The War on People Who Use Drugs, colloquially known as the “drug war”, turns 40 next week. Although the U. S. government has criminalized various substances used for medicinal or recreational purposes for nearly a century, the modern drug war began during the Nixon administration, with his announcement that the U. S. government would actively prosecute a “war on drugs”. This followed the passage of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970; Nixon then established the Drug Enforcement Administration in 1973 to oversee all of the government’s interdiction efforts. Since then, the drug war has consumed more money, and more lives, than any of the drugs which the state has aimed to eradicate, and has completely failed to achieve any of its intended goals. Drugs are more available than ever before, and although usage has gone down for some drugs (and increased for others), it can be attributed as much to changing tastes in recreational drug usage as to the state’s interdiction efforts.
And at what cost?
- Government at the Federal, state, and local levels spent $40 billion on the drug war in 2010. And that doesn’t count U. S. aid to Mexico for its drug war efforts, which totaled an additional $50 million.
- The increased funding to state and local law enforcement has led to a rapid militarization of civilian police forces. This map (created by Radley Balko) shows the proliferation of violent, SWAT team-led drug raids which have resulted in the deaths of people who have not been shown to be involved in the drug trade, most recently Jose Guerena.
- Draconian “mandatory minimum” sentencing, which in some cases has mandated life sentences without parole for possessing certain amounts of drugs, has sent prison populations skyrocketing; the U. S. incarcerates more people than any other country in the world. Blacks and [Hispanics] are especially hard-hit by the drug war, as police frequently target them in drug crackdowns.
- Prosecutors have targeted doctors whom they believe are illegally prescribing pain medication, and have harassed and threatened those who speak out against the persecution.
- The funding of drug interdiction efforts in other countries by the U. S. government, beginning in Colombia in the 1980s and continuing to the present day in Mexico, fueled a protracted and bloody war between the government and drug cartels. Nearly 40,000 people have died in Mexico since President Felipe Calderon, with the direct support of the Bush and Obama administrations, stepped up war efforts against the drug cartels in December 2006. In Ciudad Juarez alone, more than 3,000 murders occurred in 2010; its homicide rate is 4.5 times higher than New Orleans, the current U. S. “murder capital”.
Even as the evidence piles up against the effectiveness of the drug war, the statist media continue to foment hysteria over the next grave danger facing American youths. In the 1980s, it was crack, as alarmist government-led propaganda created a moral panic that raised crack’s profile and possibly fueled its rapid proliferation throughout American inner cities. These days it may be salvia. Or nutmeg. You never know if your spice rack holds the gateway drug that enslaves the minds of your children.
This is not a “war on drugs”. It is a declared war on the people by their government. Even if one believes the state, at a minimum, is necessary to protect life, liberty, and property — a sentiment I don’t share but recognize that many libertarians do — once it begins attacking, killing, and imprisoning its own citizens for the non-crime of voluntarily selling or using plants or chemical substances, the state loses any moral authority to govern.
And now Russia is declaring a “total war” on drugs. Either the Kremlin has developed highly selective amnesia, or just hasn’t paid attention over the past 40 years as other countries have tried, and miserably failed, to stem the flow of illicit drugs. But given Russia’s historic tendency to totalitarianism, this just proves that the drug war isn’t about protecting innocent people from the evil purveyors of narcotics, but about extending and entrenching state power over everyone’s lives.
Until we assume responsibility for our own actions, and reject the state’s authority to rule over us, the drugs, cash, and blood will continue to flow unabated.
anon please :)
He wasn’t even a good military leader, you should be crediting Rommel, not Hitler. Rommel pretty much made all the military decisions for Hitler
Wasn’t it Hitler who went against his advisors and ordered the attack on Russia?
Lets face it, that was really incredibly stupid to fall into the same trap as Napoleon when he knew the Russians would defend the western portion of the country to the death. He could’ve held out against Britain and eventually America for a lot longer, possibly long enough to develop atomic weapons as well, had he not broken the non aggression treaty
That’s exactly right. His advisors went against him once the U.S. strengthened Allied forces on the Western Front. He was actually very scared and thought Russia was going to fall easily (since Stalin was afraid of Japan). During his final days when Russia invaded Berlin, Hitler thought he was pulling brilliant maneuvers with large brigades of men and the Generals commanding them. The problem was, he was moving infantry around on the map that didn’t even exist anymore. He was highly delusional by the end. Even Goebbels knew it.
