How the War on Drugs is Fundamentally Flawed

I won't blame you if scoffing at this notion is your initial reaction.

How could you not? If you are like most people then you've been bombarded with the notion that the War on Drugs is necessary and good.

That all the sacrifices made are worthwhile...

After all...

Source

With the help of information garnered from drugpolicy.org, nap.edu ("The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences"), and civilrights.findlaw.com it is my intention to give you cause to question what you've been persistently fed for near enough the past half-decade.

Yes - the figures and history mentioned below were mostly new to me just three months ago and a lot of what I offer here is re-packaged information based upon the sources mentioned, with a twist. Its certainly quicker to breeze through this than to conduct your own investigation...

(João Silas)

...but its still worth delving into the mentioned sources if you would like to learn more (especially the 3-minute video at the beginning of the first link - its a good intro to part of the problem).

Also - a heads-up. This post focuses upon the US but I know that the so-called "War on Drugs" isn't exclusively a US issue. Its recently reared its ugly head in Indonesia - and the EU is far from unaffected either. That being said, the information that I have is mostly relevant to the US scenario - and the US scenario is large enough to be considered of Global importance.

Anti-Drug Laws Prior to the War on Drugs

Anti-drug laws & prohibition in the US have been around for at least a century prior to the actual declaration of a war on drugs.

Also - it has been strongly suggested that these were at least in-part racially motivated.

• Opiates (vs. the Chinese) in 1870.
• Cocaine (vs. African Americans) in the early 1900s.
• Marijuana (vs. Mexicans & Mexican Americans)in the 1910s and 1920s.

Of course - not 'all' of those among the respective racial groups engaged in these drugs - but the drugs were popular among a fair number within these groups (same applies to further inferrences to '[race] and their [drug]' in the rest of this post). As such, any such laws were indirect attacks upon those groups.

Source

And we need to remember that racial segregation within the US ended buch later - in the early-to-mid 1960s - and that a fair number would argue that even today, racial discrimination is still alive and well. As such, the notion that drug laws might be used as a weapon against particular racial groups shouldn't be too surprising within that era.

...And then Nixon happened.

Source

The War on Drugs

In 1971, US president Nixon declared a "war on drugs".

During the same year he instated a number of policies (such as mandatory sentencing and no-knock warrants (breaking an entry without prior notice)) - this while also heavily beefing up federal drug control agencies.

Coincidentally these policies had, by far, the greatest impact upon two groups.

The anti-war Hippies with their marijuana, and the African Americans with their heroin.

Source

Conveniently, marijuana then spent a period reclassified as a "Schedule One drug" - which is the most restrictive classification that can be given to any such substance (and for which the penalties are thus, again conveniently, steepest).

The government criminalized both, harassing and/ or arresting their leaders, and paraded members of both groups upon the media, invading their homes, and disrupting their meetings with the aim of discrediting, discouraging & persecuting their movements and themselves through the effective weaponization of law.

...And then Reagan happened.

Source

---

The Second Escalation - Engineering a Hostage Population

The 1980s saw a government under the presidency of Ronald Reagan engage in a massive escalation and expansion of the "war on drugs".

As a result of such, the number of people behind bars for 'non-violent drug law offences' climbed from 50,000 in 1980 to over 400,000 in 1997.

The number of people behind bars for these same crimes in 1970 is something that I can only guess - but information suggests that as from 1973, following 50 years of stability, the prison populations of the United States began to grow steadily.

With subsequent media desensitization of the general public, which pretty much began with Nancy Reagan's much-publicized "Just Say No" campaign*, the stage was set for a series of zero-tolerance policies being passed in the mid-to late 1980s.

(*it was 'very' effective - In 1985 2-6% of Americans saw drugs to be the number one problem facing society. In September 1989 - this portion increased dramatically to 65%)

The political hysteria surrounding drugs fanned the flames.

The flames paved the way to more draconian penalties being passed by congress.

Coincidentally, the 1980s also saw a widespread trend of privatization of prisons - and a consequent increase in for-profit prisons...

...and unsurprisingly the prison population exploded.

(Tao Wen)

Bi-Lateral Partisan Support

For those who might have expected the Democrats to ease upon the War on Drugs - they have been left largely disappointed.

If the Republican presidents tended to rachet-up the War on Drugs, it seemed the role of the Democrats to keep it racheted-up - with very little easing.

The presidency of Bill Clinton saw a U-turn on an initial signal of an easing of the drug law. He reversed his decision for some reason.

...and then George W. Bush happened.

Source

It was the presidency of George W. Bush that saw yet another escalation...

...at times clocking 40,000 SWAT-style invasions of citizens' property (as permitted under the previously-mentioned no-knock warrants)...

...per annum.

Coincidentally this was while the United States of America was taking military action abroad against Afghanistan and Iraq...

(Ben Koorengevel)

OK. So surely Barack Obama put a dent in the War on Drugs that up until this point had been somewhat disproportionately aimed at non-white Americans.

Um... no.

As recently as August 2016 (a few months before... Donald Trump (and Jeff Sessions) happened), Barack Obama shot down an attempt to ease the (previously-mentioned as highly-restrictive) scheduling status of Marijuana.

If he wasn't even willing to bend on a mere plant... then he was continuing the Democrat tradition of 'holding' until the next Republican escalation comes along.

Its almost as if they weren't really seperate entities...

Source

---

What of Incarceration Rates?

The very short of it is that current prison population within the United States...

...is at least 2.15 million persons.

In the mid-1970s it was circa half a million persons.

Incarceration for 'non-violent drug-related crimes' increased by a multiplier of 8.

For more detail about the flaws of the US prison system - click here.

Source

Incidentally, Jeff Sessions under Donald Trump is rolling out the current escalation.

All the while, celebrity deaths from prescription drugs (since the Pharmaceutical Industry is pretty much unscathed in all of this) have become a relative normality that authorities seem intent on turning a blind eye to.

Source

---

A few questions to reflect upon:

This is the point where the facts shall end and the speculation will continue. A few questions may be slightly of the leading variety - so kindly take the following section with a pinch of salt. Do think about it though.

On the legitimacy of the roots of the "War on Drugs":

We have seen that racial and political considerations appear to feature heavily.

Why would a government target sections of its population with laws specifically impacting them?

Source

Is it because the government recognizes that laws are a useful way of leveraging power?

Is it also because while racial-biases are being... semi-addressed on the streets...

...upstairs in the upper eschelons of power....

...shadowy figures that back candidates...

...both Republican and Democrat...

...(because thats how demockerycy** as we know it works)...

...hold on to a backward racially-based biases and resultant agenda...

...and abuse policy to engineer advantage and disadvantage accordingly?

(** Demockerycy - an illusion of democracy perverted through opinion-engineering and the presentation of a limited number of choices - usually two - that amount to the same thing (drama may be included for effect))

(PICSELI)

If the inception of this so-called "War on Drugs"...

...can be demonstrated to be a contrived effort in political expediency...

...with motives quite independent from protecting anybody from drugs to begin with...

...how 'valid' can this war possibly be?

Source

On the 'Nature' of Drugs:

If one were to take another hard look at the ills associated with drugs to begin with...

...how many of them may be attributed to the "war on drugs" itself?

Of those ills that do not appear to be so (chance of death or impairment of judgment)...

...would there not arise a consistency issue...

...pertaining to the ills associated with other non-prohibited substances?

Nicotine... Alcohol... Prescription Drugs...

(freestocks.org)

Even if any such potential consistency issue revealed...

...were not considered sufficient grounds to rethink the "war on drugs"...

...is a process of persecution truly the way to counter these 'ills'?

Of the war on drugs and incarceration:

This subject is, again, treated within another post, but the following needs to be asked.

2.15 million Americans behind bars...

What is achieved by placing them within such an environment...

...so very well known for being filled with unsavory characters?

More-over, what if a fair number of these same unsavory characters, were made unsavory through necessary adaptation to the very nature of the prison system, producing what may fairly be referred to as a university for criminality?

Where is the logic in creating and perpetuating a failed system that makes good apples bad, and bad apples rotten with little thought to their true rehabilitation? Unless such can be profited off of, of course.

Source

Is it not convenient that the pool of inmates within the for-profit prison system presents a source of 'very' cheap labour for corporations? With incarceration proving so beneficial to the influencial and affluent few, what motive could they possibly have in rehabilitating the inmate population?

After all - does not a relapser make for a promising source for further years of law-sanctioned exploitation? Legalized slavery by another name?

Source

Of the True Role of the "War on Drugs":

Beside the odd name here and there paraded in the media, and the odd bust resulting in the confiscation of a number of kilos of this or that, do you often hear of big heads rolling? Is the "war on drugs" even living up to its purported purpose?

Is it even any closer to fulfilling its purpose?

Sure - if inflating the exploitable prison population is the measure of success - like some kind of a perverse highscore...

Is it simply failing in its purpose, or is its unofficial purpose more in-line with shadowy interests?

Source

Let us speculate for a moment.

Might it be that the drug control resources are being moved around like pawns upon a big game board, cracking down mainly upon users, abusers, small-time dealers and "entrepreneurial types" trying to get in on the underground market profitable to those same shadowy interests?

And 'if' this is so - might it then not also be that the "war on drugs", whether wittingly or not, actually serves as the unofficial enforcer arm acting primarily against the 'less approved' within the resultant shadow economy landscape while turning a convenient blind eye to the 'favored'?

Source

After all - is it not when an industry is driven underground that the greatest potential for profit exists for the devious and powerful? What better way to run interference with the drug control crowd than to have a puppeteer-friendly politician (and/or a few mid-to-high-ranking officials) in one's pocket?

Can one consider it beyond the realm of possibility that an entity (that conveniently ever-eludes the law) might actually be sending trickles of benefit indirectly to whomsoever's "charitable" foundation?

Its not like charities are required to pass on an obscenely small percentage of peoples' generosity to the beneficiaries in question... a year or more down the line... while the vast majority of such funds vanish to "administrative overheads" and the lining of pockets...

Source

Ah... but that was not a question.

---

Yes, yes. As I mentioned, the latter part of this was more speculative than 'necessarily' factual.

It is intended to get you thinking about that which has transpired.

To look around at the World and ask "Does that make sense?".

To regard the system with a healthier degree of suspicion.

...

Of course this has been me monologuing and that won't do (Source of incoming).

Let us have a conversation about the various aspects - the ins and the outs of drugs, the "war on drugs" (pro and anti), mass-incarceration policies, and so on. Lets talk about it down below in comments. :c)

Also - If you found this post interesting and would like to share this with your friends and followers then a resteem couldn't hurt and would be appreciated.

And if you have some other kind of feedback for me then feel free to share your views in comments.

Yes! A civil conversation 'can' go a long way.

Sincerely,

Previous Post: Meme Challenge 33 - Entry 2 - Hooked You Real Good!