of a “war on drugs in Afghanistan” is like putting Al Capone in charge of alcohol prohibition.

Besides, actually “winning” the drug war would mean ending it. And who in US domestic law enforcement wants to cut off the source of billions in federal aid and military equipment, militarized SWAT teams and unprecedented surveillance and civil forfeiture powers? This is a war meant to go on forever, just like the so-called War on Terror.

The state always encourages moral panic and “wars” on one thing or another in order to keep us afraid, so we’ll give it more power over our lives. Don’t believe its lies.

Translations of this article:

• Spanish, “Sorpresa: La guerra contra las drogas no tiene nada que ver con las drogas“
• Italian, Sorpresa: La Guerra alla Droga non Riguarda le Droghe.

The distinctive feature of this place becomes the fact that crack users live there. And their profile is well known: the poor, the black, the favela dwellers. However, the narrative created by the label “Cracolandia” is not that those are people in need, that they’re surrounded by evil incentives, or that they’re pawns in the crossfire between the Military Police and the drug dealers — the narrative says only that they are people who should be eliminated.

The name “Cracolandia” also excludes from the collective thinking the fact that, as Hart says, people who go to these places are, essentially, normal. Sure, they’re often dependent on drugs (and for that we should be compassionate towards them rather than despise them), but their actions, wishes and relationships are essentially common, very little out of the ordinary.

Politics can be described from several angles, but it seems useful to think about it as a clash of discourses. And discourses are not only advertising formalities of a given mode of thought. They aren’t the way my thought arranges itself in this article to get you to understand what I’m saying. Discourses, as Michel Foucault claims, are institutionalized patterns of knowledge; they’re always related to historically established modes of thinking about the world.

When we talk about Cracolandia, we frame one aspect of reality and elect the opposing discourse. We reproduce and stigmatize people who are in these spaces, for one reason or the other. We cease to deal with individuals and start thinking in terms of power, in terms of what the government should do with people who are in Cracolandia, as if there was anything particularly different between people who are there and the extremely poor in other places. Or, as Hart says, as if crack were somehow different from cocaine, but not the same drug branded for the poor.

Cracolandia, then, is just the natural end result of a drug war whose discourse intends to label every drug user as an “addict” or a “junkie” and justify their marginalization. When society notices that its attempt actually works in creating marginalized people, everyone throws their hands in the air horrified and ask themselves, “What went wrong?” as if it wasn’t predictable.

The discourse on crack is specifically designed to create a caste of undesired people, of individuals who shouldn’t be subjected to rational political discussion. Thus, it’s a discourse to rationalize the use of force.

This week, classical liberal and libertarian groups in Brazil started to share the name of candidate Paulo Batista for the Sao Paulo State Assembly. Billed as the liberal alternative for the state, one of Batista’s main proposals is a “zero tolerance” policy against both crack consumers and crack dealers.

Many classical liberals and libertarians defended the candidate, stating that, outside this small deviation of libertarian principles, he’s a very good alternative in our political scenario.

It’s a shame political positions are not all weighed equally, and that to defend the employment of extreme violence and incarceration of certain people as well as the cleansing of specific locations in the city is a despicable idea, it doesn’t matter if you really want taxes on building materials to be lower.

Paulo Batista and the libertarians who dismiss concerns about his ideas on crack cocaine think they’re being effective opposition, without utopia or daydreaming. They’re, however, only parroting the discourse of power.

La domanda è: qual è la posizione dell’Anvisa, l’equivalente brasiliano dell’istituto superiore di sanità, in materia? Come giustifica il divieto di servirsi della cannabis per usi terapeutici?

Il ricercatore André Kiepper ha esposto alcuni dubbi all’Anvisa, e ha ottenuto risposte che, provenendo dal vice coordinatore dell’ufficio che si occupa di sostanze soggette a controllo, sono a dir poco peculiari.

“Perché non posso coltivare la cannabis esclusivamente per le necessità di mia figlia e di altri famigliari?” ha chiesto. La risposta è stata che “la cannabis sativa L. è classificata nell’elenco E (elenco di piante proibite che possono generare effetti inebrianti e/o sostanze psicoattive così come descritto nell’annesso I dell’Ordine Ministeriale del Ministero della Salute nº 344 del 1998). Dunque la coltivazione è vietata in tutto il territorio nazionale.”

Questo significa che, se coltivi la marijuana per uso medico, la tua terra può essere espropriata senza indennità, visto che la pena prevista dalla costituzione per la coltivazione di piante contenenti sostanze psicoattive è proprio quella. La risposta fornita da Anvisa fa capire i seri rischi in cui incorre nel proprio paese chi fa disobbedienza civile piantando erbe che aiutano un bambino malato. Alleviare la sofferenza di un bambino è proibito.

