Outrageous HSBC Settlement Proves the Drug War is a JOKE

I hadn't even heard about this story.

Been kept busy by the whole Connecticut Shoo... wait a minute....

Anyone ever saw the 9/11 related movie / docu "Who killed John O'neill".
I prefer to call it a low budget movie rather than a documentary.
You might not understand at first but it all make sense now.

To this day, I always had trouble connecting the dot the way it was made in the movie.
Trying to understand the implications reading this thread and it all came clear to my mind.

I always knew... if we want to bring down the banking cartel and the military industrial complex..
We just needs to stop taking drugs. It is that easy.

reply to post by Cobra.EXE


It's unfortunate that the rules are skewed in favor of the wealthy. It doesn't have to be solely related to laws, look at every aspect of our lives.

Starting with law, it isn't as though there were a separate system, it's just that the penalties in fines are pittance when you are above a certain income level. Think speeding tickets, just one 20 mph over the limit fine would be a bad setback for me...forget about 5 or 6. A wealthy person, however might be inconvenienced by being pulled over, but they either pay it without batting an eyelash (along with the higher premiums in insurance) or they have a good lawyer at the drop of a hat, because they can afford him or her on staff or travel in a higher up's social circle. That goes into heartier crimes as well, like fraud or murder...the better your lawyer, the likelier you are to get off.

What about banking? More money means more interest (and more money), better terms of accounts and little chance of overdraft, as if the 35 dollar fee would even be noticed.

Late fees, not likely to happen, so the fines and surcharges that your phone, insurance, credit cards, financing or mortgage company, water, electricity, car payments, etc are going to accrue, setting you deeper in the hole for the next month. Wash, rinse, repeat...

Taxes, even as a flat tax, are further into this argument. 25% for a person or corporation making a 100 million dollars in a year means they still have 75 million left over. 10% for a person making 15,000 a year means they only have 13,500 left. Are we really sure they can't pay more? They would never have gotten that rich without the system as it is in place...seems its more in their benefit to foot a greater part of the upkeep.

War on drugs is just one more example of all of this. Super Rich people and entities have no shame, have no compassion or maybe it's just that irony is lost on them. Maybe all three...

reply to post by eagleeye2


I wish it were that simple...it's the criminalization, bastardization and standardization of plants and decorations that have existed and been used since before written history. We increase the addictive potential of the ones we refine (bastardized). Finally, we standardize some refined ones and we criminalize the rest. Then, We militarize our reaction to and enforcement of the ones we criminalize.

This process is how so much profit is generated. Small coca farmers in the andes did not grow and sell the leaves for much and the reaction was never so strong as to illicit the same money-making market that has been artificially inflated by refined coc aine.

Double post

Yeah, the whole cut taxes for the rich, eliminate rules that keep the rich and powerful in check, while building up a huge military, combined with an ever growing police system and jail population, isn't working out too well.

What a surprise

Who coulda seen all that going bad?

I've posted my story involving an arrest for a $1.85 baseball before here on ATS.

My final total out of pocket cost for this "crime" was roughly $1500.00 and I was never prosecuted either.

I was shaken down for money regardless of my guilt or innocence.

So, do the math...my costs were 810 times higher than the value of the disputed item.

In that context they should have to pay a 32 trillion dollar fine in order to maintain precident.

But, none of that matters (as far as I know) because when disputes are settled out of court, they are not required

to meet any sort of standards at all. It is completely up to the discretion of the prosecutor.

This is a glaring example of the double standard that we live with every day.

~Rev

Oops, double post