How can I buy cocaine online in Marrakech

__________________________

📍 Verified store!

📍 Guarantees! Quality! Reviews!

__________________________

▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼

▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲

How can I buy cocaine online in Marrakech

Your current browser isn't compatible with SoundCloud. Please download one of our supported browsers. Need help? Chrome Firefox Safari Edge. Something went wrong Is your network connection unstable or browser outdated? I need help.

Buy Cocaine Products Online in Morocco

How can I buy cocaine online in Marrakech

Most drug policy specialists have reached the conclusion that the current approach to reducing drug use is a failure. Based on the idea that policy failure might result in governmental learning this article assesses the role of misinformation in impeding change in U. It argues that state officials have applied a selective release of information in order to frame drug policy as a success. Thus, narrow-scoped tactical achievements hide broader strategic and tactical failures, which blocks governmental learning and change in the U. In addition, this article makes an empirical contribution to the debate of whether or not President Obama has promoted a significant change in national security policy in general, and in the war on drugs in particular, by presenting evidence that the Democrat administration is still prioritising law enforcement and supply reduction to reduce drug use. Four decades later, the Global Commission on Drug Policy GCDP, published a report evaluating the war on drugs and its effect on drug use in the world. In addition, U. Presidents Carter and Clinton openly recognised the failure of the war on drugs 1. As Thomas Birkland , p. Facing this new data, policy-makers may learn with it and eliminate, adjust or replace a defective measure. Hence, policy failure might result in learning and change 2. Notwithstanding, as long as a policy fails to attain the desired results, the potential for learning and the need for change will always be present, making it necessary to explain why learning and change are not happening. As Birkland , p. However, even if political actors learn and change their beliefs on a failed policy, it will not necessarily result in policy change Knopf, , p. For that to happen, it is necessary that policy-makers successfully institutionalise learning into organisational procedures—a process that Levy , p. As Levy , p. It wishes to make an empirical contribution to the understanding of why and how failure is not resulting in a debate in Washington to redesign or replace the current defective approach to control drug use. The former refers to the final goal of a policy, and the means to achieve it. The latter refers to the intermediary goals and means of a policy, which in the long run should result in the achievement of the strategic goal 3. Still, the U. Government remains strongly attached to these methods. Anything under the opening of a public debate with clearly identified alternatives would not qualify as learning. In the first place, one could argue that U. However, the fact that the U. Department of Justice states in its reports that overall drug consumption and availability are rising in the Country suggests that drug agencies are aware of the shortcomings of the war on drugs, and deliberately chose to frame it as an overall success in official documents NDIC, However, as Duane C. McBride et al. However, the fact that no sitting politician in Washington defends the termination of the war on drugs Scherlen, , p. Furthermore, it demonstrates that there is not even a debate in the U. These facts suggest that official institutions are not carrying out substantial research on the harms of prohibition and the possible effects of alternative approaches. As a matter of fact, not only regarding the war on drugs, little research has been carried out to explain why policies tend to be hard to terminate, independently of success or failure Geva-May, , p. However, his article is short; it covers a wide range of factors that make drug policy change difficult, but it does not give much detail on them. Due to such constrictions, when Scherlen , p. Hence, his article ignores the fact that some degree of tactical success has been achieved in the efforts to reduce drug supplies. In other words, the characterisation of the war on drugs as an absolute failure ignores the tactical achievements that officials have used as evidence to support the argument that the war on drugs is a success and should continue. This paper seeks to explore this point. There is no doubt about the importance of research in this area: first, it is an empirical contribution to theories of policy termination, as it would contribute to the scholarly understanding of why policies tend to persist in spite of failure, and what kind of forces make policy change hard to achieve; second, it is an empirical addition to the study of bureaucratic politics and self-serving bureaucracies, which has been largely overlooked in the U. This choice is based on the fact these countries are the main receptors of U. Department of State, The representativeness of Mexico and Colombia for overall supply reduction efforts is confirmed in the National Drug Control Strategy, in which they are the only countries cited in the introduction about international efforts to disrupt the drug market White House, , p. Equally, the continued relevance of these partnerships is highlighted by the National Drug Control Strategy White House, c, p. From these facts, this article concludes that no other international anti-drug operations are more symbolic for the war on drugs than the Mexican and Colombian ones. Secondly, the chosen period of analysis is necessary to establish whether or not Obama has made