Il ricercatore ha poi chiesto di sapere se l’Anvisa ha il potere di autorizzare la coltivazione e la raccolta delle specie vegetali elencate nel cosiddetto Elenco E. L’ente ha risposto dicendo: “Ogni obiettivo curativo deve essere provato all’Anvisa con studi sulla sicurezza e l’efficacia sia pre-clinici che clinici, e i risultati devono essere illustrati in un dossier da allegare alla richiesta di registrazione, richiesta che le aziende farmaceutiche interessate devono inviare all’Anvisa.”

Notate i salti mortali che la gente deve fare per poter accedere alla marijuana per uso curativo. Katiele, andando contro lo stato, ha acquistato il cannabidiolo dall’estero, con risultati promettenti per la salute di sua figlia.

Da notare anche il fatto che l’autorizzazione a coltivare l’erba dipende dal fatto che un’azienda farmaceutica presenti una richiesta. L’Anvisa ha poi aggiunto che “l’uso di queste sostanze deve essere limitato a strutture mediche o scientifiche,” cosa che “impedisce la coltivazione individuale”. Solo le aziende possono chiedere l’autorizzazione a coltivare l’erba! I pazienti dipendono dalla loro volontà!

Di fronte a queste restrizioni, Kiepper ha chiesto l’autorizzazione all’importazione. La risposta disumana dell’Anvisa fa cadere le braccia: “La informiamo che non abbiamo una norma per quel genere di procedura.”

Kiepper ha insistito e ha chiesto perché una norma non esiste. L’Anvisa: “Finora, nessuna compagnia ha fatto richiesta formale per registrare alcun medicinale a base di sostanze derivate dalla cannabis.” Chi vuole curarsi con la marijuana deve aspettare che una compagnia faccia richiesta così che si faccia una norma al riguardo.

C’è la possibilità di richiedere un’esenzione per l’uso personale, ma non è di grande aiuto per i pazienti: “Un’autorizzazione eccezionale all’importazione di medicinali controllati a base di sostanze proibite, non registrati nel paese, può essere concessa dietro richiesta caso per caso, in quanto si tratta di un’esenzione dovuta alla mancanza di alternative terapeutiche nel territorio nazionale. … [È] obbligatorio ripetere gli accertamenti periodicamente così da adeguarsi a possibili cambiamenti nella prescrizione o nella forma dei trattamenti che influiscono sulle quantità precedentemente autorizzate.” Questa risposta serve a negare la possibilità di un rinnovo annuale, o di un registro che autorizzi l’acquisto dei medicinali all’estero.

E non esiste una norma che autorizzi un’organizzazione non-profit ad importare cannabidiolo: “Ogni autorizzazione concessa è specifica per ogni singolo prodotto (nome commerciale, se esiste, presentazione, formula, eccetera) e per ogni singolo produttore, paziente ed esportatore, e non autorizza l’importazione di altri prodotti.”

Alla domanda se “Anvisa intendesse facilitare il processo per evitare la morte inutile di altri bambini,” l’ente ha risposto dicendo di non avere notizie riguardo eventuali cambi di procedura per l’importazione, ma ha assicurato che “Anvisa sta facendo ogni sforzo per promuovere un dibattito, a livello nazionale e internazionale, relativo all’importazione di cannabidiolo, così da garantire la corretta assistenza medica; senza dimenticare, però, la necessità di evitare un uso improprio, ricreativo di qualunque sostanza o pianta.”

Mentre i burocrati dibattevano sulla questione, Gustavo Guedes, un anno e quattro mesi, sofferente della sindrome di Dravet, in attesa che Anvisa concedesse l’uso del cannabidiolo, è morto.

Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

Anthony Papa discusses the stories of drug war prisoners.

Timothy Karr discusses crony capitalists in Congress.

Kevin Carson discusses so called “free trade” agreements.

Jesse Walker discusses why the U.S. should stay out of Iraq.

Andrew Levine discusses imperial stupidity.

Sheldon Richman discusses the effects of imperialism in the Middle East.

Justin Raimondo discusses how the U.S. government is intervening again in Iraq.

Patrick Cockburn discusses how U.S. attacks will hurt but not defeat jihadists.

The ninth part of George H. Smith’s series on Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine.

Eric Alterman discusses the revisionism of neocons on Iraq.

Robert Parry discusses the surge in Iraq.

Seumas Milne discusses how more U.S. bombs and drones will only add to Iraq’s horror.

Shireen T. Hunter discusses the real culprits in Iraq.

Dahlia S. Wasfi discusses trusting Iraqis with Iraq.

Rob Urie discusses Iraq and the persistence of American hegemony.

