From Nixon to Trump, the 'War on Drugs' Has Been a Disaster for Americans' Freedom
The Trump administration's chest-pounding approach is costing lives and eroding freedoms.
The United States government first launched a War on Drugs on June 17, 1971, when President Richard Nixon declared: "America's public enemy number one…is drug abuse. In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new all-out offensive…This will be a worldwide offensive dealing with the problems of sources of supply."
The war has ebbed and flowed over the past 54 years, but the results are clear. Drugs won. But instead of learning the requisite lessons, the Trump administration is ramping up anti-drug-war rhetoric to lunatic levels. The president recently issued an executive order designating fentanyl as a "weapon of mass destruction." He's empowered the military to destroy Venezuelan boats that likely aren't carrying that synthetic opioid or even headed to the United States.
The administration's rhetoric is mind-numbingly off the rails. For instance, Attorney General Pam Bondi in April claimed during congressional testimony that Donald Trump's policies have saved the lives of 258-million people. It's highly unlikely that 75% of America's population would have died from drug overdoses, just as it's highly unlikely that, per Trump, each boat strike saves 25,000 lives.
As Reason's Jacob Sullum explained, "Trump assumes that any given amount of drugs would be evenly divided into lethal doses, each of which would be consumed in one sitting by a different person." By similar thinking, the feds could shut down the entire alcohol industry in the United States and save everyone's lives, given there's enough of it out there for every American to die of alcohol poisoning. The administration's fabulism only undermines any faith one might have in its anti-drug policies.
Yes, the nation does have a serious fentanyl problem. In 1971, 3.3 Americans died of a drug overdose per 100,000 population. In 2023, the numbers hit 31 per 100,000, with the death rate on a steady upward trajectory since Nixon's speech. The good news: those rates fell 27% in 2024. The reasons are inconclusive, but likely involve expanded drug treatment and the increased availability of overdose-reversing naloxone. Taking a public-health strategy to address a largely public-health problem might be more effective than labeling drugs as WMDs.
The nation's fentanyl scourge—and there's always some new, potent drug epidemic, from crack cocaine to Ecstasy—is a prime example of the Iron Law of Prohibition. In his testimony before the U.S. Senate in February, the Cato Institute's health expert Jeffrey Singer explained it this way: "Enforcing prohibition incentivizes those who market prohibited substances to develop more potent forms that are easier to smuggle in smaller sizes." Now "other highly potent synthetic opioids are becoming more attractive for drug trafficking organizations to produce and sell."
Drug-warriors ignore how their own policies helped create the latest crisis. The feds began cracking down on prescription opioid analgesics (OAs) to combat their overprescribing to people with pain issues. "Unfortunately, opioid dependence and addiction do not simply dissipate with the contraction in the availability of OA pills…Instead, individuals who lost access have turned to cheaper, more accessible and more potent black market opioid alternatives," per a 2017 article in the International Journal of Drug Policy. The prime alternative was heroin. The feds cracked down on that, too, and then black markets shifted to fentanyl.
That War on Drugs has had myriad other ill effects, although they are so commonplace that most of us don't notice. It has led to the militarization of police forces, which increasingly view themselves as invading armies rather than community peace officers. The administration's green light to aggressive policing tactics (as well as its deployment of the military in cities) only compounds this dangerous shift.
A stepped up drug war could also be a pre-text for a real shooting war, with The New York Times reporting the administration might actually be more interested in Venezuela's oil reserves than its basically non-existent drug infrastructure.
At home, the drug war has undermined our property rights. One prominent drug-war tool, civil asset forfeiture, has allowed law-enforcement agencies to discard due process and take people's cars, homes and cash based on an officer's mere suspicion those items are tied to a drug offense. Victims need to prove their innocence, which turns our constitutional system on its head. The original policy was designed to deprive drug cartels of ill-gotten gains, but now is deployed mostly against ordinary Americans, with the agencies keeping the proceeds from the takings.
Most Americans are aware of the foolhardy nature of alcohol Prohibition, which empowered organized crime, led to alcohol poisonings as illicit operations rarely have great quality control, corrupted police agencies and politicians, and caused prison overcrowding. We see similar results after a half-century of drug prohibition.
Sensible leadership would try to figure out the reasons for the past year's drop in overdoses and build on that rather than double down on decades of bad policies that have made our country more dangerous and less free.
This column was first published in The Orange County Register.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
It’s been much worse for the drug boat guys.
those dirt poor Maryland fisherman dads driving boats with 120k+ USD worth of motors?
It was a three hour tour.
"surely you don't believe Gilligan island"
"those poor poor people"
Are you saying that wasn’t a documentary?
"mind-numbingly off the rails"
Says the Californian.
Aligning with one libertarian issue does not make you a libertarian. IOW, now do guns.
I'm a LOT more interested in the ISSUES than in the author.
The ARTICLE is spot-on.
Agreed.
Reason has done guns plenty of times. Do search on "reason magazine guns"
https://reason.org/topics/individual-freedom/guns/
https://reason.com/category/civil-liberties/gun-rights/guns/
"...From Nixon to Trump..."
Something left out there, TDS-addled steaming pile of lying shit?
Fuck off and die.
BTW:
"...As Reason's Jacob Sullum explained, "Trump assumes that any given amount of drugs would be evenly divided into lethal doses, each of which would be consumed in one sitting by a different person."..."
Do you get bonus points for referencing the lies of other TDS-addled steaming piles of shit who work here? Or are you too stupid to find reliable sources for you cites, asswipe?
Sullum references, for when yglasias seems too intelligent
From Fox News: 'Trump said on Monday, claiming that each of the "boats that we knocked out saved 25,000 lives."' https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-admin-announces-deadly-attack-low-profile-vessel-perpetrating-narco-trafficking-operations
Sevo, if you're a conservative, you're an embarrassment to conservatives with your scatological name-calling.
*Most Americans are aware of the foolhardy nature of alcohol Prohibition, which empowered organized crime, led to alcohol poisonings as illicit operations rarely have great quality control, corrupted police agencies and politicians, and caused prison overcrowding.*
Most Americans are also aware of the retarded nature of celebrating drug use, which empowered organized crime, led to millions of deaths of overdose and addiction, laid waste to families, and destroyed downtowns across the country that are overrun with homeless drug zombies who prey on the taxpayers (in more ways than one).
Reason: 100% freedom, 0% consequence. Please let me know how that makes you any different than the far left. I'll know this publication is serious if it ever demands mandatory penalties and an end to public funds BEFORE it pushes for more drugs on the street.
This. Sure legalize all drugs, but bring back 3 strikes. You commit 3 crimes your in for life
Alcohol. There's plenty of bums in my neighborhood. I see a lot more alcohol usage than anything else. Most of those people would be homeless anyway, drugs or no drugs. Many if not most of them turn to drugs to cope with homelessness.
Do both at the same time. I, and most libertarians, would vote for reasonably increased penalties for real crimes (not victimless noncompliances like drug sale or possession). Reason has never advocated for the welfare state. Bad laws like drug prohibition have bad consequences, like increased homicide rates. Look up homicide rates
after prohibition. https://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_083892.pdf Notice the steep drop in homicides after the end of Prohibition in 1934.
No one is celebrating drug use. It's prohibition that empowers organized crime. If the drugs were legal, then addicts would get inexpensive, accurately measured doses from pharmacies. No one is forced to use drugs. The addicts knew the drugs were addictive and the risks of overdose before ever using them but they used the drugs anyway.
addicts would get inexpensive, accurately measured doses from pharmacies.
That is a ridiculous fantasy.
No, it's not. Do people still buy alcohol from bootleggers? Or do they buy it legally in stores?
The only fantasy is that conservatives would ever be rational with respect to drugs.
The idea that CVS and Walgreen's are going to be OK with dispensing narcotics to addicts is absurd. The idea that taxpayers and insurance companies will ever be OK with paying for that is absurd. It's not going to happen. The idea that addicts will be satisfied with the amount and type of drugs they are legally dispensed is absurd. This kind of flagrant disconnection from reality is why libertarians are not taken seriously.
They already do. There's plenty of pain patients whose only choice is addiction or pain who get their prescriptions from CVS or Walgreens. CVS and Walgreens want to make money. If there's demand, they (or someone) will supply it much more cheaply than the current black or overly-regulated market.
Or, their would be specialty stores for drugs the same as there are liquor stores to sell alcohol.
Taxpayers and insurance companies wouldn't be paying anything. The users would pay out-of-pocket just as they would for booze.
No, it's not. The addicts would be able to obtain legally and cheaply, and of purer quality, any drug currently on the black market, just as they buy liquor from liquor stores or drugs from drugstores. Why? Because it would be legal and profitable like any other business, and the cost to manufacture the drugs is cheap if they're legal.
Maybe not by social conservatives, but by the population at-large and more importantly by the swing voters Libertarians are taken seriously. There's no disconnection. If anyone is disconnected, the prohibitionists and social conservatives are. Understand that Republicans win if libertarians vote for them. Alienate the libertarian vote and lose.
The question is what actually is the reality. The reality is some people are more susceptible to drug use and abuse than others. I think social conservatives, more than libertarians, fear that if drugs were legalized, they or their loved one's would not resist temptation to use drugs and become addicted or possibly overdose. So, they tend to support removing the temptation of drugs by supporting and enforcing prohibition.
Libertarians, on the other hand, are generally much more confident that they and their loved ones will resist drug abuse on their own without the government having to remove the temptation of drugs. And, even if a person became addicted, libertarians don't regard it as a fate worse than death like conservatives tend to. Under legalization, the drugs would be so cheap, the addicts could support their habits on their paychecks, just the same as alcoholics and smokers do. There's plenty of free rehab available.
There's always going to be a certain number of people who die or ruin their lives, whether by drugs, guns, cars, alcohol or tobacco. That's life. Accept it. Or deal with it by non-coercive means if coercion has not been initiated.
The Truth
Some years ago at this time of year, I attend a Christmas-party in the District of Corruption. I began talking with a fellow who worked for the Department off the Treasury. He specialized in illegal drug interdiction.
"It doesn't seem to be very effective," said I.
He replied, "Not effective? It's a sick joke!"
Nothing has changed. There are only two ways to deal with mind-altering drugs. For a scientific discussion, read the novel, Retribution Fever. For nonsense, listen to politicians.
There's another way.
Stop saving the lives of OD'ing addicts.
Let nature take its course.
I agree. Most drug addicts gave worked their way up from something less harmful, like alcohol or pot, and now live parasitical existences. In my town they can get free food, clothing, and shelter, but not free drugs. They have to steal to get those.
If police and EMYs are not authorized to administer Narcan it will be up to those citizens who are either related to who continue to believe the impossible.
Absolutely. Narcan ain't free, so anytime you see a heroin addict getting some, that means we can add that expense to the welfare they already take.
It is not my job to protect people from themselves. It is the job of their families. If they do not care, I cannot see why I should.
If the drugs were legalized, it could be required that Narcan be included in any narcotic purchase, or a tax could be levied on narcotics purchases to cover the cost of Narcan.
Less harmful like alcohol?
Alcohol is rated the most harmful recreational drug known
Its top in both the harmful to users and harmful to society categories
Causes death, cancer, brain damage in children, violence etc
Whats worse than that?
Heroin.
Cocaine.
Fetanyl.
Fuck, marijuana is rather shitty.
Not, necessarily. Cocaine powder and cannabis are not worse than alcohol.
Can we stop supplementing their government welfare too? Allow Americans to defend themselves from addicts? Actually lock them up for their crimes in pursuit of their addictions?
Indeed. They should be expected to abide by the rules of society and their drug use should not constitute a defense of any sort.
Reason wants them to do what they want AND to have us financially and culturally support them.
The wrong Koch brother died, clearly.
No, they don't.
Libertarians have no problem locking up people who infringe individual rights.
How about legalising the drugs and then leaving users alone to die?
“Nature taking its course” is not making all drugs except alcohol and tobacco illegal and then being surprised that the whole black market/higher potency drugs/adulterated drugs/drug gangs disasters play out.
A legal market in heroin for example would vastly reduce overdoses and fentanyl use.
If addicts are able to buy heroin legally at non black market prices they wont have to steal/prostitute themselves etc to afford it
A legal market has not prevented tobacco or alcohol from being abused incessantly.
