The seriousness of addiction to synthetic drugs such as heroin and cocaine could not long remain unknown to the heirs of the slave trade and the opium wars — international intelligence services and secret police organizations — and not attract their attention. These shadow services and organizations are distinguished by an insatiable need for money (the source of which cannot be traced) to finance armies, terrorist groups, coups d’état, and the opposition that are their mainstay in commerce. Involvement in the world drug trade and in fact domination over it is irrefutably proven for such organizations as the CIA, “Opus Dei” and the French secret service.
The relationship of the US government with the mafia and drugs can be traced, as is well known, until the beginning of World War II. Two sensational joint operations of the OSS (Office of Strategic Services) and the United States Naval Intelligence contributed to establishing contacts (through Luciano Lucky) with the Sicilian Mafia and (through Dai Li) with Tu Jue Shene, the drug gang selling drugs in Shanghai. Both ties have spread over the post-war period.
The involvement of legitimate institutions remains the same with some exceptions. In the late 1970s, the focus of emphasis on the focus of heroin on cocaine in American strong drug culture was to change. This shift was partly a logical consequence of the defeat of the Americans in the Vietnam War and the rejection of Southeast Asia. It soon intensified when the Reagan programs against drug terrorism and its support opened up new opportunities for covert operations.
Nevertheless, it is unlikely that this seriousness of addiction to cocaine or social pay for its epidemic could ever be foreseen. Perhaps no one ever wondered what the consequences were that the American public was hooked on cocaine. Perhaps the creation of even more effective and even more addictive crack cocaine, consumed through smoking, was unexpected. It is very likely that the crack phenomenon is an example of technology that has gone out of control of its creators. In the 1980s, cocaine acquired a form more dangerous than any of its previous victims and any of its detractors could have imagined.
This is a new and disturbing pattern of development of the “man-drug” relationship, a scheme that cannot be ignored. If today we are faced with a superactive, in the sense of addiction, form of cocaine, then where is the guarantee that tomorrow there will be no superactive form of heroin? In fact, such forms of heroin already exist. Fortunately, they are simply not as easy to produce as crack cocaine. In the narcotic underground, “ice” appeared, a form of methamphetamine that was strongly addicted through smoking. Others will appear in the future – more conducive to addiction, more destructive than all that are possible today. How, then, will the law and society respond to this phenomenon? It remains to hope that the answer will not be the hypocritical display of subjects prone to showing up as examples of misbehavior.
From a historical point of view, limiting the availability of addictive substances should be seen as a particularly perverted example of the Calvinistic thinking of the dominion system, in which a sinner should be punished in this world, turning it into an exploited, hapless consumer. And punishes him for addiction, robbing him, a criminal-governmental association, which produces these addictive substances. The image of this is worse than the image of a snake devouring itself – this is again the Dionysian image of a mother eating her children, the image of a house that has risen against itself.