significant reforms in drug policy. By its turn, the choice to analyse documents issued by the ONDCP stems from the fact that it is the central anti-drug agency, responsible to advise the President on drug-control matters and manage federal drug-control funds and operations. Moreover, the agency produces the National Drug Control Strategy, which is the main report of the war on drugs, containing an assessment of all anti-drugs efforts promoted by the administration White House, a. In addition, this paper analyses documents issued by the U. Department of State, considering its central role in coordinating international partnerships to curtail drug supplies. Consequently, official reports in which information is selectively publicised do not allow decision-makers to see the strategic and tactical failures of the war on drugs, which in turn impedes governmental learning and change in U. For the U. Correspondently, the strategic goal of the war on drugs is to reduce the consumption of all illicit drugs 8 —especially cannabis, cocaine, opiates and amphetamine-type substances 9 Mares, , p. Therefore, the tactical objectives of U. Government are: 1 the incarceration of producers, traffickers, sellers and consumers of illicit drugs, 2 the eradication of drug production, 3 the interdiction of illicit drug shipments and drug-related finances, and the 4 persecution and extradition of international traffickers to be judged in U. Thus, the tactical methods of U. To make this strategy attainable, the tactic is mainly to deter drug supplies through law enforcement coercion. In this way, the availability of illicit drugs in the U. From Nixon to Obama, federal anti-drug laws evolved from allowing simple no-knock searches, to imposing asset seizure without notice, mandatory minimum sentences, elimination of probation and parole, increasingly longer imprisonment terms, life sentence and death penalty Finally, international operations expanded from a few agents stationed abroad, to multi-billion partnerships—such as in Mexico and Colombia—to reduce drug supplies The manner in which Presidents George W. Contrary to the expectation that drug enforcement agencies would not persecute marijuana producers operating accordingly to state laws, both heads of state have supported police raids in these companies Graves, Therefore, the end of the war on drugs and the beginning of a new anti-drug strategy under Obama is a fallacy: enshrined in federal law, the prohibitionist approach has not only persisted, but also significantly escalated during his administration. On the contrary, the argument that ending the war on drugs is not a priority is still very sound, especially as the Democrat President has no re-election concerns. Bearing this in mind, it is necessary to observe that although some supply-oriented tactical operations have achieved a degree of success, these policies have not resulted in constricted supplies, curtailed availability, increased prices, and reduced consumption of most illicit drugs. Even though the prices of marijuana have risen, it has not impeded the increase of its consumption, which rose by 1. Department of State, , p. Furthermore, new drug traffickers swiftly replace the ones captured by law enforcement agents, maintaining the flow of drug supplies Friesendorf, , p. Hence, as Isacson , p. In , the country presented the highest consumption rate of opioids registered by the UN, and U. Nonetheless, they are still meaningful, first, because they are official data: policy-makers consider them as true when taking decisions on drug policy. Thus, they are perfectly suitable to the objective of this article, which is to assess the data used by state officials to justify the continuity of war on drugs. Second, because political manipulation in the data cited above is unlikely, since it is a declaration against interest—the U. Government and the UN themselves have published most of these numbers, rather harming than benefiting their political status quo. Supply-oriented operations have not significantly affected the availability and consumption of psychoactive substances—as drug production has risen in many regions, and drug prices have fallen in the United States. Equally, domestic law enforcement has shown little effect of consumption deterrence: in spite of living in a country dominated by one of the most punitive and costly drug enforcement policies in the world, U. In the case of drug policy, the ONDCP is responsible to produce the National Drug Control Strategy, which gives an outline of the programmes promoted by the same agency and the presidency White House, a. This report is, therefore, a form of self-evaluation, which already casts doubt on its impartiality. However, the same text makes no mention of the broader picture: the overall consumption and availability of illicit drugs had increased in the same period White House, , p. Mainly, governmental reports are able to frame drug policy as a success by highlighting data on the efficient execution of supply-oriented tactical operations, while ignoring information on how these tactics have not resulted in the achievement of the tactical and strategic goals of the war on drugs. Government is aware of the increases in drug availability and consumption in the country 18 , this essay argues that anti-drug agencies deliberately distort the picture of drug policy achievements in order to gather support for their own operations. Benson et al. Equally, research on theories of policy termination and bureaucratic politics has found that governmental agencies tend to manipulate data through selective release of information to promote their own interests Scherlen, , p. Being the last report issued by the W. Bush administration, it presents the results of anti-drugs policies promoted during the two mandates of the Republican President. As