Explaining about how fascism is blatantly left-wing. This include Hitlers Germany’s, Mussolini’s Italy, and FDR’s reign over America.
I’ll do this when my hand isn’t all bandaged from slicing it on a beer can.
Fascism is right-wing. It’s literally radical right-wing. Not even you can deny that. That’s literally fact denying. Are you serious right now? And to compare FDR to Hitler? Hitler killed MILLIONS of people. Are you serious? No way. Has to be troll.
Here’s a sample:
How is government control of the economy part of capitalism?
Bingo, it makes no sense.
Fascism is just like socialism, with government control of the economy. That’s left-wing.
That means fascism is not right-wing.
And yes, FDR was a fascist. He said he wanted to model America off of Mussolini’s Italy. Are you saying his Italy wasn’t fascist? That’s fact denying.
Here’s where both of you are wrong: Economically, fascism is left-wing. It believes in regulation of business and has socialistic tendencies. Hitler had universal healthcare, public schools, etc.
However, it’s neither left nor right. Fascism restricts personal freedoms severely. It removes every basic human right and makes everything quite uniform. It’s a hugely statist system both fiscally and socially. Calling it left or right in one sense I think doesn’t accurately define it.
Hitler is not left-wing.
He is a right-wing authoritarian.
I don’t necessarily agree with that. He had a health-care system that mirrored Obama’s plan, general welfare, public schooling, an industrial military complex, price ceilings, huge Keynesian investments (private securities went as low as 10%), fiat currency, central bank, national public works such as the Autobahn, and he ran huge deficits. That’s a few of his policies. Seems largely fiscally-liberal to me.
I can’t think of any leftists who are in favour of a military-industrial complex.
In any case, Hitler’s Germany was highly anti-democratic,anti-egalitarian,and blamed anything that was not “traditionally German” as “left-wing”and /or”Bolshevist”. If they were left wing, why would they use their own stance and call it evil? And while it is true that they had universal healthcare and public schooling, it is the social conservative reasoning behind it(e.x. the Nazis had breast cancer screening only for ethnic Germans, “to keep the race pure”) that causes people to consider it right-wing.In practice, it is most certainly right-wing.
You’re 100% and 100% wrong. Yes, their social policies were right-wing. Yes. I’ve been saying that the whole time. But just because their social policies are right-wing doesn’t automatically make the whole thing right-wing. That’s like looking at a rapist who is also a murderer and saying “Well he killed people too, so that makes him no longer a rapist.”
The fact is that they were economic left. And yes, and MIC (military-industrial complex) is a socialistic policy. Not U.S. liberal, but socialistic. Both are left. Categorizing Fascism as plain and simple right-wing is wrong. It’s not accurate. It’s an economic left social right system.
Hitler’s Germany was “highly anti-democratic,anti-egalitarian,and blamed anything that was not ‘traditionally German’ as ‘left-wing’ and/or ‘Bolshevist’.” Yeah, Hitler claimed to hate Stalinist policies but the reality is they were much more similar than they were different. Hitler’s economic policies he admitted were socialistic. He said though that they weren’t Marxist socialist but a different kind of socialism. It’s socialism nonetheless.
Explaining about how fascism is blatantly left-wing. This include Hitlers Germany’s, Mussolini’s Italy, and FDR’s reign over America.
I’ll do this when my hand isn’t all bandaged from slicing it on a beer can.
Fascism is right-wing. It’s literally radical right-wing. Not even you can deny that. That’s literally fact denying. Are you serious right now? And to compare FDR to Hitler? Hitler killed MILLIONS of people. Are you serious? No way. Has to be troll.
Here’s a sample:
How is government control of the economy part of capitalism?
Bingo, it makes no sense.
Fascism is just like socialism, with government control of the economy. That’s left-wing.
That means fascism is not right-wing.
And yes, FDR was a fascist. He said he wanted to model America off of Mussolini’s Italy. Are you saying his Italy wasn’t fascist? That’s fact denying.
