focused on thailand, burma and mexico. the goal with the policies of nixon the ford administration, a carter administration was what we call a source control and that is attempting to eliminate or limit the amount of illegal drugs being produced at the source, but it's a more efficient resource versus saying interdiction, you know interdict drugs coming into the country. that usually nets 10% to 15% of the float. the thought was and still is if you can go to the source of drug reduction, in this case places where poppies are grown, opium poppies and hair when it's been refined that if you can delete those sources you can reduce the about the illegal drugs entering the country and subsequently claim you can limit the amount of addiction happening in the united states. one thing my book points out about a history of the war on drugs is each one of these countries i luck out, thailand, burma and mexico, but the strategies implemented they are became pretty much permanent features of the drug war. i mentioned alternative devel

the point about the history of the war on drugs is that each one of these countries i look at, thailand, burma and mexico, the strategies implemented their became pretty much permanent features of the drug war. signage and alternative development in thailand to that still going on today. it happened in thailand was the first large-scale attempt at that. mexico with herbicides and that continues to happen. and then burma is a strategy that we still see today. and burma there was a lot of illicit opium production, and they're still lives. at the time burma in the '70s became the largest illicit producer of opium. but in burley also had a civil war going on which meant the central government and a bunch of different rebel groups either based on ethnicity or there was a burmese communist party was fighting against the government, and each of these rebel groups was one way or another involved in opium production and trafficking is one way they funded their calls. so the united states would have been in firm and as such will be done in many places across the globe, is it provided no to assistance to

points out about the history of the war on drugs is in each one of these countries that i look at thailand, burma and mexico the strategies implemented the air became pretty much permanent features of the drug war. site mentioned alternative development in thailand. that is still going on today. what happened in thailand was the first large-scale attempt at that. mexico with herbicides and i continues to happen. and burma is a strategy that we will see today. and burma, there was a lot of illicit opium production and there still is. at the time burma in the 70s became the largest illicit reducer of opium. and burma, you also had a civil war going on which meant the central government and a bunch of different rebel groups based on ethnicity or a burmese communist party fighting against the government. each of the rebel groups was one way or another involved in opium production and trafficking was one way they funded their cause. so the united state has subsequently done in many places across the globe as it provided military assistance to the burmese government to the form of helicopters surveilla

as i was remarking to a friend in the audience earlier, the monarchy of thailand is impossible to cover from that country, burma until recently, myanmar was not -- was best covered from outside and only covered from the outside. so there's a spectrum of this and north korea does sit on that one extreme end. i'll close there with that because there's a lots of threads we can pull on. >> thanks. i agree with what jean and paul said. north korea has a disproportionate amount of interest from the general public. if you view north korea news you'll find five times as many more articles as ivory coast needs. ivory coast is one country that allows north korea, has much more open information environment. journalists are freer. there's more interest in north korea. part of that is because the general public -- because of its access issue tends to look at north korea sometimes as if it's the moon. another planet. that in turn drives a push for sensationalism and mainstream journalists that don't cover north korea that often. that's one issue. we have a big challenge with small stories that just echo chamber into extremel