If I am expected to pay for the downsides of their habits, then I say do not permit their habits. Period. You can kill yourself on your dime, not on mine. Do you think legal heroin is going to stop anything? The same morons who take it now will take it then. They are already quite aware that fetanyl has been mixed into heroin for a while now. That knowledge has not stopped anything. When does it become their responsibility?
My days of empathy for those poor drug addicts has ended. Full stop. If I do not have to deal with the outcomes of their behavior, then I do not care what anybody does. If I do, then I damned well should have a say.
I didnt say that would stop drug abuse.
I think it would reduce the bad affects of drug abuse (accidental overdoses, fentanyl adulteration, drug gangs, loss of rights, militarisation of police, DEA existence etc)
Apparently you are ok with paying for alcohol abuse though.
“If I am expected to pay for the downsides of their habits, then I say do not permit their habits. Period. You can kill yourself on your dime, not on mine.”
This applies to alcohol as well you know. Drinkers are quite aware that alcohol causes death, cancer, violence and brain damaged babies for a while now.
That knowledge has not stopped anything. When does it become their responsibility?
Not wishing to EXPAND problems is not an endorsement of current problems.
There is zero evidence of it reducing all of those ills, nor any logical reason to assume it would.
I think you're under the impression that I wish to pay for alcohol's downside. It is ALREADY legal, which causes issues. No need to make MORE problems legal.
Libertarianism does not, in any way, work in a society with a safety net.
^^
According to libertarianism, it's not the purpose of government to provide "safety nets" or anything for free. It's the responsibility of the individual to himself or herself to resist temptation for himself or herself, not to expect the government to remove all temptation. One does not have a right to a government-enforced drug free environment any more than one has a right to a government-enforced gun free environment or government-provided free healthcare or basic income.
Where is it the purpose of the government to save people from themselves? The purpose of government is to prosecute violations of individual rights. If a drug user commits an infringement of individual rights, then prosecute the user for it. If a person destroys his or her life by using drugs, the rest of society will move on.
"If you don't 100% stop all bad things, you must 100% embrace all bad things" is not a grown up argument. That bad things result from alcohol dependency is not as argument FOR drug dependency.
Your arguments are what made the LP into a nonfactor. Try to give me reasons, despite all evidence, that humans can handle unfettered access to hard drugs. And tell me explicitly how you're going to shield the law abiding and taxpaying from the negative consequences addicts carry.
So what? There will always be some "abuse". If that abuse harms someone else, then prosecute it like prosecuting drunk drivers. No one is stupid enough to bring back alcohol prohibition or to prohibit tobacco.
But, you are NOT being expected to pay for the downsides of their habits
under legalization. Under prohibition, you are. Under legalization, a person could still be prosecuted for driving under the influence. Under legalization, the drugs would be so cheap that the addicts could support their habits on their paychecks or by panhandling without having to steal. Under legalization, the gangs will have to find a different source of revenue or fade away. It's black market profits that fuel the gangs. It's prohibition that creates those black markets.
I lean toward this solution in Libertopia. However, even if politically possible in the real world, there would be a lot of pressure to add taxes on drug sales to pay for K-12 education, addict treatment, overdose response, etc. This would drive up prices on legal drugs and wouldn't eliminate the illicit drug trade.
A hard nut to crack. Maybe we'll get there incrementally, but not in my lifetime, I reckon.
We never had a War on Drugs until a few weeks ago.
That's certainly when it got exciting.
It's very easy to say what is not a solution. Maybe the author can say what is a solution? There is a lot to learn from countries that have very few drug problems - Japan, Singapore, Iceland, and the Nordic countries.
Don't have minorities?
The Trump administration's chest-pounding approach is costing lives and eroding freedoms.
You ought to see what the chest-wheezing-through-the-inhaler approach got us.
From the linked reference, "As of September 1, 2024, Oregon’s grand experiment with drug legalization is over. After three years of decriminalization,..."
Decriminalization and legalization are not the same. Under legalization, one could purchase drugs in a legitimate pharmacy. Under decriminalization, laws against possession or street sale are not enforced, but sale in a legitimate pharmacy or specialty store remain illegal. They're not the same.