Our Stalwart Iranian Allies in the War on Drugs

In what is supposed to be a man-bites-dog story, The New York Times reports that (as the headline puts it) "Iran (Yes, That Iran)" is "the West's Stalwart Ally in the War on Drugs." It's true! Drugs (including alcohol) are illegal in Iran, where dealers (including liquor sellers) are routinely executed. Toward the end of the story, which is mostly about brave Iranian narcs fighting heavily armed opium and heroin smugglers, the Times notes that the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, whose local representative "showered the Iranians with praise—'because they really deserve it,'" is "under pressure from Western activist groups like Human Rights Watch, which have expressed alarm over the sharp increase in hangings of convicted drug dealers." The Times adds that "hundreds have been executed in recent years, making Iran the second leading country in the world in death sentences, after China."  

That's not the only way our stalwart Iranian allies go a little overboard. Here are some other things that are banned in Iran: blasphemy, romantic movie scenesbooks deemed religiously offensiveSimpsons dollstrendy hairstyles, coed squirt gun fights, dancing by kindergarteners, "improper" dresses, skiing by unchaperoned women, and female undergraduates studying English literature, computer science, or 75 other subjects. The determination to police people's bloodstreams and brains is not a way in which Iran is like the U.S. It is a way in which the U.S. is like Iran.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Tim||

    The enemy of my enemy is my enemy.

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    Homina, homina, homina....

  • Whiterun Guard||

    It's enemies all the way down.

  • Tim||

    No one cares that despite hanging people left and right the drugs still get through. Despite the civil populace having no civil liberties the drugs still get through.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    But they're just one more stretched neck from a drug-free Iran.

  • Tim||

    Do you think that the Revolutionary Guards have DARE officers?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Jerry on the road||

    How else are they going to make money? The only reason Iran bans stuff like this is so that local politicos can make money with smuggling and protection rackets.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Can't watch the video, but where on earth would they get an idea like that...

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    That is just awful in every respect.

  • np||

    Except for the part where Iranian intelligence smuggles heroin into Russia to destroy the infidel with 'his own vice'..

    - General Moayedi approves:

    General Moayedi said that he did not concern himself with politics, and that in any case he considered the fight against drugs to be a religious duty.

    “But,” he said, “imagine if we just let all those drugs flow freely through our country, toward the West. I guess then the world would understand what we have been doing here for all these years.”
  • Whiterun Guard||

    You're telling me that the Iranian policy that I grew up with was wrong? Because I distinctly remember hearing that "Iran, Number One."

  • John||

    Every time I think the Times can't get worse, they prove me wrong.

  • ||

    No trendy hairdos? So they can't bond in healing laughter?

  • Tim||

    Don Corleone: I said that I would see you because I had heard that you were a serious man, to be treated with respect. But I must say no to you and let me give you my reasons. It's true I have a lot of friends in politics, but they wouldn't be so friendly if they knew my business was drugs instead of gambling which they consider a harmless vice. But drugs, that's a dirty business.

  • ||

    I love that part. The viewer is supposed to think the Corleones are "good" mobsters because they won't deal drugs.

    Fuck, Coppola is a total hack. You have no idea how many times, after finding out I was Italian, stupid fucks asked me if I was in the fucking mafia or was "like the Godfather".

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    You probably shouldn't have told so many of them that you were Warty's "made man".

  • ||

    That Warty made me out of the parts of his victims? It's true. One day I can be a real boy, he says!

  • Tim||

    Speaking of Warty and body parts:

    "MIAMI — It’s not that body parts never wash ashore on Florida beaches. But usually it’s not an eye the size of a softball."


    Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new.....z296CqN7cY

  • ||

    You're not Italian. You're Jersey trash. There's a subtle difference.

  • John||

    He actually Serbian. But he thinks anyone with a lot of body hair and who drives a 78 Camaro with a lot of rust is Italian.

  • ||

    Rust?!?