the following sections demonstrate, the data gathered on the results of these operations is used as evidence to support the argument that the war on drugs is succeeding, and should continue to be waged. Although most illicit drugs have become increasingly available and cheaper to U. Government estimates indicate that seizures of cocaine and coca base inside Colombia have grown from about 38 metric tons in to about 93 metric tons as of early December Indeed, it is true that interdiction tactics have apprehended increasingly higher amounts of drug shipments and finances. However the results of these operations are too narrow in scope. In order to hide the failure of these tactical methods to make strategic and tactical objectives attainable, the ONDCP and the Department of State do not mention the increases of overall drug availability and falling prices in the cited documents. Department of State , p. However, they only do so for being too narrow in scope: they focus on some degree of success attained in controlling cocaine production in Colombia, while omitting broader failures, such as the rise in marijuana, heroin and cocaine productions in Mexico, Peru and Bolivia. Government justifies the argument that international counterdrug programmes are a success is by calling attention to the number of drug traffickers that have been killed, arrested and extradited, especially in Colombia and Mexico. Furthermore, the U. Following this logic, the greater amounts of drug shipments and finances apprehended, the larger scale of drug crops and production facilities destroyed, and the increasing number of narco-traffickers killed or arrested would justify the argument that the war on drugs is a success, and that Washington should continue to support it. In order to camouflage the ultimate inefficiency of these tactics and sustain the argument of success, none of the analysed documents present data on how overall drug availability has risen, how most prices have fallen and how overall demand has increased in the Country. As a result, some degree of success in tactical methods hides the ultimate strategic and tactical failures. As Bauer , p. Thus, academia ought to dedicate more attention to the matter—given its policy relevance, and the fundamental insights it can provide on how the policymaking process takes place, and how bureaucratic and political interests can deviate it from rational choice. Department of State on the war against drugs are clear examples of how bureaucratic and political forces manipulate data in order to support the continuation of a failed policy that serves their particular interests. By omitting the fact that drugs have become increasingly cheaper and available to U. Considering that these reports are key sources of information, based on which policy-makers enact new drug laws and plan budget allocation, they have certainly misled political decisions towards the war on drugs, and consequently blocked organisational learning and change in U. Different governmental bureaucracies, such as the Department of Justice 19 , have published data on the shortcomings of drug policy. Also, non-official sources, such as academic publications, civil organisations and the media have campaigned to denounce the failure of the war on drugs. Hence, misinformation alone cannot account for the fact that no sitting politician supports drug policy change, and that U. Certainly, other factors such as bureaucratic barriers, public opinion, electoral constraints, partisan disputes and lobbying also play a role in blocking the governmental learning process Nonetheless, it should be noticed that these variables transcend the scope of this article. They should definitely be explored in a more extensive research. Therefore, there is no excuse for the lack of debate in Washington on alternative approaches for drug control. More than four decades of law enforcement and supply-oriented drug policies have taken the U. Government nowhere close to a drug-free America. It is time to learn from drug policy failure, and break free from the war on drugs addiction. CRS, , U. ADAM C. Andreas P. Bauer M. Baum D. Benson B. Bertram E. Birkland Th. Buxton J. Carter S. Ferreira R. International Relations, University of Bristol. Flock E. Frantz J. Friesendorf C. Geva-May I. Graves L. Gray M. Halperin M. Husak D. Inciardi J. Isacson A. Jenner M. Knopf J. Loveman B. Loveman ed. Mares D. Massing M. McBride D. Miron J. Musto D. Niskanen W. Pizarro E. Reuter P. Sanger D. Scherlen R. Schlosser E. Sirin C. Stein J. Thoumi F. Youngers C. Rodrigo H. University of Bristol rh'at'my. Site map — Syndication. Privacy Policy — About Cookies — Report a problem. OpenEdition member — Published with Lodel — Administration only. Skip to navigation — Site map. Contents - Previous document. The role of misinformation in the persistence of U. Outline Introduction. Drug war failure has not resulted in learning. The unexplored field of policy persistence. Losing the war on drugs by escalating prohibitionist tactics. Winning the war on drugs in official reports. Interdiction of drugs and drug-related finances. Persecution of drug traffickers. Full text PDF k Share by e-mail. Introduction 1 In June , President Richard Nixon addressed Congress and announced a new strategy to fight drug consumption, which still dominates U. Breaking the Taboo , , \[film\], Brazil, Spray Filmes. Top of page. References Bibliographical reference Rodrigo H. Electronic reference Rodrigo H. About the author Rodrigo H. Ferreira University of Bristol rh'at'my. Follow us RSS feed. Newsletters OpenEdition Newsletter. Member access Login Password Log in Cancel. In collaboration with. In All OpenEdition. Home Catalogue of journals OpenEdition Search. All OpenEdition. OpenEdition Freemium. OpenEdition Search Newsletter.

How can I buy cocaine online in Marrakech