Here’s where both of you are wrong: Economically, fascism is left-wing. It believes in regulation of business and has socialistic tendencies. Hitler had universal healthcare, public schools, etc.
However, it’s neither left nor right. Fascism restricts personal freedoms severely. It removes every basic human right and makes everything quite uniform. It’s a hugely statist system both fiscally and socially. Calling it left or right in one sense I think doesn’t accurately define it.
Hitler is not left-wing.
He is a right-wing authoritarian.
I don’t necessarily agree with that. He had a health-care system that mirrored Obama’s plan, general welfare, public schooling, an industrial military complex, price ceilings, huge Keynesian investments (private securities went as low as 10%), fiat currency, central bank, national public works such as the Autobahn, and he ran huge deficits. That’s a few of his policies. Seems largely fiscally-liberal to me.
Explaining about how fascism is blatantly left-wing. This include Hitlers Germany’s, Mussolini’s Italy, and FDR’s reign over America.
I’ll do this when my hand isn’t all bandaged from slicing it on a beer can.
Fascism is right-wing. It’s literally radical right-wing. Not even you can deny that. That’s literally fact denying. Are you serious right now? And to compare FDR to Hitler? Hitler killed MILLIONS of people. Are you serious? No way. Has to be troll.
Here’s a sample:
How is government control of the economy part of capitalism?
Bingo, it makes no sense.
Fascism is just like socialism, with government control of the economy. That’s left-wing.
That means fascism is not right-wing.
And yes, FDR was a fascist. He said he wanted to model America off of Mussolini’s Italy. Are you saying his Italy wasn’t fascist? That’s fact denying.
Here’s where both of you are wrong: Economically, fascism is left-wing. It believes in regulation of business and has socialistic tendencies. Hitler had universal healthcare, public schools, etc.
However, it’s neither left nor right. Fascism restricts personal freedoms severely. It removes every basic human right and makes everything quite uniform. It’s a hugely statist system both fiscally and socially. Calling it left or right in one sense I think doesn’t accurately define it.
Charlie Chaplin’s speech from The Great Dictator edited with “Time” by Hans Zimmer from the Inception Soundtrack.
“Soldiers! don’t give yourselves to brutes – men who despise you – enslave you – who regiment your lives – tell you what to do – what to think and what to feel! Who drill you – diet you – treat you like cattle, use you as cannon fodder. Don’t give yourselves to these unnatural men – machine men with machine minds and machine hearts! You are not machines! You are not cattle! You are men! You have the love of humanity in your hearts! You don’t hate! Only the unloved hate – the unloved and the unnatural! Soldiers! Don’t fight for slavery! Fight for liberty!”
MODERATOR (WENDELL GOLER): Congressman Paul, I believe you are the only man on the stage who opposes the war in Iraq, who would bring the troops home, as quickly as almost immediately, sir. Are you out of step with your party? Is your party out of step with the rest of the world? If either of those is the case, why are you seeking its nomination?
RON PAUL: Well I think the party has lost its way, because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a non-interventionist foreign policy. Senator Robert Taft didn’t even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in the year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy. No nation building. No policing of the world. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War. The Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam War. There’s a strong tradition of being anti-war, in the Republican Party. It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy. Stay out of entangling alliances. Be friends with countries. Negotiate and talk with them and trade with them. Just think of the tremendous improvement of relationships with Vietnam. We lost 60 thousand men. We came home in defeat. Now we go over there and we invest in Vietnam. So there’s a lot of merit to the advice of the founders to follow the Constitution. And my argument is that we shouldn’t go to war so carelessly. When we do, the wars don’t end.
MODERATOR: Congressman. You don’t think that changed with the 9/11 attacks sir?
RON PAUL: What changed?
MODERATOR: The non-interventionist policies.
RON PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we’ve been over there. We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East. I think Reagan was right. We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics, so, right now we’re building an embassy inIraq that’s bigger than the Vatican. We’re building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do, from the perspective, of what would happen if somebody did it to us.
MODERATOR: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attacks, sir?
RON PAUL: I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us, and the reason they did it and they are delighted that we’re over there, because Osama bin Laden has said “I am glad you’re over on our sand, because we can target you so much easier.” They have already now since that time have killed 34 hundred of our men, and I don’t think it was necessary.
GIULIANI: (interrupting) Wendell, can I make a comment on that? Can I make a comment on that? That’s really an extraordinary statement. That’s an extraordinary statement as someone who lived through the attack of September 11th. That we invited the attack, because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I’ve ever heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th.
(crowd applauds)
GIULIANI: And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that.
MODERATOR: Congressman?
RON PAUL: I believe very sincerely, that the C.I.A. is correct when they teach, and talk about “blowback”. When we went intoIran, in 1953 and installed the Shah, yes there was blow-back. And the reaction to that was the taking of our hostages. And that persists, and if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world, and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.
They don’t come over here to attack us, because we’re rich and we’re free. They come and they attack us because we’re over there. I mean what would we think if we — if other foreign countries were doing that to us?
Everything Congressman Paul has to say is absolutely true. Our involvement in the Middle-East brought this upon ourselves. The C.I.A. made Bin Laden an operative as we funded the Mujahideen to fight the Soviets and the DRA. Then we got involved more and more with Iraq and Iran after we set up embassies and put troops in Kuwait. This is what really made Bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda truly start to resent us more so than it did before.
Our interventionist policies and insecurities about collectivism abroad led us to the 9/11 attacks. Anyone who says differently isn’t looking at our track record and isn’t looking at what Osama has said about us.
I made this graphic today to show how disgusted I am with the Iraq war which has brought nothing but misery for the American and Iraqi people. It is a war that should have never been and will have a negative impact on our nation for decades. It is time for us to STAND UP to tyranny and demand that our brave young men and women be brought home IMMEDIATELY from this disturbing conflict… -Mike Zawadzki
Fuck War.
I’m a future sailor in the Navy. This is not the reason I want to enlist. This is a bunch of bullshit. And part of the reason I want to join is that perhaps I can work my way up the hierarchy, and become influential enough to tell the President one day, “No, you should not invade *insert third world country here* for resources, think of the blowback.” If that’s not serving your country, I don’t know what is.
People are saying that the troops are fighting for our freedom. However, in today’s military industrial complex, this is something I cannot agree with. The beginnings of Afghanistan were so, yes, but at this point, and the past few years, it’s been overinflated. Activity in Libya and nation-building in Iraq is a violation against humanitarianism, freedom, and security of citizens of those countries. It hurts these people, draws attention to, and raises issues that would otherwise not be imminent.
If you notice, a business must maximize profits. To maximize profits, there must be a lot of demand for a good or service. For instance, in a restaurant, the service is food service and this service must be paid for. Discriminating removes a HUGE clientele. And not just the banned minorities, but whites who find the rule despicable. The business would die; whoever owns the business would be an idiot (both socially and financially). Ron Paul actually states that. People should have the right to be idiots, especially if its dealing with private property. Besides, to utilize freedom of speech entirely, one must be allowed to exercise that freedom with their possessions, such as land.
Jim Crow laws were enforced by government and slavery was one of the largest government enforced institutions in history. The freedom to express and utilize rights and property actually more effectively removes the racism than government does. Jim Crow laws existed for so long because people wanted to use the force of government to impose their will on people. It’s the same thing that happens with businesses (which is corporatism); it’s why they go so corrupt. Slavery was the same thing. It was all an institutionalized view enforced by government.
Now the reason those businesses survived for so long is because Jim Crow laws were separate but equal. The clientele may have been decreased, but let’s go back to the restaurant example again. The overall demand for restaurants were down, meaning their profits were similar to the restaurants around it under Jim Crow laws. Now without those laws, many restaurants are making an immensely larger profit margin than those who decide to be oppressive. It allows them to expand and offer up better services than those who artificially cut and maim their own demand.
Freedom of speech enables us to say and do controversial things, without harming or imposing different wills on others, utilizing our words and possessions. Conducting these rights includes the right to use one’s property to express these thoughts freely. Again, if someone is really persistent on being oppressive and ignorant, they will soon be hit with huge dips in their profits and may end up in the red. But they have every right to be stupid with the things they own.
