The Two-fold Purpose of the War on Drugs

There are two reasons for the war on drugs. The first is to keep the violent drug cartels, the violent street gangs, and the global terrorists in business and flush with American money. The second is to feed the prison industrial complex. All those prison builders, prison suppliers, prison staff, not to mention the private prison stockholders, have to have jobs and make money some way, don't they?

If, somehow, by some miraculous act, Congress took their heads out of where the sun doesn't shine and repealed the biggest rights-violating scheme of laws in the United States (the war on drugs) and re-established the principle of inalienable rights, the drug cartels, street gangs and global terrorists would be put out of business immediately. And I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that, especially, the major drug cartels have money in this game to keep the war on drugs going. They have too much to lose otherwise.

The prison-industrial complex also lobbies Congress hard for mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug crimes. It's their bread and butter. Long sentences equal job security. And, for the prison guards, non-violent prisoners also means job safety.

But, if you are intellectually and philosophically honest, you have to ask yourself how non-violent, non-larcenous, consensual adult behavior, which almost all drug behavior is, can be consider a crime. It doesn't violate anyone's rights. It is well-documented that the vast majority of drug users are honest, peaceful citizens who just like to alter their perceptions with a drug other than alcohol. You may find it to be immoral, but that's a religious concept and, I'm sure, there are many things you find to be immoral in our nation today that are legal . . . because they don't violate the rights of others.

You might say we have to protect the children. But that's just the problem. The war on drugs actually makes these substances more available to minors. The dealers don't care who buys them as long as they have the money to pay for them. That is a direct parallel with the war on alcohol--prohibition.

Prior to prohibition, saloon-keepers could have been put out of business if caught selling alcohol to minors. After prohibition, the people making and selling booze didn't care who bought it, just as long as they had the money to pay for it. The alcoholic rate among teen-agers went up during prohibition, as well as a disregard for the law.

The issue of drug use, including alcohol and tobacco, is a personal morals issue, not a secular, criminal one. An adult, under the principle of inalienable rights, owns his or her body completely and can, or should, be able to do with it whatever he or she wants to do, just so long as in so doing they do not violate the rights of others. How does the mere use of a drug violate the rights of others? Almost all of the violence associated with the presently illegal drugs is caused by their being illegal. However, the drug alcohol is the drug most associated with violent behavior merely from its use. Ask any honest cop.

The anti-drug-use laws are based on the moral principles of certain religious people. (Check out who lobbied the hardest for the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914.) Basically, certain religious groups got their version of morality passed into federal secular law.  (Which would seem to be a violation of the First Amendment's "establishment" clause.)

Let me give you an example. If a man sits in his house all day drinking whiskey and smoking cigarettes and not bothering any one, he can drink until he pukes and passes out and there are no legal grounds to arrest him, even if the neighbors know what he is doing and tells the police. However, if the same man was in his house, again, not bothering anyone, smoking pot, or even snorting coke, and his neighbors knew it and told the police, then the police could get a search warrant, bust down the man's door and, if they found the presently illegal drugs, they would arrest that man and they could confiscate his house, too. Two examples of non-violent, consensual adult drug use with two very different outcomes. The law does not equal justice.

By the way, did you know that prior to 1914 and the Harrison Narcotics Act, there was no criminal justice problems associated with the use of the drugs that are now illegal. The drugs were legal, cheap, and there was no violence or threat of violence in the purchase or use of them. That is, the government created the problems that we now associated with the drug trade. Now that's criminal.

So, yes, the drug war is being fought to protect the money that the drug cartels, street gangs, and global terrorists are making and to protect and preserve the prison-industrial complex. Despite anything a politician or policeman might say about protecting society, those are the only two reason for the continuation of the war on drugs because the war on drugs is not only a failure, it has also created more harm and misery than any harm and misery it was meant to prevent. And anyone with half a mind knows it.

America has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's imprisoned population. We stopped being the land of the free and the land of liberty long ago. And it's all predicated on the war on drugs which, in reality is a war on the right of all adults to the full and complete ownership of his or her body and mind.

http://dowehaverights.blogspot.com/

Rick Perry's Drug War Political Nonsense Comment

Presidential hopeful, Texas Governor Rick Perry, recently said sending U.S. troops to Mexico to fight the drug cartels would be an option if he were to be elected President. That's just political rhetoric.

Besides the fact that Mexico wouldn't allow it--their constitution forbids it--what would be the result of shutting down the Mexican drug cartels?

Well, first, we could do the logical thing and just legalize all the presently illegal drugs just like alcohol and tobacco are legal now. That would shut the violent drug cartels down without firing a shot. It would raise a whole bunch of tax revenue, too. I have studied the issue for many years now and it is my strongly held belief that to re-legalize* the presently illegal drugs may cause a small, temporary rise in drug use. After that, however, drug use would go down. There would be no rebellious or counter-culture cache to it. Being a druggie would just be like being a wino or alcoholic now. Besides, the major illegal drug of choice is marijuana, and government study after government study, starting with the British in 1899, have all said that marijuana is, all things considered, less harmful than alcohol.

But, our politicians are either not logical or they are cowards (politcal suicide to propose the logical thing), so if we sent in enough troops and smart bombs and forced Mexico to let us do it, we might, just might kill all those drug cartel people. But that would just push the problem to somewhere else and drugs would still get into the U.S. in large quantities.

I like the first scenario, of course, because I'm a Libertarian and I want so very much for our government to re-establish the principle of inalienable rights. That would include the right of adults to own, and own completely, their bodies and minds and do with them as they pleased, just so long as they did not violate the rights of others when they did. It is a verifiable fact that the mere use of the presently illegal drugs causes little to no violence or criminal behavior in general. It is the prohibition of them that is the cause of nearly all drug-related violence and crime.

But now, to my real point. If we legalized drugs or were able to put the drug cartels out of business by force and, somehow, stopped the drug flow from Mexico to the U.S., then we stand a very good chance of causing Mexico to collapse financially and fall into anarchy and revolution. Billions of dollars flow south to Mexico. It has been estimated that Mexico gets 35 billion dollars from the illegal drug trade. That is approximately 18% of Mexico's G.D.P. Eighteen percent is nearly one-fifth. What would happen in the U.S. if we took nearly one-fifth of the money out of the economy, one out of every five dollars? Well, it would be a whole lot worse in Mexico.

U.S. economists and political analysts know the potential of an economic meltdown in Mexico should they stop getting the drug money. Rick Perry has people around him that know it too. Therefore, his get tough talk is just that, talk.

___________

* Note: I use the term "re-legalize" because about 100 years ago the presently illegal drugs were legally sold and used in the U.S. and there was no criminal justice problem associated with their use. But Christian temperance groups found their use to be immoral, therefore they lobbied Congress to make them illegal--the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914. Basically, they got their version of religion passed into supposedly secular U.S. law. That would seem to be a violation of the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment.