(Are) The United Nations on Drugs



(Are) The United Nations on Drugs.


 United Nations have exerted a unique element of drug control globally since 1909. So what has that ‘control’ really achieved over  that century+

In an extension to the World Drug Report (chapter 2) a paper entitled ‘A CENTURY OF INTERNATIONAL DRUG CONTROL’ the opening statement read…..



“For those who doubt the effectiveness of drug control, consider this. In 1906, 25 million people were using opium in the world (1.5% of the world population) compared with 16.5 opiate users today (0.25% of the world population). In 1906/07, the world produced around 41,000 tons of opium – five times the global level of illicit opium production in 2008. While opium used to be produced in a huge belt, stretching from China to Indochina, Burma, India, Persia, Turkey and the Balkan countries, the illegal production of opium is now concentrated in Afghanistan (92%)”


The illegal production of opium is indeed concentrated in Afghanistan a country and no longer overseen by the Taliban who regulated and exerted extreme measures to ensure quality control and a consistency in supply. Instead it is now regulated by the US of A.  No more quality control, no reduction in supply, other than a complete drought during take over which resulted in a sharp spike in drug related deaths during 2008-9, and obviously no respect for HR principles in that not one ounce of sense passed over under tupe law to ensure consistency.


Oh yeah, they were meant to be ending the war on drugs silly me?


Obviously the new contract / agenda, (not available via Freedom Of Information Act for some unknown reason) had a radical ‘hidden’ agenda,’Operation Blatantly Obvious’ based loosely on the 1996 Nicaraguan agenda and legislation but without the ‘Contra’versial partnership for a more complex service provision that covers all angles.  As it stands nothing changed. It still rages on ‘under new management’


In 1906, the ‘huge’ belt that is mentioned including China, who incidentally were responsible for the first anti-opium edict. Emperor Yung Ching, imposed severe punishment on any sellers or opium business traders back in 1729. Prohibition proving itself a dismal failure even back then it would seem. Yes China, were, unwillingly, subcontracted to India due to the increased demand for opium. Which incidentally, or coincidently, increased significantly when the British occupied India, isn’t history such a wonderful thing?

Quote from the ‘Opium Monopoly’ – ‘’China was powerless to protect herself from this menace, either by protests or prohibition. And as more and more of the drug was smuggled in, and more and more of the people became victims of the habit, the Chinese finally had a tea-party, very much like our Boston Tea Party, but less successful in outcome. In 1839, in spite of the fact that opium smoking is an easy habit to acquire and had been extensively encouraged, the British traders found themselves with 20,000 chests of unsold opium on their store-ships, just below Canton. The Chinese had repeatedly appealed to the British Government to stop these imports, but the British Government had turned a persistently deaf ear. Therefore the Emperor determined to deal with the matter on his own account. He sent a powerful official named Lin to attend to it, and Lin had a sort of Boston Tea Party, as we have said, and destroyed some twenty thousand chests of opium in a very drastic way. Mr. H. Wells Williams describes it thus: “The opium was destroyed in the most thorough manner, by mixing it in parcels Of 200 chests, in trenches, with lime and salt water, and then drawing off the contents into an adjacent creek at low tide.”


This off course pissed our British contingent off and again, coincidently,  as with all envoys in this kind of interaction, poor Lin was found two weeks later propped up against a tree with his favourite book and a  gunshot to the back of the head,  8cal, in his hand was a 9mm. The obvious analysis was suicide, so, so,  sad.  Or was it a 1ml in his hand and over  1gal of opiates in his system, I forget……

…..and digress…..

Anyway this was to be the start of the biggest Opium war to date, led by, and indeed won by our proud little firm of international dealers, sorry, British merchant bank, er sorry,  sailors  who steamed up the Yangtse, demanding the Chinese give them their gear back and compensation for the damaged goods. At the same time opening up the shipping ports to continue trading as per usual. God save the Queen?



India at this point just kicked back and ensured production was consistent and steady to meet demands, to supply, to meet demands.


Then, 15 years later,  as sales and demand again grew, more outlets were needed so our good old sales people put in the proverbial boot , (no pun intended) resulting in a second war, smothered under religion….”Great Britain, the first Christian power, really waged this war against the pagan monarch who had only endeavoured to put down a vice harmful to his people. The war was looked upon in this light by the Chinese; it will always be so looked upon by the candid historian, and known as the Opium War.” (Middle Kingdom)

In 1917, China was practically free from the native-grown drug, and foreign importation had practically ended. The final years of native-grown poppy indulgence was enjoyed only be upper classes while the lower working classes were subject to sever punishment.

So back to the initial statement in the original topic. Restriction to India of the restriction of opium growth was a natural occurrence, and restriction in production and sales was because the Chinese were no longer needed to smuggle or market the substance. The ports along the Yangtse were now operating under International law and manned by concessions in each port of  German, Austrian, British, French, Russian, mainly but not exclusively.  The United Nations were still an unfertilized egg waiting for some wanker to spawn them with a one off, lucky? shot.


My last edition to this prequel to the actual birth and report to follow is quite basic and, in my opinion blatantly obvious.  The declaration that there are far less opioid uses globally, do we really need to put our answers on a postcard here? I personally, am going to go out on a limb here and take a wild guess that it could have something to do with the elements of control, or numerous different attempts at control,  exerted over the last 110 years, by enforcers who feel the need to control in the first place. Yep, think I’m safe in saying the numbers are decreasing because….

WE ARE DYING OUT HERE?….Just saying…….But hey I could be wrong?




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s