Lawrence Davidson discusses the mess in Iraq.

David Swanson discusses the Democratic Party push to bomb Iraq again.

Pepe Escobar discusses the jihadists in Iraq.

Renee Parsons discusses the current situation in Iraq.

John Eskow discusses sending boots to Iraq.

Cory Massimino discusses why Hilary Clinton is a terrorist.

Ariel Dorfman discusses a tale of torture.

Missy Comley Beattie discusses Iraq.

David Gordon reviews Lew Rockwell’s new book on anarcho-capitalism. I am not an ancap, but I find the review interesting.

Eric Margolis discusses the coming American defeat in Iraq.

Ronald Bailey reviews Nicholas Wade’s, A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race, and Human History.

Nebojsa Malic discusses a new forum designed to stop a new Cold War.

Alexander Alekhine defeats K. Iskaov.

Alexander Alekhine beats Fred Dewhirst Yates.

One could ask what’s Anvisa — Brazil’s equivalent to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration — position on the matter. How do they justify their ban on the medical use of cannabis?

Researcher André Kiepper forwarded a few doubts to Anvisa and got replies that were, at the very least, peculiar from the substitute coordinator of controlled substances.

He asked, “Why am I not allowed to cultivate cannabis exclusively for my daughter’s and other families’ medical necessities?” The answer was that, “Cannabis sativa L. is listed under List E (List of proscribed plants that can originate intoxicating and/or psychotropic substances in Annex I from the Ministerial Order of the Ministry of Health no. 344 from 1998. Thus, it is forbidden to cultivate it in national territory.”

That means that, if you want to plant marijuana for medical use, your land may be expropriated without compensation, since the constitutional penalty for planting psychotropics is just that. Anvisa’s answer just shows the serious risks that a civil disobedient undergoes when planting weed to help sick children in this country. Minimizing children’s suffering is forbidden.

It was also asked whether Anvisa even had powers to authorize or not the planting, growing and harvesting of the vegetables listed under so-called List E. The reply was, “Every medical purpose should be proved to Anvisa through pre-clinical and clinical security and effectiveness studies, described in dossiers for the recording of medicines which should be filed to Anvisa by pharmaceutical companies interested in registering and selling them.”

Notice the bureaucratic hoops people would have to jump through to get their medical marijuana. Against the state, Katiele brought CBD in from other countries, with promising results to her daughter’s health.

You should also notice that authorization for growing weed depends on a pharmaceutical company filing for a license. Anvisa replies also that “the use of these substances should be restricted to medical or scientific facilities,” what should “prevent the cultivation by individuals.” Only corporations can ask for authorization to grow weed! Users are bound by their willingness!

Faced with this restriction, Kiepper asked how to get authorization for importation. Anvisa’s dehumanized reply is flabbergasting: “We inform you that we do not have a norm for that sort of procedure.”

Kiepper pressed the point and asked why they lack such norm. Anvisa then responds: “Up until this moment, no company has filed for registry of any medicine based on substances derived from Cannabis.” So, people who need to use medical marijuana have to wait for corporations to act so that there’s any regulation regarding it.

There is, however, a possibility to request an exemption for personal use, but it isn’t supposed to help patients out: “The exceptional authorization for the importation of controlled drugs without registration in the country and based on proscribed (prohibited) substances should be solicited in a case by case basis, for it is an exemption granted for the lack of therapeutic alternatives in the country. . . . [I]t is imperative that periodical reassessments be done to follow eventual changes in the prescription/forms of treatment that impact upon quantities previously authorized.” This answer was issued to deny the possibility of a yearly renewal or a registry to authorize the buying of medicine abroad.

There is also no rule to authorize the importation of CDB by a non-profit organization and “each authorization issued is specific to a single product (commercial name, if it has one, presentation, formula, etc.) and to a single manufacturer, patient and exporter, not authorizing the importation of any other product.”

Asked whether “Anvisa intended to facilitate the process to avoid the unnecessary death of children,” the agency informed they had no information about changes in procedures for importation, but they guarantee that “every effort and debate related to the importation containing Cannabidiol is being conducted by Anvisa, both in a national as well as in an international level, so that the right to health care is guaranteed, not forgetting, however, to continue to avoid the risk of improper, abusive and recreational use of any substance or plant.”

While bureaucrats debated, 1 year and 4 months old Gustavo Guedes, who suffered from Dravet Syndrome and waited for the liberation of CDB by Anvisa, died.

Translated into English by Erick Vasconcelos.

Translations for this article:

• Italian, Lo Stato Balia Uccide.

