TOTALLY UNWARRANTED: The War Against Illegal Drug Users

TOTALLY UNWARRANTED: The War Against Illegal Drug Users
What Zig wants to state here is that the whole “war on drugs” is non-sense -- it is literally an incoherent concept in any which way you want to slice it. (It should be noted here that Zigmund does not own the image above -- it is the work of Robert Crumb. Should he object to my use of it I'd willingly take it down)

The war against illegal drug users is as shocking as it is unwarranted.

And let it be clear: this is a war against illegal drug users.

Not a war on drugs.

A “war on drugs” would be a prolonged series battles literally taking taking place upon a surface of mind altering substances.  Yet police officers are not actually shooting criminals who are storming them in fields of marijuana.

Nor is law enforcement waging a war against drugs themselves.  Shooting inanimate objects is called target practice and target practice is not war.  

Lastly this war is not a war against all drug users.  Cops are not arresting adults for sipping coffee or possessing beer.  So with all possible alternative meanings exhausted it’s clear that it is a war against drug users.

So what does this mean?  It means the traditional justifications for this program are much weaker than initially suspected, and possibly even hiding the more sis implications.

For instance not all illegal drug users are criminals.  Criminals are tried and found guilty in court.  all illegal drug users are found guilty and not are illegal drug users are criminals.

Which brings us to another point.

How do you identify illegal drug users to wage war against them?  If it involves the use of excessive profiling or assuming the guilt of the accused then law enforcement isn’t doing something right.  

In fact just the idea of our government -- lead by responsible citizens -- waging war against citizens is problematic.  It’s the very definition of a civil war!  Not only that, but declarations of war need Congressional authorization.  The President -- Nixon at the time -- did not receive authorization to attack his own citizens.  

Today no such declaration has been made.

Now perhaps it’s possible to suggest that an war against illegal drug users was not what Nixon meant.  

But if that’s the case -- why did he throw out the word to start with?  Why did he make it a national issue?  Did Nixon truly believe state or local law enforcement, along with the political leadership of the states, couldn’t responsibly handle the issue on their own?  

Regardless the rhetoric is one of two things -- problematic or unnecessary. And I’ll leave it at that.

What are your thoughts?  Leave them in the comments or email me your reply at .
Sincerely and with confusion,
Zigmund E. Reichenbach

Zigmund Reichenbach -- the primary writer for this blog -- is just a concerned citizen eager to make a contribution to the world.  You can help support him -- or his excellent undergraduate professor-- here and here. Thanks friends!

*Again citations not provided or some are missing.  Thanks for the understanding fam.