<< 1 >>
Rating: Summary: Great background to modern drug wars Review: Great in-depth research on the history of Asian drug dealing, but stops short of covering the post WW II situation. While the authors deny the global conspiracy, at the same time they provide much evidence for drug dealing as part of official policy. In China, Japan, even among Euro corporations profits allow for official corruption. The authors say Yes the CIA was part of Asian drug dealing, but claim it is not a conspiracy? We are at war over drugs, yet allowing our secret police to play a role. The authors should return with a sequel, and re-think the "no conspiracy" stance.
Rating: Summary: Interesting history, somewhat shallow analysis Review: Webs of Smoke contains an interesting account of the pre-20th century Asian narcotics trade. The first 4 or 5 chapters will hold your attention.As the book approaches more contemporary events, the authors lose their grip. The 20th century events are told as a series of individual case studies which provide only a partial view of the Asian drug industry. The book seems to conclude that the communist revolution in China solved China's drug problems. This seems an odd way to end the book. 1998, the year of the book's publication, was a record year for Chinese narcotics seizures. The authors seem to stick with official records and avoid analysis. This is a satisfactory strategy for pre-20th century events, but becomes increasingly problematic as the subject matter becomes more contemporary. The chapter titles suggest the book provides an overview of infrastructure roles. Chapter titles are 'Bureaucrats,' 'Merchants,' 'Monopolies,' 'Europeans,' 'War Lords,' 'Soldiers of Fortune,' 'Spies,' 'Americans' and 'Communists.' Perhaps a 'role' based review would be a good book, but the chapters are really sequential case histories of leading individuals. A broad based analysis of the users and infrastructure is never really attempted. The case studies provide the reader with a good start on understanding the 'big picture.' It is a pity the authors avoided the issue.
<< 1 >>
|