During this harrowing tale, certainly one of the most compelling drug stories in modern memory, I could not help but wonder: What if the law had protected Maureen from this? I decided to re-imagine Maureen’s experience if she had been so lucky as to be watched over by the benevolent drug laws of our country.

As Maureen enters the dingy basement of a certainly armed individual she has had no previous contact with, she is filled with a thankful spirit that she could not perform her transaction in a more safe and open environment. If that were possible, she thinks to herself, people would most likely overdose daily in the streets from the toxic chemical she wishes to ingest. Fortunately for Maureen, the dealer she’s been sent to turns out to be an undercover cop assigned to bust craven drug users such as herself. “Get your hands in the air, perp,” Officer Friendly says graciously. Maureen complies fully with the officer’s commands and is dragged by her hair from the basement apartment into the back seat of the officer’s unmarked police vehicle.

Maureen expects to be given a slap on the wrist, but is pleasantly surprised when she’s questioned, berated and strip searched by Officer Friendly in a cold, bleak holding cell. After days of uncertainty locked inside the cage meant to protect us from criminal miscreants like her, she’s informed of the layout of her trial. “This judge has no tolerance for drug users, Maureen,” says the warm and inviting prosecutor. “Nor do I, for that matter.” Maureen is informed she has two options: Save the state time and money by foregoing her right to due process and get a light sentence of one year or go to trial and be at the mercy of a judge and jury’s decision. Maureen, still possessing some manner of dignity after this experience, takes the lenient bargain offered by the prosecutor.

As Maureen is transferred to her home for the next year, she wonders what manner of crime the woman placed next to her on the bus committed, as she is fondled and violated in a manner she could easily resist in any other environment. Suddenly it dawns on her that she deserves this. The next year of her life will be well-spent staring at the walls, the ceiling and the bars of her spacious 8×10 cell. She knows this was how it had to be, that in order to wipe out this killer disease in society, she ought to be subjected to total control and humiliation, her every day survival and eventual release being the only thing on her mind. She ponders the horror of a society which allows women like her to freely roam their hotel rooms in a slightly uncomfortable buzzed state. Officer Friendly has done her and all of a society a favor by kidnapping her, taking her away from her loved ones and dooming her to endless hours of violence and sexual assault. When she gets out, she says to herself, she can forget about this all with a stiff drink.

Among the medications seized were estrogen, insulin, tramadol and many other drugs with no recreational value. These substances were stolen by the FDA under the guise of consumer protection. “Consumers have little or no legal recourse if they experience a reaction to the unregulated medication or if they receive no therapeutic benefit at all. In addition to health risks, these pharmacies pose other risks to consumers, including credit card fraud, identity theft or computer viruses,” said one FDA parrot. No word on why they continue to impose these risks on consumers through the strict regulation of these chemical compounds rather than opening them up to the stabilizing forces of the market.

Laid bare, the actions of this federal gang are wholly unsympathetic. After the seizure, the online pharmacies were reported to internet providers and domain registrars, effectively shutting down the consumer’s ability to obtain their medical supplies. These people are not the junkies the FDA so easily demonizes. These are people medically restricted by government decrees. These are people priced out of the official prescription drug market. These are the disempowered, but the FDA has unknowingly empowered them through their theft.

I have a question for the FDA: How long do you think this can last? How sustainable is your policy of controlling what we put in our bodies? Surely at this point, the DEA has learned that online drug markets are a Hydra. Cut off one head and two shall appear. How long until you give up the vain attempt of managing our lives? It is becoming, everyday, more and more impossible.

By swiping the medication of thousands, the FDA has in fact acted in the best interest of those who have already moved to a world free of control. The online pharmacies which dealt in illegal prescription drugs have made their home on the clear web. To the credit of our federal foes, these pharmacies have remained under their influence and will indeed become an extinct species soon enough. But those seeking their medication will remain, and will be left with two options: to acquiesce to your will or to join those of us who have descended into the Darkweb.

The undeniable, unpreventable fact our would-be central planners must face is this: There will be markets. Over the past four years, the online narcotics trade has proven this time and again. Through takedowns and arrests of vendors and market kingpins, the federal government has been unable to slow the traffic of this burgeoning agora and not a second goes by that any heroin user cannot within a matter of minutes purchase her own stash in almost any personal quantity she desires.

By pushing online pharmacies off the clear web, they empower young entrepreneurs with new opportunities. These victims of yours, they will receive their medication again, and they will have the black market to thank for it. They will contribute to the revolution which is increasingly making you irrelevant. We have the Food and Drug Administration to thank for this.

These are our bodies. These are our minds. You can no longer control them. We are taking them back and there is no amount of guns or legislation which can stop this. Your best move in this waning game of chess is to back down, to cease driving more and more people to a world you cannot hope to control or participate in.