  • John||

    Not my fault you couldn't afford the Z28 model.

  • ||

    John, I am dissapoint. You had the opportunity to do an IROC joke (Italian Retard Out Cruising) and missed it.

  • John||

    I am a philistine. I have actually never heard that. They didn't let Italians live in the neighborhood I grew up in.

  • ||

    Aren't you from Kansas? Like there are even any Italians in Kansas, you fucking...wait, there aren't even any slurs for Kansans, are there? Fuck Kansas.

  • ||

    There has to be a Dorothy or Toto slur somewhere, right? And is carpetbagger only for Oklahomans? Dorothonian? Maybe Lollipop Guilder? Oh wait, that would be joe.

  • John||

    No there are not. We keep a low profile. It is how we get away with keeping the Italians and the rest of the papists out of our neighborhoods.

  • John||

    And I am actually not from there anymore. When they found out I married an Italian, they took my passport.

  • ||

    You say Eye-talian, don't you?

  • BakedPenguin||

    Jayhumpers? Kansas City Queefs?

  • John||

    I love that scene. The other great part about it is when Sonny interrupts and says "you mean the Tattalias would guarantee our investment" or some such. At that point Solotzo realizes he can bump off the old man and the kids will go for it. Sonny signs his own father's death warrant and doesn't even know it.

    Coppola is a total hack. But hacks sometimes make great art. Of course some mobsters did tell them dealing drugs was a bad idea. There is some truth to that. But there was way too much money and the post war generation of mobsters were different than the prewar ones. As Italians got more accepted into society, fewer and fewer smart people chose to be criminals. So the quality of mobster went down significantly.

  • ||

    The mobsters have always been animals. Coppola's and Puzo's little ode to those scum was always a pipe dream and I've always hated it. There are some great scenes, of course, and Coppola isn't without talent, but overall the whole thing is inspired hackery and nothing proves it more than the third one.

  • John||

    Even Scorsazi white washes how bad they were. As bad as Goodfellas makes them look, it still makes them look smarter and less disgusting than they actually were. There are a couple of books on the Luftansa heist that tell the actual story of the Vario crew. And they were somewhat but really nothing like the movie. Henry Hill had the mentality of an 8 year old child and was so untrustworthy, the FBI considered him the worst witness in the history of the witness protection program. Tommy DeSimone was basically retarded and the Varios refused to be in the same room with him. For reasons no one knows why Jimmy Burke liked him. And Burke was more of a mindless thug loan shark enforcer than genius thief. They were all just complete societal rejects.

  • ||

    Henry used to call into Howard Stern's show from wherever he was in witness protection. He was the most amoral piece of fucking shit you've ever heard. They would ask him stuff, like to recount how Spider got killed, and he would just talk about it like it was his trip to the grocery store that morning. It meant absolutely nothing to him.

  • John||

    His FBI handler wanted to shoot him. He would interview him for hours and Hill would in the span of five minutes tell him tow totally contradictory things and when confronted with it not understand what was wrong. He was just a complete amoral moron.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Because The Godfather isn't actually about the mob, it's about society in general and how we use the veneer of civilization to disquise a system that's ultimately based on brute force.

  • Virginian||

  • Tim||

    My Irish ancestors left me a legacy of drunken brawling.

  • Paul.||

    Your Irish ancestors left me with a legacy of drunken brawling.

  • Aresen||

    Episiarch| 10.12.12 @ 11:13AM |#

    You have no idea how many times, after finding out I was Italian, stupid fucks asked me if I was in the fucking mafia or was "like the Godfather".

    You mean you're not?!

    Then I want back all that money I 'loaned' you because 'something terrible might happen' if I didn't.

  • Sudden||

    We all know that money was payment for the sex vacations you took across the border.

  • np||

    Mr. De Leo, in mountaineering shoes and backpack but remaining true to his stylish Italian background with a white flannel scarf around his neck, is very different from his uniformed Iranian counterparts. But, he said, “I need these people and they need me.”


    spam test...

  • Sudden||

    And because the Iranian Government is stemming the flow of heroin to Russia, instead Russians are turning to Krokodil .

    Seriously, don't look if you have a weak stomach.

  • ||

    Way to NutraSweet your link, genius.

  • Sudden||

    Fucking Hell

    Krokodil

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    That's not the only way our stalwart Iranian allies go a little overboard. Here are some other things that are banned in Iran...

    Stop! You're giving Bloomberg a woody.

  • Paul.||

    This is the threadwinner, and no one even noticed.

    This place is going down the tubes.

  • Enough About Palin||

    OT - JOBLESS CLAIMS NUMBER DOESN'T INCLUDE CALIFORNIA

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-G.....california

  • Sudden||

    The first time through, I was willing to attribute the fudgey numbers to incompetence. Now, malice seems like the only plausible explanation.

  • R C Dean||

    I agree. How hard would it have been to say the report would be a day or two late because some of the data was delayed?

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    "U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, whose local representative "showered the Iranians with praise—'because they really deserve it,'""

    Stay classy, Un.

  • ||

    not that i want to get all judicial activism'y and read shit into the constitution that isn;t there (iow, i don't believe there is a constitutional right to do drugs), doing drugs really is at least somewhat of a 1st amendment issue.

    most drugs (steroids and antibiotics being a couple of exceptions, although neither are done for RECREATIONAL purposes anyway...) that are chosen for recreational purposes are done with the express purpose of altering one's consciousness, one's mental state, one's feelings, emotions, etc. setting aside that some of the greatest works of literature (see: romantic poets amongst others) have been written and likely never would have been written without opium and a few other drugs, wanting to alter consciousness, belief, mental states etc is all tied in to the 1st amendment underlying concept about freedom of belief and expression. you can;t really have true freedom of expression if you are not first free to alter one's consciousness and mental state. religion can do that. and does. so does meditation, and so does drug use, at least as far as "mind altering" drugs (again, not talking antibiotics etc.)

  • ||

    it's not surprising that totalitarian regimes have banned religion. they MUST. it';s also thus not surprising that they would attempt to ban the use of many drugs, for the same reasons, granted that most brutual regimes at least allow alcohol, as a safety valve at a minimum to allow people to purge frustration, boredom, etc. by beign able to come home after work and get ripped and forget all the pain. alcohol, the poor man's anti-depressant.

    by telling people they can't do drugs, the govt is determining that they (not individuals) have control over thought processes, state of consciousness, and expression. that's fundamentally wrong. again, i'm not saying i'd go as far as saying drug laws violate the 1st. that would be judicially active to say the least. i am saying that drug laws interfere with the underlying concept and spirit of the 1st which is that a man owns his own consciousness and state of being, to include mental states - he should be free to dream as he sees fit, express as he sees fit and alter his mental state as he sees fit. it may lead to higher consciousness, great art, enlightenment, scientific breakthrough, spiritual breakthrough,or JUST A DAMN GOOD TIME.

    and as PJ ORourke says, we are the only nation on earth founded on the concept of it's a right to have a good time (iirc, he riffs on this in parliament of whores)

  • General Butt Naked||

    One question to consider is that while there may be no constitutional guaranteed right to do drugs; does the federal government have the constitutionally granted power to enforce drug laws?

    The courts at present, obviously, say yes, but it took amending the constitution to enforce prohibition not a hundred years ago.

  • ||

    oh, absolutely- there are problems (constitutionally) with federal drug laws. especially, because i think raich was wrongly decided as well. it's a blatant misreading of the commerce clause.

    i'm talking about drug laws in general, iow to include state drug laws. while state drug laws are entirely constitutional, i would argue many federal one's are not.

    i think certainly the feds have juridiction over interstate transport of same and certainly have the duty to enforce what crosses our national borders.

    so, in brief... yea, i agree. federal drug laws (at least some) run afoul of the constitution. just saying that drug laws in general are not unconstitutional, since there is no right to do them, states are within their power to regulate same.

  • sarcasmic||

    while there may be no constitutional guaranteed right to do drugs

    A right must be explicitly enumerated to be guaranteed? You only have rights that are specifically listed, and no more?

    does the federal government have the constitutionally granted power to enforce drug laws?

    It's the "Fuck you, that's why" clause.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Well, he did qualify by saying "Constitutional guaranteed right".

  • ||

    " right must be explicitly enumerated to be guaranteed? You only have rights that are specifically listed, and no more?"

    no, that's not what i said. what i said is there is no constitutional right to do drugs. the 9th amendment is of course the constitutional reference to unenumerated rights. i am making a simple statement. i am not making a meta statement about unenumerated rights.

    the statement is this : there is no constitutional (referrring to the federal constitution) right to do or possess drugs.

    "It's the "Fuck you, that's why clause."

    sadly we can agree that the feds have greatly expanded their reach, in many cases unconstitutionally so, and they are supported by a complicity SCOTUS, not to mention district and appeals courts.

    they are also supported, sadly, by people in every political camp, even libertarians on occasion, in their expansion of power.

    at least when it comes to drug laws, over 90% of prosecutions and nearly all prosecutions for mere possession do not occur at the federal level.

    i am SO excited at the possibility that we may legalize MJ this election and the federal response will be "interesting" lol

  • General Butt Naked||

    A right must be explicitly enumerated to be guaranteed? You only have rights that are specifically listed, and no more?

    At this point in history, the constitution is a mere relic, a conversation piece as it were. As for me I think that being born a human being grants the right to do as you please as long as it harms nor defrauds another.

  • ||

    "I think that being born a human being grants the right to do as you please as long as it harms nor defrauds another"

    i agree. but that's me (and you), not our system of govt.

    i am just saying that i wish that AT LEAST the limitations on state power embodied in our system of govt were respected. if the restrictions WERE respected, we could still have, for example, state laws against drug possession. our govt, even as designed (not including all the violations of the constitution we see every day), doesn't embody the concept that "being born a human being grants the right to do as you please as long as it harms nor defrauds another."

    but it does embody a much more restricted role of govt and especially as regards federal power

  • General Butt Naked||

    being born a human being grants the right to do as you please as long as it harms ... another.

    i agree. but that's me

    HA! You have fallen into my trap. YOU want to hurt people, HA!

  • ||

    damn it. I know it was a trap, and i fell right into it

    you win this one, General, but the future belongs to me!!!

  • sarcasmic||

    Smells like baboon shit in here.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Probably from all the kickboxing earlier.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    i am SO excited at the possibility that we may legalize MJ this election and the federal response will be "interesting" lol

    And when your orders come down from the DEA, you'll follow them to the letter with joy in your heart and a mirror shine on your boots.

    Interesting, indeed.

  • sarcasmic||

    Never pass up an opportunity to bust some heads.

  • ||

    not when it comes to where my loyalty lies - to the state of WA

    i don't work for the dea or the feds. if WA legalizes MJ, we will (my agency) enforce WA law, not federal law. of that, i have abolute confidence. in cases in the past where there has been conflict, my agency has ALWAYS come down on the side that our officers will maintain our allegiance ot state not federal law.

    if i had sworn an oath to the feds, the situation would be different. i haven't, and i won't

  • sarcasmic||

    You could have been a car salesman.

  • ||

    sure. but i chose a job where i could literally do good and make the world a better place and make my community a safer place. thankfully, i work in a community that treasures and values us. i love it. it would suck to work in a jurisdiction, like man, where the cops don't have that excellent working relationship with the public.

    if your local PD offers a citizen academy, i recommend it btw. some of our biggest supporters in the community are citizen academy grads. some say it radically changed their viewpoints towards supporting us, once attended.

    salesmen tend to make good cops btw

  • sarcasmic||

    salesmen tend to make good cops btw

    I imagine so.

    Both jobs require skill at manipulating, bullshitting, and baldfaced lying.

  • sarcasmic||

    it would suck to work in a jurisdiction, like man, where the cops don't have that excellent working relationship with the public.

    It sucks to live in such places as well. Trust me. I know.

  • ||

    where is that (the jurisdiction you live in)?

    where i live and work are very pro - police. it makes the job much more fun. does the jurisdiction where you work run a citizen's academy?

  • sarcasmic||

    At the moment I live in a town that doesn't have a police force.
    The sheriff patrols here and there, and the state troopers set up speed traps now and again, but there's no local punks with badges bullying people like the bad 'ol days in Boulder Colorado.

    It's really nice.

    Short answer: no.

  • ||

    are you in an incorporated town that contracts with the sheriff's office for police services, or are you in an unincorporated area? that would also be under sheriff's jurisdiction, in the state of colorado.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm not in Colorado. I'm in Maine.

    The sheriff and state take turns patrolling the area here.
    On the rare times when there are actual crimes, the cops usually cause several traffic accidents as people run into trees and ditches trying to dodge the 85mph traveling cruisers with an adrenaline pumped enforcers behind the wheel.

    Last year a lady sheriff t-boned a minivan, killing the entire family. Nothing else happened.

    I couldn't go to one of those academies anyway. I can't stand to be around cops. Just can't do it. Between their callous attitudes and joyful stories of choking people and such, I just can't be around them. Makes my skin crawl.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    What about the ones who do the citizens' academy thing but don't 'graduate'- just never saw the light to change their viewpoints?

  • ||

    i see your penchant for trolling vs. having adult discussions continues

    anyways, i don't take orders from the dea. i swore an oath, and have allegiance to the state of WA, not the federal govt. apart from when i worked on a federal task force (which i don't currently), i have never had fealty to federal law or any duty to enforce same.

    our dept. has already in the past made it clear to the DEA and to the feds, that our allegiance is to the people of the state of WA.

    i have ZERO doubt that if and when legalized marijuana is passed in WA, that we will uphold and defend the law as passed by the people in WA. we will not, and i certainly will not, tkae orders from the DEA that run contrary to state law, passed by the people

    noted also that in WA state, citizen initiative is the highest form of law and trumps law passed by the legislature.

    so, in brief, no. i am entirely confident we will not take orders from the DEA, but IF we were, i would maintain loyalty to WA state

  • The Late P Brooks||

    i see your penchant for trolling vs. having adult discussions continues

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I'll try that again.

    i see your penchant for trolling vs. having adult discussions continues

  • The Late P Brooks||

    goddammit

    i see your penchant for trolling vs. having adult discussions continues

    Poor baby. I'm sure Ted Bundy knew a lot about music, but that did not absolve him of his other hobbies.

    As for your claims regarding the refusal of local law enforcement to participate in DEA raids, let's just say plentiful evidence nationwide does not reinforce your position. Particularly when the shiteating lapdogs at the local cop shop would be passing up a substantial pile of asset theft booty.

    hth

  • sarcasmic||

    One thing I like about Maine, as opposed to other places where I have lived, is that fines and confiscated property go straight to the state capital.
    Departments don't see one red cent of it.
    Which is nice because they don't have an incentive to be total dicks, unlike other places where I have lived.

  • sarcasmic||

    I should add to that that the state troopers, who work for the state capital, are total dicks.

  • ||

    i made no such claim, p brooks.

    read what i wrote again.

    i get very tired of responding to false claims about what i said.

    what i said referenced not having fealty to federal law, and when it conflicted with state law

    i've assisted DEA in raids.

    not what i am talking about.

    again, read what i wrote again.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "Our Stalwart Iranian Allies" etc.

    Putting the "wart" in stalwart!

