For decades, I’ve been Screaming that the War on Drugs is the most insane policy we have in the United States. Longtime readers likely remember this article containing the following passage:
The proper role of government is to suggest and inform but not coerce or force.
Let’s take the most powerful example of this in the modern era:
“People shouldn’t do drugs.”
Generally, this is solid advice. Drugs screw up lives and often keep you from being the person you could be. I fully support government running informative campaigns to keep people off drugs and even opening treatment centers for people struggling with drug addiction.
But notice what happens when we change one simple word:
“People can’t do drugs.”
If people CAN’T do drugs, that means punishment for those who ignore the law and continue to do drugs. What does that look like? Well, because government only has that giant sledgehammer in its bag, it looks like a trillion dollars fighting the drug war. A boom of the incarcerated, focused mostly on minorities and the poor. And it doesn’t stop when the sentence is over. If you can’t get a job or assistance after you get out because of your conviction, where do you turn to get by?
Negative effects of the War on Drugs reverberate throughout all of society, and I was overjoyed when parts of the country started backing off on it just over a decade ago. (Even just ending dangerous middle-of-the-night raids like the one that killed Breonna Taylor would be a huge step. A bill doing just that remains dead in Congress.)
But part of being a grown-up (so they tell me) is admitting when you’re wrong — and it’s clear the way we’re rethinking the War on Drugs needs some adjusting, and soon.
This footage was recently shot right outside the Nancy Pelosi Federal Building by World Peace Movement (also known as street hero Darren Stallcup), who’s consistently putting out amazing videos chronicling the decline of San Francisco — if you’re on Twitter, give him a follow!
Is it any wonder that federal employees who work in the building were told to work from home instead of attempting to dodge the chaos outside? (Which kind of makes you wonder why they bother putting up 9-figure office buildings in the first place.)
But as bad as the situation looks in broad daylight, it gets worse once the sun goes down and the crowd starts to gather:
Stallcup describes the scene in San Francisco as a “fentanyl genocide”, and we see similar scenes in Philadelphia, Oakland, Seattle, Portland, and basically everywhere big enough to have a ‘real’ downtown.
This situation is quite obviously unsustainable. While I still believe we shouldn’t be busting down doors to arrest people who are getting high at home and not hurting anybody, these local governments have seemingly decided that anybody can do whatever they want — in pubic — with no consequences at all.
It’s worth asking why cities allow this to continue. Despite the fact that marijuana (sorry, that’s racist — I mean cannabis) is legal in Washington state, there are numerous rules about how much of it you can have and when and where you can smoke it. One would think that — at the very least — the same rules would apply for illegal drugs such as fentanyl.
We don’t have to be locking up people for possession — but we also don’t have to allow them to be using drugs in public. I don’t expect government to do much, but ‘enforcing public intoxication laws’ lies squarely inside that box. But every day, police and other government officials simply turn a blind eye to the ever-worsening problem.
Between 2015 and 2021 (the last year for which hard data is available), drug overdose deaths in the United States have more than DOUBLED — and the CDC’s provisional data for later years shows no improvement of the situation. And while digging around for the latest stats, I came across a fact that seems unbelievable:
This is a staggering figure that shows just how prevalent the problem has become — and if this continues I can easily imagine a public outcry demanding action that it makes the “Just Say No” years look like a game of patty-cake. When huge parts of your city are completely intraversable, you’re going to ask your public officials — perhaps loudly — what the fuck they’re doing with your tax money.
This is a huge problem requiring multiple steps and no easy answers. But priority one MUST be returning the cities to livable condition. Allowing West Coast cities to become drug free-for-alls didn’t turn those cities into Amsterdam, it turned them into Baltimore.
Afraid of commitment? Buy me a coffee on Ko-fi — no subscription required!
As an apology for the depressing article, here’s a cat pic:
I lost my fiance during the first wave of lockdowns when she overdosed, alone. She was 29. I was in L.A. at the time, she in Atlanta. Isolated, lonely, and depressed after losing her job, she relapsed after 3 years clean. It's the reason I remain so bitter about the lockdown and quarantine policies imposed on us.
https://www.euphoricrecall.net/p/a-sad-soul-can-kill-you-quicker-than
Beyond the numbing accountancy, the opioid epidemic has failed to impress itself onto America. Most people don't realize how badly our pandemic policies exacerbated drug overdoses. Before the pandemic hit, national efforts to stem the opioid crisis were just beginning to show progress. In January 2020, the CDC released 2018 data showing a slight decline in fatal overdoses for the first time in 28 years, a glimmer of hope that makes what followed all the more sad.
This is a great post, thanks for highlighting the problem.
An update:
"the War on Drugs is the most insane policy we have in the United States."
now should be:
"the War on Drugs as the most insane policy we have in the United States BEFORE COVID"
I think the last 3 years may have raised the bar on insane policies ;-).
Also a correction marijuana (as it is listed in the federal controlled substance act) remains illegal in Washington state, and all other states and US territories, as marijuana is listed (in two places) as prohibited under all conditions.
There exists a conflict under federal and state law. For decades the principle of "federal preemption" has stood, which is the foundation of the DEA and most other federal agencies. In fact, a plethora of federal agencies would lose all power if preemption is challenged and lost. Federal preemption originates in the 14th amendment. Read it and you will probably wonder "what??" so here's the crux:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
All this BS comes in under "equal protection". Crazy, right? When Colorado passed it's bill decriminalizing and controlling weed, then AG Eric Holder, acting under orders of his boss Obama surely, responded with a promise send in the DEA to raid every pot shop and use the "permit" list to track down and incarcerate users. Then AG of Colorado (I've forgotten his/her/its name) responded "bring it on!". All but begging for a chance to challenge preemption and the controlled substance act.
Can you imagine Holder explaining to a JURY that "equal protection" means protecting the right to be incarcerated? My money was on Colorado at the time. Pretty quickly word got to Holder to back off, likely because the potential repercussions of losing the pot case could ripple throughout many federal agencies that depend on preemption to hold power. Obama did not want to be the guy to admit things like the federal firearms act were struck down on his watch!
BTW one senator routinely introduces a bill to remove marijuana from the controlled substance list. Simple, and just: two places strike the word "marijuana" and it's done. it becomes regulated at the state level. The conflict between Colorado, California, Oregon, Washington et al fixed. A large number of states lack any laws criminalizing pot - they simply refer to the federal list - and so pot becomes legal in those states overnight. Rand Paul is the senator (from the conservative state of Ky - how is that for role reversal?). Both parties oppose his bill, every time. In recent years, the R and D parties will, occasionally, introduce a bill that by title and motherhood text would "legalize" marijuana, but it is fraudulent (at least each one I've read), instead creating an entirely new way (and bureaucracy) to regulate. Typically hundreds of pages. Neither actually wants to give up the power that having many millions of otherwise law abiding citizens classified as felons begets, ripe for selective enforcement.
Sorry...you hit the red button and opened that box...one of my soapbox topics!