  • ||

    "as for your claims regarding the refusal of local law enforcement to participate in DEA raids"

    i made no such claims. are you REALLY this stupid, careless or do you just decide to lie about what i said.

    what i said is that my fealty is to the state of WA and WA law. i have worked with the DEA before (as well as US Marshall's, the BATFE, the FBI, etc.). so what?

    what i am saying is that my DUTY is to WA law and the people here in WA.

    if and when WA passes a law legalizing marijuana, then i would never violate the will of the people of WA. my agency ALREADY --- when the law conflicts (like medical MJ) --- has a policy that we adhere to state law. iow, even though medical MJ is illegal under federal law, when we encounter it in the field, we take no enforcement and we do NOT refer such cases to the feds. ever. because it would be contrary to WA law

    if we pass legal MJ, then we will respect 100% that right under WA law. we will take no orders from the DEA.

  • mr lizard||

    Until someone above you gets bribed by the Feds both directly and indirectly. For instance if your municipality hits a budget crunch and the only way to save the police pensions is to accept federal grant (bribe) money in exchange for a little cooperation. I'm glad your current leadership holds their current beliefs, but the Feds are sheisty and have lots of money. I do hope that your police can hold out though.

  • sarcasmic||

    Or the feds might offer shiny new toys made for the purpose of taking human lives.

    There's nothing cops like more than shiny toys that put holes in little people.

    Or an armored personnel carrier so that instead of going through the trouble of using a battering ram, they can just drive through the side of the house.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    i've assisted DEA in raids.

    So what I originally said was correct.

    Happy to see you admit it.

  • ||

    it doesn't conflict with what i said. i have assisted numerous federal agencies. in NONE of those cases did those raids CONFLICT with state law.

    again, i will not, since i swore an oath, assist the federal govt. in thwarting STATE LAW.

    in the raids i assisted the DEA with, we weren't thwarting state law.

    do you grok the distinction?

    if and when MJ becomes legal there will be a conflict between state and federal law. i, as a state LEO, have sworn loyalty to MY state. i will not assist the DEA in investigating or enforcing stuff that our state has legalized

    again, do you grok the distinction?

  • ||

    what you originally said was this:nd when your orders come down from the DEA, you'll follow them to the letter with joy in your heart and a mirror shine on your boots.

    that's FALSE. if we pass legalized MJ, i will NOT assist the DEA. my orders have never come from the DEA. i have assisted the DEA in the past where their laws COINCIDED with state law.

    if the state legalizes MJ, i will not EVER assist the feds in enforcing THEIR laws against MJ, when they conflict with the WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF WA about MJ being legal

    ever.

    that's a matter of ethics and loyalty. my loyalty is to the state of WA. and my ethics mean I protect the people of WA and enforce OUR law and will NEVER assist the feds (or anybody else) in arresting people for something MY state has expressly legalized

    ever

    full stop

  • The Late P Brooks||

    what i am saying is that my DUTY is to WA law and the people here in WA.

    Sorry, Fosdick, allow me to clarify for you, since you failed to comprehend the implied part.

    IN MULTIPLE STATES, LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES PARTICIPATE IN DEA RAIDS ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA OPERATIONS WHICH ARE LEGAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE AND LOCAL LAW.

    I find your claims to be completely unconvincing. Keep wiggling.

  • ||

    my claims are simple

    *I* will not violate state law and i will not violate my oath of office.

    i do not deny that some LEO's have assisted the feds in medical MJ clinic raids where same were legal under state law.

    imo, those "officers" are scum and should be stripped of their badges

    but it has nothing to do with my claims here.

    you claimed i would follow orders from the DEA.

    i am saying no, i won't.

    if we legalize MJ, i will defend my state's law. i will NOT assist the DEA in any investigation that runs contrary to state law. EVER.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    And furthermore, I promise not to assassinate the pope. Not even for a million dollars!

  • Alien Invader||

    You probably think the pope is going to return that favor, too.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement