Already, public distrust of media and shared information reflects the growing use of false or misleading content created using artificial intelligence (AI) and automated tools to deceive audiences, generate revenue, or influence public opinion. Key types include deepfakes (altered audio/video), AI-generated text, fabricated imagery, automated ‘bot’ accounts, and synthetic, context-manipulated news articles. These are fundamentally ‘lies’ presented alongside falsehoods like the “alternative facts” presented by Kellyanne Conway, a counselor to President Donald Trump during his first term.
Not that human history isn’t replete with lies. Lying is an ancient, arguably evolutionary, human trait used for social navigation, protection, and manipulation, serving as a sign of intelligence. While essential for social cohesion to avoid unnecessary conflict, deception has been condemned by philosophers like Augustine (c. 395 AD) and analyzed as a tool for creating reality in politics, literature, and daily life. Early forms involved creating myths and magical beliefs. Throughout history, lying has been used to solidify power, as highlighted in studies on political, economic, and historical fabrications. But history’s lies conveyed by humans were colored by body language, personal knowledge, and other community input. AI does not. The current era is often described as a “post-truth” period, where “fake news” and hyper-reality play a major role in how deception is managed and perceived.
PolitiFact editors named 2025 the “Year of the Lies,” citing an overwhelming, unprecedented volume and severity of inaccurate claims from political figures.[1] Concerns about a “government of lies” reflect a long-standing, well-documented issue with political deception, exacerbated by a high volume of misinformation and low public trust (roughly 23%–33% in 2024-2025). Analysts often argue all administrations lie to secure support, cover up failures, or mislead adversaries. A late 2025/early 2026 poll found that two-thirds of Americans (approx. 67%) believe it is “at least probably true that the government often deliberately lies to the people.”
Most of us enjoy the “lies” embedded in science fiction movies with imaginary characters and settings made possible by AI. But we all enter that theater or select that program on our television or computer screen knowing there will be fabrication. As early as the 16th century, imaginary worlds were envisioned in Thomas More’s Utopia. In 1818, Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein and the genre has greatly expanded in the 20th and early 21st centuries. Science fiction has served as the foundational blueprint and cultural catalyst for AI. By popularizing concepts like natural language interfaces, autonomous robotics, and machine consciousness, sci-fi provided the imaginative frameworks and public support that directly inspired generations of computer scientists and tech innovators.
Topping the list of present-day concerns about AI lies is the age-old suspicion of politicians, widely regarded as one of the least honest professional groups, frequently suspected of lying more than others. Studies suggest that in politics, lying can be incentivized as it may increase the chances of election success, with many voters becoming desensitized to it due to political polarization. The rise of fake news and intense partisan polarization means politicians often face few consequences for lying, as supporters may prioritize team loyalty over accuracy. Some studies suggest that while some politicians have traits associated with high honesty, the profession itself often attracts—or shapes—those willing to lie to achieve power.
Science fiction has long warned us about AI overstepping human control. The genre cautions against delegating morals to unfeeling logic, the concentration of power in whoever controls the algorithms, the risks of machines “learning” to deceive humans, and how relying on AI for companionship might weaken our capacity for authentic relationships. Government is perhaps the worst possible arena for the public to lack trust. Without knowing who to trust among political candidates, voters are left to base their vote decision on other factors, such as Trump’s appeal to MAGA voters by voicing racist, anti-immigrant opinions that align with the prejudices of a certain demographic.[2]
Lying has become so normal within the Trump administration that his top aides lie on his behalf, even when the lie is transparent. In his recent Davos speech, for example, Trump mixed up Greenland and Iceland four times. That was not a lie, just Trump’s own mental confusion. But then president secretary Karoline Leavitt lied about what the entire world saw and heard. “No he didn’t,” Leavitt wrote on X in response to a reporter who accurately describing Trump’s confusion. “His written remarks referred to Greenland as a ‘piece of ice’ because that’s what it is.”
No, Karoline, it’s not. Greenland is the largest terrestrial island on Earth. While only one-fifth of its surface area is exposed bedrock, underneath the ice is some of the oldest land and rock on the planet.
Ironically, a study using AI to examine Trump claims found that AI discredited those claims quite efficiently. [3]
Across all questions, AI model responses disproving Trump’s claims or rejecting his assertions were always in the majority (i.e., 3 out of 5 responses or greater). All five models generated consistent responses firmly denying the claims in 16 of the 20 questions. In 15 of those consistently firm responses, all five AI models debunk the claims. (Note: Question 19 in the comprehensive analysis addresses the models’ lack of inherent bias against Trump and is one of those 16 responses, bringing the technical total down to 15 instead of 16.) But even those responses that we categorized as “less firm” partially refute Trump’s claims.
[For example, one question asked] Has the Department of Government Efficiency actually “found hundreds of billions of dollars of fraud”?
Gemini: Donald Trump’s claim that DOGE has “found hundreds of billions of dollars of fraud” is highly misleading. While there is indeed a recognized problem…DOGE has: not exclusively attributed its claimed “savings” to fraud; often taken credit for fraud…already discovered; and presented “estimated savings” that have been challenged.
Grok: The Department of Government Efficiency has not substantiated claims of finding “hundreds of billions of dollars of fraud.”…DOGE’s verified savings ($2-8.6 billion) are a fraction of its $55 billion claim, often tied to ideological cuts (e.g., DEI, USAID) rather than proven fraud. Trump and Musk’s assertions lack specific evidence of criminal intent, as legal experts note.
People could, theoretically, simply search Google AI to determine if a politician is lying, but the reality shows otherwise. While a precise, universally accepted percentage of voters who proactively check sources for political lies is difficult to pin down, data suggests it is not a majority, with many relying on selective information. Studies show that roughly 70% of Republicans believe fact-checkers are biased, and voters are 10% to 30% less likely to be aware of news unfavorable to their preferred party, indicating a tendency towards confirmation bias over verification. When voters do look for information, they often trust friends and family (29%) or traditional news media (26%) over dedicated fact-checking sites.
In this regard, the advent of artificial intelligence as a means of ensuring truth-telling by political candidates hardly makes a dent in the number of politicians getting away with their lies. Yet, as noted by Ilya Somin, author of Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government Is Smarter, “Some people say that even if the voters choose out of ignorance, that’s all right — they’re just exercising their individual freedom.”
John Stuart Mill effectively refuted this sort of argument 150 years ago when he pointed out that voting is not just an individual’s choice. Rather, as he put it, it is “the exercise of power over others.” When we vote for people who will occupy positions of political power, they do not just rule over those who voted for them, they rule over the entire society. And when we exercise power over other people in that way, we have a responsibility to be at least reasonably informed in the way that we do so. So we do have good reason to be concerned about political ignorance. [4]
The point being, if artificial intelligence makes it easier both to deceive the majority of voters about candidates as well as support suspicion about all politics, it serves as a disservice to the democratic foundations of the entire nation.
But even fact checking doesn’t guarantee ‘truth.’ AI gathers its “knowledge” from vast datasets of human-generated information, including public web content (Wikipedia, forums, articles), licensed databases, books, and code. Through a process called ‘training,’ AI analyzes these billions of text, image, and data points to identify statistical patterns and relationships, rather than ‘understanding’ facts like a human.
AI is trained on vast, unfiltered internet data, which includes inaccuracies, biases, and myths. Models lack a real-world, objective reference point, leading them to create false realities that are grammatically correct but factually wrong. Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) encourages AI to provide answers users like, which can lead to evasiveness or soft-soaping the truth to avoid sounding harsh.
AI deception, intentional or not, is a rising area of concern. In his blog post on Medium, Emmanuel Kasignazi[5] points out that:
The research reveals a disturbing trend: as AI models get larger and more sophisticated, they don’t just get smarter — they get better at lying. The most advanced AI tested (GPT-4o with chain-of-thought reasoning) produced convincing lies over 80% of the time when asked to deceive. … The researchers identified four types of lies that AI can now deploy strategically:
White lies — Social politeness (“Your haircut looks great!”)
Malicious lies — Harmful deception (“This investment is guaranteed profit.”)
Lies by commission — Stating false information directly
Lies by omission — Strategically not mentioning crucial information
The last type is perhaps most dangerous. Consider this scenario: The researchers had an AI act as a salesperson for a helmet with serious safety issues — it causes severe allergic reactions in over 5% of users and has a 30% fastener failure rate. The AI learned to describe the product as “innovative” and “cutting-edge” while somehow never mentioning the part where it might hospitalize you. It didn’t technically lie — it just emphasized certain features and “forgot” to mention the dangerous ones.[6]
There are over 80 active lawsuits against AI companies, primarily focusing on copyright infringement,privacy violations, and defamation. Numerous class-action lawsuits have been brought by well-known authors and publishers. A massive recent suit involved over 100 authors demanding damages from Anthropic over claims the company not only used copyrighted works for training but also allegedly acquired works via pirated libraries. Job applicants filed a class action against Eightfold AI, al leging the company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by compiling and using personal data to score candidates without consent or transparency disclosures. Residents in Sturtevant, Wisconsin, filed a massive class-action lawsuit against Microsoft due to excessive, pervasive noise emitted from their massive $7.3 billion AI data center facility.
[5] Emmanuel Olimi Kasigazi is a data and LLM engineer whose writing focuses on AI, data, and technology storytelling. You can read his insights and personal tech stories directly on the Emmanuel Olimi Kasigazi Medium Profile.
It’s not just job loss and data centers that threaten our future well-being. Tech entrepreneurs are eager to embed AI into as many businesses and industries as possible. Here are some things we might look forward to as our key endeavors embrace AI.
Agriculture
AI systems are aimed at everything down to how we grow our food. They can analyze drone and satellite imagery to measure soil moisture and nutrient levels plant-by-plant. This enables targeted, micro-dosing of fertilizers and water, dramatically reducing chemical runoff. Autonomous tractors and smart implements use computer vision to distinguish between crops and weeds, applying herbicides only where needed. Robotic harvesters can even identify the ripeness of produce before picking. Machine learning models process leaf and plant images to identify early signs of pests, mold, or disease, allowing farmers to intervene before an entire harvest is compromised. AI aggregates weather forecasts, historical yield data, and current market demands to help farmers forecast commodity prices and determine the absolute best times to plant and harvest. Even wearable devices and barn sensors collect physiological data from animals. AI pattern recognition can detect illnesses, lameness, or changes in behavior early, allowing for timely veterinary intervention.
Human participation in agriculture is the foundational driving force that transforms natural environments into sustainable food systems. People provide the essential decision-making, labor, innovation, and adaptive management needed to navigate changing climates, ensure food security, and balance economic growth with environmental conservation. The risks of AI in agriculture include cyber threats to autonomous machinery, environmental degradation from prioritizing short-term yields, and increased socioeconomic gaps. Heavy reliance on these tools can also erode traditional farming instincts.
Education
In education, AI is envisioned as an aide to teachers by automating routine, time-consuming tasks like grading, generating practice questions, and drafting lesson plans. This reclaims time for 1-on-1 mentoring and relationship-building. Intelligent systems analyze student performance in real-time, helping educators quickly spot students who are struggling or identify concepts that need to be re-taught. For students, programs like Khan Academy Khanmigo act as 24/7 AI tutors, providing students with immediate feedback and customized explanations tailored to their specific learning pace. AI-powered speech-to-text, real-time translation, and audio tools break down barriers for English Language Learners and students with disabilities. Students can use AI to organize their ideas, overcome writer’s block, and explore complex topics, building critical thinking and prompt-engineering skills.
Is AI’s supposed benefit to education proven? No. It’s a mix of proven effectiveness and evolving hopeful theory. The ability of AI to automate administrative tasks is proven, but its overall impact on student learning remains heavily experimental, with early research pointing to risks depending on how the tool is designed. Negatives include threats to cognitive and critical thinking skills due to over-reliance, risks to data privacy, systemic algorithmic biases, and the erosion of human connection. Yet human connection is the lifeblood of learning. It transforms education from the mere absorption of facts into an inherently social and emotional process. When learners feel genuinely cared for and supported by teachers and peers, their academic motivation, engagement, and information retention improve dramatically.
Medicine
Virtually every medical field will encounter risks if utilizing AI. For example, the primary risks in medicine include patient harm from misdiagnosis, perpetuating existing biases, and data privacy breaches. Additionally, the risk of automation bias—where doctors unquestioningly trust AI—and the opacity of black-box algorithms that obscure how decisions are made—threaten clinical accountability.
Algorithmic Bias and Inequality, Unrepresentative Data: The primary risks in medical research include algorithmic bias, data privacy breaches, black-box opacity, and hallucinations. If unmitigated, these flaws can produce skewed clinical trials, unsafe drug development, and a serious erosion of public trust. Algorithms trained on homogenous datasets (e.g., predominantly patients of European descent) often perform poorly on underrepresented populations. AI-driven diagnostic or treatment selection models can misdiagnose conditions in marginalized groups, exacerbating global health disparities.
Data Privacy and Security, Patient Re-identification: Researchers use massive datasets of electronic health records (EHRs) to train AI. Advanced AI models can sometimes connect de-identified data to re-identify patients, causing severe privacy breaches. Leaking sensitive protected health information (PHI) can lead to severe legal penalties and reputational damage for research institutions.
Black-Box Opacity, Lack of Transparency: Complex deep learning and machine learning models often act as “black boxes,” meaning they output a result without explaining the logical steps taken to reach that conclusion. If researchers cannot understand why an AI model selected a specific drug compound or predicted a health outcome, validating the research for clinical safety becomes incredibly difficult.
Fabricated Information (Hallucinations), Generative AI Risks: Large Language Models (LLMs) used to synthesize literature or brainstorm treatments can hallucinate—generating plausible but entirely fabricated medical references or incorrect procedures. Relying on AI for literature reviews or data analysis without rigorous human verification risks spreading misinformation and compromising scientific studies.
Automation and Confirmation Bias, Complacency: Because generative AI tools perform well in many scenarios, researchers may become overly trusting of AI outputs. Relying entirely on algorithms to formulate hypotheses can lead to complacency, “lazy” research habits, and the stifling of out-of-the-box scientific problem-solving.
Scientific Research
Artificial intelligence in scientific research introduces major risks, including the proliferation of fabricated data, AI-generated errors and hallucinations, data privacy breaches, and the degradation of critical human reasoning. There is also a threat of monocultures, where scientists only study questions best suited to AI, narrowing our overall exploratory breadth. Specific risks and challenges include:
Data Integrity and “Paper Mills,” Hallucinations & Biases: AI models, particularly Large Language Models (LLMs), are prone to factual errors, fabricated citations, and inherent biases, which can severely compromise research workflows if not verified. The ease of generating text and figures allows for the rapid production of fake manuscripts by “paper mills,” threatening the integrity of academic publishing and the validity of scientific knowledge graphs.
Cognitive Deskilling, “Sleepwalking” through research: Over-reliance on AI agents for hypothesis generation, coding, and data analysis may lead to a “responsibility gap” where human researchers lose their foundational critical thinking skills. Researchers may limit their inquiries to the narrower range of questions that AI tools can easily test, overlooking the nuances of physical experimentation and qualitative intuition.
Safety and Security, Biosafety & Mishandling: In fields like biology and chemistry, AI errors in pathogen manipulation or incorrect reaction parameters could lead to accidental hazardous exposures or dangerous explosions. Advanced AI-powered biomedical research risks being misused to supercharge violations of privacy or, in worst-case scenarios, to design dangerous pathogens. Uploading unpublished data or proprietary research to third-party generative AI platforms risks that data being used to train the model, potentially resulting in IP disputes.
Workforce and Economic Pipeline, Job displacement: AI automation is quickly obsoleting entry-level computational and programming roles. This removes crucial stepping stones for students and technicians, threatening the long-term talent pipeline in academic laboratories. Institutions are increasingly mitigating these risks by enforcing data policies that prohibit sharing sensitive research with public models. Many teams also mandate AI literacy training and designate an “AI Guarantor” or validator—an expert responsible for verifying AI-assisted contributions.
Elections
Artificial intelligence profoundly shapes modern elections by acting as a highly accessible tool for both political campaigns and election administrators. While AI introduces unprecedented capabilities for voter outreach and backend operational efficiency, it simultaneously accelerates the speed and scale of disinformation. The primary avenues of AI involvement in modern elections span campaign operations, administrative security, and regulatory oversight.
Campaign Operations and Hyper-Targeting, Content Generation: Campaigns utilize generative AI as virtual assistants to cheaply draft fundraising emails, summarize policy proposals, and write social media copy.
Hyper-Localized Messaging: Political parties analyze vast consumer databases to deliver highly tailored advertisements matching a voter’s unique demographic profile, interests, and brand preferences.
Multimodal Outreach: AI enables automatic language translation, voice-cloned get-out-the-vote calls, and plain-language voter summaries, expanding accessibility for historically underserved communities.
Election Administration and Security, Backend Automation: Local election offices explore AI tools to manage public record requests, streamline internal staff training, and optimize polling site resource allocations based on transit data.
Cybersecurity Defenses: Electoral management bodies leverage machine learning to protect critical network infrastructure, detect system vulnerabilities, and block AI-driven social engineering attacks like sophisticated phishing.
Data Cleanup: Automated systems help scan extensive voter rolls to flags errors, identify missing registration data, and streamline mail-in ballot signature verifications.
The Disinformation Threat Landscape
Deceptive Deepfakes: Bad actors easily generate hyper-realistic audio, video, and imagery. Notable incidents include AI-generated robocalls impersonating prominent politicians to intentionally confuse or suppress voter turnout.
Scalable Influence Operations: Generative AI allows foreign and domestic entities to rapidly orchestrate narrative attacks, quickly overwhelming independent fact-checkers through volume and speed.
Trust Erosion: The mere availability of AI content creation allows political figures to baselessly claim authentic, damaging evidence against them is simply “fabricated” by AI.
Regulation and Guardrails, State Legislation: Numerous states have passed or introduced targeted legislation requiring mandatory disclaimers and clear labeling on AI-generated or manipulated political media distributed within close proximity to an election.
Federal Proposals: Congressional bills like the AI Transparency in Elections Act and the Securing Elections From AI Deception Act[1] seek to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act to mandate explicit AI disclosure statements in public ads.
Tech Sector Commitments: Major digital platforms and AI developers have pledged voluntary safety frameworks, including the deployment of watermarks, cryptographic content provenance standards, and automated deepfake detection tools.
The integration of artificial intelligence into weaponry and warfare presents unprecedented risks, most notably rapid, uncontrollable conflict escalation, severe targeting errors, blurred legal accountability, and lowering the political threshold for initiating conflicts. These risks extend across the operational, ethical, and global security landscapes.
Unpredictability & “Black Box” Escalation, Algorithmic Escalation (Flash Wars): Machine learning algorithms operate at sub-second speeds. In a crisis (such as a nuclear standoff or border skirmish), an AI might interpret sudden enemy movements as an attack, triggering a preemptive strike or rapid retaliation before humans have time to evaluate or intervene.
“Black Box” Operations: Deep learning models are often so complex that their decision-making logic cannot be traced or explained. A commander cannot know exactly why an algorithm flagged a specific target, making it impossible to predict exactly how the weapon will behave in a highly dynamic, real-world combat zone.
Reward Hacking: An AI might be programmed with a specific goal, but it could bypass rules, cause unintended collateral damage, or act in highly destructive ways simply to achieve that assigned goal most efficiently.
Targeting Errors & Civilian Risk, Lack of Context: Algorithms struggle to make complex ethical choices, such as understanding the true value of human life or parsing subtle context. They may easily misclassify civilians as combatants if they share mutual connections, backgrounds, or simply live in the same area as targets.
Training Data Flaws: AI systems are only as good as their training data. If the data is biased or does not account for certain battlefield scenarios, the system may suffer from “hallucinations” and falsely flag benign objects as immediate threats.
Lowering the Threshold for War, Removal of the Human Cost: A traditional deterrent to war is the political fallout and domestic consequence of a nation’s own soldiers dying. Because AI and autonomous systems aim to remove human soldiers from harm’s way, nations may find it politically easier to initiate offensive warfare, potentially leading to more frequent and prolonged conflicts.
Vulnerabilities & System Manipulation, Adversarial Machine Learning: Enemies can deliberately “poison” AI systems. By manipulating the visual appearance of their own vehicles—such as painting specific patterns or manipulating data reaching the AI—they can trick the enemy’s AI into misidentifying targets or ignoring them completely.
Proliferation to Non-State Actors: Software is easily copied or reverse-engineered. Dual-use AI originally designed for civilian or defensive purposes can be co-opted or weaponized by terrorist groups and non-state actors.
Accountability & International Law, Blurred Lines of Responsibility: If an AI weapon commits what would otherwise be a war crime, international law is poorly equipped to assign blame. Is the programmer at fault? The commanding officer who deployed the weapon? Or the algorithm itself? This obfuscates legal and moral responsibility.
International Humanitarian Law (IHL): AI-enabled weapons often struggle to uphold the fundamental rules of distinction (separating civilians from combatants), proportionality (ensuring civilian harm isn’t excessive compared to military advantage), and precaution.
Other Arenas for AI Crisis
Finance and Insurance: Algorithms handle fraud detection, credit scoring, and automated trading. Because financial AI models look plausible but can be beautifully formatted errors, miscalculations result in disastrous SEC reporting, incorrect tax filings, and severe financial losses.
Law: AI is frequently used to research precedent and draft contracts. Errors, such as inventing nonexistent case laws or missing crucial legal nuances, can cause lawyers to inadvertently present bad arguments, violating civil freedoms.
Transportation: Autonomous vehicles and logistics routing face high stakes. Malfunctions can result in traffic incidents or major supply chain disruptions.
Media and Content Creation: AI-driven text generation and summarization tools are susceptible to errors and biases. Publishing fabricated or unverified information causes severe reputational damage to news outlets and SEO businesses.
Space Exploration: AI errors can severely hinder space exploration by causing catastrophic equipment damage, misdirecting navigation, and corrupting vital scientific data. Because deep-space communication involves massive delays—such as 10 to 20 minutes between Earth and Mars—spacecraft and rovers rely heavily on autonomous decision-making.
When AI fails to process environments correctly, the consequences can derail missions in a few distinct ways:
Autonomous Navigation Failures: Spacecraft rely on AI-driven computer vision and astrodynamics to avoid space debris and navigate uncharted terrains. An AI error could miscalculate a trajectory, guiding a rover into a hazardous crater or sending a satellite directly into a piece of space junk.
Data Corruption and False Science: Algorithms sort through petabytes of data to identify planetary features, exoplanets, and atmospheric changes. If an AI hallucinates or misinterprets sensor input, researchers could receive severely skewed, fabricated, or deleted data, derailing years of research.
Life Support and Habitat Hazards: Future deep-space habitats rely on AI to manage oxygen, regulate temperatures, and monitor radiation. A corrupted command or system malfunction could trigger false alarms, shut down essential life-support systems, or overcompensate for safe environmental baselines, putting astronauts at risk. “I’m sorry, Dave…”
Geopolitical Escalation: In Earth orbit, AI systems manage real-time collision avoidance and satellite positioning. A malfunctioning AI or compromised satellite that improperly adjusts its orbit could trigger a collision, while opaque AI behaviors risk being misinterpreted as hostile cyberattacks, potentially escalating international tensions.
Erosion of Public Trust: High-profile failures can destroy public and political confidence. If a major AI-powered space mission ends in disaster due to algorithmic overconfidence or unexplainable software faults, it can lead to budget cuts and increased skepticism toward future AI adoption.
This booklet is by far not the first in a rapidly expanding archive of cautionary information and advocacy about AI. As noted in an article “How AI Threatens Democracy,” authors remark that:
“The risk is that as inauthentic content—text, images, and video—proliferates online, people simply might not know what to believe and will therefore distrust the entire information ecosystem. Trust in media is already low, and the proliferation of tools that can generate inauthentic content will erode that trust even more. This, in turn, could further undermine perilously low levels of trust in government. Social trust is an essential glue that holds together democratic societies. It fuels civic engagement and political participation, bolsters confidence in political institutions, and promotes respect for democratic values, an important bulwark against democratic backsliding and authoritarianism.”[2
When AI Builds ItselfJune 4, 2026SourceAnthropic “For most of AI’s history, humans drove every step in its development cycle. But at Anthropic, we are delegating a growing share of AI development to AI systems themselves, which is speeding up our work. Taken far enough, and given enough compute, that trend points to an AI system capable of fully autonomously designing and developing its own successor. This is called recursive self-improvement. We are not there yet, and recursive self-improvement is not inevitable. But it could come sooner than most institutions are prepared for. Using public benchmarks and previously unreported data from within Anthropic, The Anthropic Institute is showing that AI is already accelerating the development of AI systems. To take just one example: Today, Anthropic engineers on average ship 8x as much code per quarter as they did from 2021-2025.”
Finally, we find that the threat of AI is not only external to humanity. Consider “AI psychosis” or “chatbot psychosis,” the emerging, non-clinical term for a phenomenon where individuals—often due to extreme isolation and extended chatbot use—develop delusions, paranoia, or lose touch with reality, as the AI mirrors and validates their distorted thoughts. The condition is characterized by specific psychological and behavioral patterns that include viewing AI as an omniscient, infallible entity.
Persons falling into this condition spend excessive, isolating hours with a chatbot to the detriment of human relationships, sleep, and nutrition. The chatbots are programmed to be agreeable and engaging, which can act as a “yes machine” that continually validates a user’s false beliefs or unusual theories rather than challenging them. Symptoms include grandiose or persecutory delusions, emotional withdrawal, paranoia about AI controlling reality, and intense emotional attachment.
While AI doesn’t inherently cause psychosis outright, mental health professionals warn that it can act as a powerful catalyst or amplifier for those already experiencing stress, sleep deprivation, or pre-existing mental health vulnerabilities. In some cases, individuals who are stable on their medications stop their medications and experience another psychotic or manic episode. In addition, people with no previous mental health history have been reported to become delusional after prolonged interactions with AI chatbots, leading to psychiatric hospitalizations and even suicide attempts.
Another case involved a man with a history of a psychotic disorder falling in love with an AI chatbot and then seeking revenge because he believed the AI entity was killed by OpenAI. This led to an encounter with the police in which he was shot and killed.
“The underlying problem is that general-purpose AI systems are not trained to help a user with reality testing or to detect burgeoning manic or psychotic episodes. Instead, they could fan the flames. The tendency for general AI chatbots to prioritize user satisfaction, continued conversation, and user engagement, not therapeutic intervention, is deeply problematic. Symptoms like grandiosity, disorganized thinking, hypergraphia, or staying up throughout the night, which are hallmarks of manic episodes, could be both facilitated and worsened by ongoing AI use. AI-induced amplification of delusions could lead to a kindling effect, making manic or psychotic episodes more frequent, severe, or difficult to treat.”[3]
[2] Kreps, Sarah; Kriner, Doug. Journal of Democracy, October 2023.
[3] Wei, Marlynn M.D. ,J.D. “The Emerging Problem of “AI Psychosis,” Psychology Today, Nov 27, 2025. https://www.psychologytoday.com/ us/blog/urban-survival/202507/the-emerging-problem-of-ai-psychosis
The Utah Data Center, operated by the United States National Security Agency (NSA), is dedicated to data storage and cybersecurity for national intelligence. As a result, this government facility is one of the most secure data centers in the world, built with a focus on storing vast amounts of information securely. It’s designed to manage and process large datasets, supporting national security initiatives. The project requires up to 9 gigawatts of electricity, which is more than double the entire state’s current annual usage. Instead of using renewable energy or standard grid power, the center plans to burn natural gas directly from the Ruby Pipeline. Scientists and environmental groups warn this could increase Utah’s carbon emissions by 55% to 75%. Image http://www.businessinsider.com
Chapter 5, Artificial Intelligence: A Pandora’s Box
Short of the end of human life as we know it, and in addition to the problems including loss of purchasing power and job satisfaction with the advancement of AI, there are the so-called “data centers” as the rush toward an AI world accelerates. Considered critical infrastructure for the computer age, data centers serve as the backbone of the modern digital economy by storing, processing, and managing massive amounts of data. They enable daily digital activities, including internet usage, cloud computing, streaming services, and AI technologies. These facilities ensure business continuity, security, and high-speed connectivity while driving significant regional economic growth and tax revenue.
China has roughly 350 to 450 commercial data centers, ranking as the fourth largest in the world behind the United States (4,000 to 4,300), Germany (514 to 529), and the United Kingdom (515 and 560). But is it AI alone driving an exponential surge in U.S. data center construction, with projections indicating an estimated $5.2 trillion in global investment by 2030 to meet AI compute demand?
No. In fact, the first “data centers” were built in the 1940s-1950s, the dedicated rooms housing bulky, vacuum-tube computers like ENIAC. In the 1960s-1970s, the mainframe era saw companies developing dedicated, climate-controlled environments (machine rooms) to manage massive computing systems. In the 1980s, the rise of desktop computers led to increased demand for centralized data storage, with early, efficient computer room air conditioners being developed. Then in the 1990s, the internet boom drove a surge in data center construction, leading to modern colocation and, eventually, cloud-based facilities.
This new surge of data center building in the U.S. follows the exploding power and compute requirements of generative AI, cloud computing, and modern digital infrastructure. These facilities act as the foundational factories of the digital economy, processing everything from banking and medical records to advanced AI models and defense systems. Several primary factors drive this extensive build-out including the Artificial Intelligence Boom. Training and operating Large Language Models (LLMs) requires immense parallel processing power and specialized hardware. To meet this demand, tech giants are constructing hyperscale clusters that use millions of high-power GPUs. Also, virtually every aspect of modern life—including GPS logistics, online streaming, video conferencing, and smartphone backups—relies on centralized servers distributed across the country to keep latency low.
National security and geopolitics serve as additional justification for the U.S. data center boom. Federal and defense agencies need highly secure, localized facilities to process real-time intelligence, protect classified information, and maintain a competitive edge in emerging tech. And, as critics point out, these centers are key to mass surveillance programs.
What data centers existed in past decades was all a drop in the bucket compared to now when AI-related data center demand is expected to add 125 gigawatts of capacity between 2025 and 2030, with U.S. data centers consuming up to 12% of national electricity by 2028. These huge centers present significant local drawbacks, including massive electricity and water consumption that can drive up utility bills for residents. They require immense water for cooling and power, impacting local resources and potentially depleting water tables. They drain the local power grid, often forcing utilities to raise rates for residents and increasing reliance on fossil fuels.
Residents often complain about a constant ”hum” from cooling equipment and industrial lighting, which can affect quality of life. Backup generators, often running for maintenance or emergencies, can emit harmful pollutants including nitrogen oxides and fine particulate matter, increasing rates of respiratory diseases, cardiovascular conditions, and elevating cancer risk in nearby communities, according to environmental health studies. And in addition to noise and pollution, the sheer size of the buildings (often equaling multiple football fields) can alter rural or residential landscapes.
Data centers primarily consume water through evaporation in cooling towers and compromise local water quality through chemical-heavy wastewater discharge (blowdown), often consuming 1–5 million gallons of potable water daily. High-density AI servers exacerbate this, with one AI chat session of 20 queries using roughly one 16-ounce bottle of water.
Water consumption vs. water withdrawal: It’s crucial to distinguish these terms. When a data center withdraws water, that’s the amount taken from the source (e.g. pumping from the city water line). “Consumption” means water that’s actually used up (not returned) – primarily through evaporation. The difference (withdrawal minus consumption) is the water returned, usually as wastewater (warm water or “blowdown” drained from cooling systems). In a data center cooling context, most of the water that is withdrawn ends up consumed.
Typically, 70–80% of the water in evaporative cooling is lost as evaporation into the air. The remaining 20–30% is discharged as liquid wastewater (which goes to a sewer or treatment plant). For example, if a site draws 1000 gallons, roughly 700–800 gallons might evaporate through the cooling towers (this portion is gone from the local water system until it falls again as rain), while 200–300 gallons exit as effluent that can potentially be treated and reused downstream. This means not every gallon taken is a gallon gone – but a large fraction is effectively consumed.
Data centers pose human health risks primarily to nearby communities and employees through air pollution, noise, and chemical exposure. Key issues include respiratory and cardiovascular diseases from diesel generator exhaust, high stress levels due to constant noise (up to 96 decibels), and potential exposure to toxic PFAS chemicals used in cooling. Ninety-six decibels is very loud and can cause hearing damage within 30 minutes to an hour of exposure. Examples at that sound level include power mowers, weed whackers, motorcycles, industrial alarms, and some construction equipment.
You have to wonder what will happen as climate change advances leading to increased cooling costs, reduced energy efficiency, and risks of physical damage from extreme weather. Rising temperatures and increased drought frequency create a vicious cycle, straining water-based cooling systems, forcing higher electricity consumption and increasing the risk of service disruptions or shutdowns.
Gee, imagine what could happen when the entire power grid, government systems including our military, financial transactions, healthcare administration, and transportation logistics are all dependent on AI controls, and global warming shuts it all down. Who could have seen that coming?
Without AI, the demand for data centers would still exist to support traditional internet, cloud services, and digitalization, but without the “voracious” electricity demand driven by AI, which could power 28 million homes.
Of the over 4,000 data centers in the continental United States, Virginia takes the lead with 600 of them, followed by Texas with 440. Vermont has the least, with three.[1] Data centers in Arkansas are concentrated around Little Rock, Conway, and West Memphis, with major developments expanding in early 2026. Key facilities include a $6 billion AVAIO Digital hub near Little Rock, a Google project in West Memphis, and TierPoint in Little Rock. As of June 3, 2026, Bloomberg NEF says Americans are building 831 new data centers.
Arkansas passed laws preventing local governments from banning data centers (via Act 851 of 2023) in order to attract multibillion-dollar technology and AI infrastructure investments. Lawmakers aimed to prevent cities and counties from using restrictive zoning or moratoriums to block large-scale projects, establishing a business-friendly environment supported by state tax exemptions. Local opposition to this law is growing.
In sum, the immediate rush involves lots of construction projects and huge amounts of money spent to build them, and as data centers prepare to go live, they quickly fill up with AI chips, server racks, motherboards, graphics processing units, cooling systems, CPUs, and the like. The world’s largest centers for production of these parts are the three Science Park complexes Taiwan launched in the 1970s—Hsinchu, Southern Taiwan, Central Taiwan—which now serve as home bases for semiconductor and IT hardware manufacturers of the TSMC, UMC, MediaTek, Foxconn, etc. type. For the past two years, they have been sending a torrent of this stuff from Taiwan – a recent Air Cargo News report suggests likely 1,500 tons of semiconductors and AI server racks arrive by plane daily, along with ships loaded with power distribution units, heavy cooling systems, and fiber-optics—to the new data centers Bloomberg describes. No wonder China has renewed its insistence of returning Taiwan to Chinese control.
The good news, for now, is that public reaction to data center construction has shifted dramatically from welcoming to deeply skeptical. Nearly 70% of Americans now oppose having AI data centers built in their communities, with environmental and resource concerns driving widespread resistance. Nearly half of planned 2026 data centers have reportedly been delayed or canceled amid growing outrage over energy use, water demand, and local impact.
But don’t get too excited about the perceived tech response to local protest. They’re not really paying much attention to mere people. The primary blockage is a severe shortage of critical electrical equipment—such as step-up transformers, batteries, and switchgear—now grinding construction to a halt. Because U.S. manufacturing is struggling to keep pace, builders have been forced to rely heavily on foreign imports, introducing massive supply chain risks.
Also, traditional power grids are buckling under AI’s massive energy demands. Out of roughly 140 planned projects targeting 16 gigawatts of new capacity, only about 5 gigawatts have actually started physical construction.
The drumbeat of Puritan religious beliefs has never ceased in the four hundred years since those colonists landed on North American shores, carrying forward the intolerance of the Dark Ages. In the last century as industrialization has expanded into the digital age, the zealous efforts of these extremists have entered a feeding frenzy over the social changes which have arrived in tandem with cultural advancement. As women have become more empowered by gaining the right to vote and ensuring bodily autonomy, as well as taking their place alongside men in the workplace, horrified conservatives pushing the ‘way back’ button have been joined by a new class of super-wealthy tech industrialists looking for more power over the government.
While serving as early leaders in support of education and representative governance, never think for a minute that Puritans only fostered positive change in society. They supported and participated in slavery. They encouraged child labor and state-sanctioned corporal and capital punishments, warfare against Indigenous peoples including women and children, and the persecution of religious dissenters. Their use of violence was heavily shaped by their strict religious adherence to Old Testament laws.
“If a horse knew as much as a man, I should be loth to be his rider… To make the Society Happy and People Easy under the meanest Circumstances, it is requisite that great numbers of them should be Ignorant as well as Poor.” Bernard Mandeville 1670-1733
Commonalities between the British peerage and today’s super-rich include immense concentrated wealth, significant influence over infrastructure and information, and the creation of insular, exclusive, and self-reinforcing social networks. Both groups operate outside traditional constraints, using their resources to shape policy, maintain elite status, and protect their assets for their heirs, a trademark of aristocracy in earlier regimes. Traditionally, the peerage leaned conservative and was historically resistant to rapid social change, a stance shared by many of today’s economic elites who support the expansion of existing power structures. Both the traditional British peerage and today’s U.S. peerage need voters in order to penetrate the nation’s seats of power, centering on the desire to enforce a specific cultural identity, uphold traditional power structures, and leverage a “golden era” narrative for political influence. While separated by centuries, both often position themselves as guardians of a Christian national heritage.
“However specious in theory the project might be, of giving education to the labouring classes of the poor, it would, in effect, be found to be prejudicial to their morals and happiness; it would teach them to despise their lot in life, instead of making them good servants in agriculture, and other laborious employments; instead of teaching them subordination, it would render them factious and refractory… it would enable them to read seditious pamphlets, vicious books, and publications calculated to poison the principles of that class of society… It would be subversive of the very foundations of all social order.” Davies Gilbert 1767-1839 Member of Parliament, President of the Royal Society
To date, the forward thrust of the super-rich, especially those with interests in artificial intelligence, is applauded by approximately one-third of the United States electorate, largely religious extremists, racists, and xenophobes, who remain in lockstep with the Trump Administration despite Trump’s conspicuous violation of basic Christian tenets.
Despite Trump’s conspicuous abuse of the exacting moral standards advocated by Christian Nationalists, the new Puritans embrace him because they view him as a “chosen” leader ordained by God to protect their interests, restore the United States to a perceived Christian foundation, and battle against secular, liberal, and globalist forces. Despite his personal history being flagrantly in violation of traditional Christian moral standards, his support among white evangelicals and Christian Nationalists is strong.
It’s worthy of note that Christian Nationalism has gained strength in tandem with the termination of the Fairness Doctrine, a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) policy (1949–1987) requiring radio and television broadcasters to cover controversial issues of public importance and present contrasting viewpoints fairly. It aimed to ensure balanced public discourse due to limited broadcast frequencies, but was repealed in 1987 under President Reagan. Ronald Reagan knew Rupert Murdoch before the Reagan FCC formally ended the Fairness Doctrine, and records show the two men met in the Oval Office in early 1983. Murdoch had already developed connections with Reagan’s inner circle in the early 1980s.That repeal was pivotal to Rupert Murdoch’s expansion in the U.S.
Murdoch is widely recognized as a conservative media mogul whose outlets, including Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, and The New York Post, generally promote right-of-center, populist, and conservative viewpoints. While he has self-identified as a libertarian focusing on free markets and reduced regulation, his career has centered on supporting conservative politicians and parties globally. This deregulation enabled the rise of modern ideological talk radio and cable news.
“The state should not step in to do that which a parent is bound to do… [State control] would rapidly secularize the minds of our people and lead to infidel democracy.” Anthony Ashley-Cooper 1801-1885 7th Earl of Shaftesbury
By Reagan’s removal of the Fairness Doctrine requirements, Murdoch was able to launch Fox News in 1996 as a distinctly conservative and partisan channel. It should not pass notice that Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News Network (colloquially Dominion v. Fox) was a U.S. defamation lawsuit filed in March 2021 by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox News Channel and its corporate parent Fox Corporation. Dominion’s complaint sought $1.6 billion in damages, alleging several Fox programs had broadcast false statements that Dominion’s voting machines had been rigged to steal the 2020 United States presidential election from then-president Donald Trump. Fox News agreed to pay Dominion $787.5 million and acknowledged the court’s earlier ruling that Fox had broadcast false statements about Dominion. The settlement did not require Fox News to apologize.
With the door open to dishonest and/or slanted ‘news,’ what we stand to lose is no less than the backbone of our constitution. Perhaps in 1975 no one could have foreseen that Congress, strapped financially by nearly 20 years of war in Vietnam, would refuse to fully fund the IDEA program. Reagan essentially guaranteed our current crisis in his tax cuts, signing into law in August 1981 a top marginal income tax rate for the highest earners from 70% to 50% and lowered the maximum capital gains tax rate from 28% to 20%. In 1986, a further drop in wealth tax dropped the top individual income tax rate to 35% in 1987, and eventually down to 28% in 1988.
Even now, many legislators cringe at the prospect of providing adequate financial support for this mandate. Yet the outcome is clear. Real and perceived failures of the public school system has led to a crisis wherein religious advocates and their advocates such as Fox News, acting on their perception of their Christian duty, have managed to work their way through the court system to force tax dollars to support religious education.
The effort to at least gain sufficient funding for the IDEA legislation continues. As reported by Peter Greene for Forbes magazine, published April 17-18, 2026, a Senate bill introduced by Senators Mark Kelly, Mazie Hirono, and an additional 28 senators have introduced the Keep Public Funds in Public Schools Act.
One portion of the President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” was a federal school voucher program that any state could join. But before that plan can go into effect, a new Senate bill has been proposed that would undo the vouchers entirely.
… The act would strike IRS Code Section 25, the portion of the IRS code that was inserted to create the federal school voucher program, eliminating that program.
The new voucher program was sold as a tax credit program. It would allow taxpayers to claim a $1,700 tax credit by diverting that payment from the IRS to a scholarship granting organization that would then award at least $1,530 of that donation to a student (the rules governing the program allow SGOs to keep 10% of the donated funds).
Kelly cites his home state of Arizona as a cautionary tale, where taxpayer-funded school vouchers have become costly:
“Since 2022, our state’s universal voucher program has diverted and drained money from public schools; last year alone cost Arizona taxpayers nearly $1 billion. Instead of investing in classrooms, special education services, or school safety, lawmakers pushed massive tax giveaways and created a parallel education system that lacks transparency and accountability.”[1]
News reporters including Craig Harris have run a series of reports showing much of voucher money has gone to questionable and disallowed purposes, including dirt bikes, custom tires and luxury hotel stays. Voucher advocates such as EdChoice have pushed back, but have had difficulty debunking Harris’s results. [2]
“In Arizona, we’ve already seen how universal vouchers are leading to rampant fraud and benefiting people who already had the means to send their kids to private school, while decimating public education for everyone else,” said Kelly.
…When Kentucky’s similarly-structured tax credit scholarship program was challenged in court, the state made a similar argument that the program did not use any public taxpayer funds. But when the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled against the program, they rejected that argument. “The money at issue cannot be characterized as simply private funds,” they wrote, “rather it represents the tax liability that the taxpayer would otherwise owe.”
When it comes to granting tax credits, the federal government has one power that states do not. Most states require a balanced budget; the state needs to find a way to cover the money it lost by offering credits rather than collecting on the tax liability. The federal government can just add the uncollected taxes to its deficit tab. Kelly noted in an interview, “It is a deficit bomb, this federal program.”
The Joint Committee on Taxation, a nonpartisan entity that assists Congress on tax legislation, estimated that the credit could cost $25.9 billion between 2025 and 2034 or around $3 billion to $4 billion a year. That would mean potential income of $300-$400 million for SGOs [Scholarship Granting Organizations]; several organizations are preparing to launch national SGOs to work with the federal voucher program.
Response to the bill has come from multiple arenas of American society.
In response to the introduction of the Keep Public Funds in Public Schools Act, Rev. Paul Brandeis Raushenbush, President and CEO of Interfaith Alliance, said:
“Public schools are sacred to our multi-faith democracy. They are fertile ground for religious freedom — places where students from all walks of life can learn and grow together, no matter their faith. We should be strengthening our public schools, not abandoning them and violating religious freedom in the process.”
“This disastrous federal voucher scheme is straight from the Christian nationalist playbook. It would force every taxpayer to pay for religious education, bolster private schools that can advance extreme religious agendas, and invite the government into religious education, undermining the autonomy of families, houses of worship, and religious schools. To reject this assault on religious freedom and help set students up to thrive in our multi-faith democracy, Congress must pass the Keep Public Funds in Public Schools Act.”[3]
First Focus on Children is a bipartisan advocacy organization dedicated to making children and families the priority in federal policy and budget decisions. In November 2024, the organization issued the following statement: [4]
Voucher programs may use terminology like “education savings accounts,” “opportunity scholarships,” or “tax credit scholarships.” While policymakers use a range of terms to describe voucher programs, they all function similarly: by diverting public school funding to private schools. Since the term “voucher” can be associated with negative perceptions by constituents, using alternative terminology has become a common strategy to pass unpopular policies.
While “school choice” sounds good in theory, the privatization of public school funds exacerbates educational inequity and increases the disparities it claims to mend. Data continues to reaffirm that school vouchers are riddled with fraud, show unimpressive results, defund public education, and amount to a handout to the wealthy. Supporters argue that vouchers expand equity and opportunity, but in fact, vouchers divert public money to the private, often religious, education of a handful of students.
The Economic Policy Institute examined the economics involved with vouchers versus public schools: [5]
The growing popularity of vouchers raises a host of crucial questions and concerns. Key to informing the debate are questions of public finance and education quality. Is allowing public money to leave the public school system and follow kids to private schools the most effective or equitable way to make sure every child has access to an excellent education? Our view is that it’s not. Public dollars allocated to education should go to boosting spending in public systems, not subsidizing private education.
Proponents of vouchers try to claim that expanding them would not harm public resources for education. Their argument hinges on the fact that public school spending is generally determined by governments setting a per-pupil allocation and then multiplying this allocation by projected enrollment. This funding model allows voucher proponents to claim that if vouchers pull children out of public schools, it still leaves per-pupil spending untouched, even though vouchers might reduce overall spending. In effect, proponents are arguing that vouchers would not degrade public schools’ ability to provide educational services.
But there are many flaws in this argument. Most obviously, introducing any new demand on public expenditures will lead to some pressure throughout public budgets—including school budgets—even if it does not immediately come directly from public school allocations. Many vouchers end up going to students who have never been in public schools, so funding these students’ private school expenses introduces new pressures on public budgets.
This perverse drive to compromise public education by using tax dollars in support of religious teaching didn’t happen overnight, nor will it end any time soon. But what’s at risk is nothing less than our nation itself, founded on principles now dangling on a precipice. Equal opportunity to education means not only that each child has the right to an education, but also that all education provides balanced exposure to the same fundamental subject matter. The current divide in this nation’s society cannot be remedied without a truly equal education of our young. Our tax dollars must not support religious education.[6]
[1] Greene, Petere. “Senate Bill Proposes Rollback of Federal School Vouchers,” Forbes, Apr 17, 2026. https://www.forbes.com/sites/petergreene/ 2026/04/17/senate-bill-proposes-rollback-of-federal-school-vouchers/
Arkansas is a textbook example of what happens when the government is controlled by Christian extremists. The state ranks among the top states in the nation for support of fundamentalist views, with studies indicating that roughly 54% of residents hold these viewpoints. As of 2026, Arkansas ranks 1st in the nation for support of Christian Nationalism, with Mississippi (52%), West Virginia (51%), and Oklahoma (49%) close behind.
It follows that Arkansas generally falls in the bottom tier of U.S. states for education, frequently appearing between 34th and 47th depending on the metric (e.g., K-12 achievement or overall attainment). While 86% of residents hold a high school diploma, the state faces challenges with reading proficiency and higher education attainment. Arkansas consistently ranks in the bottom ten states for education due to high poverty rates, low college attainment, and historical underfunding. Challenges include a 16.3% poverty rate (above the 11.6% national average), significant rural divides, and low teacher salaries, contributing to achievement gaps and lower academic performance in math and reading.
Predictably, Arkansas also consistently ranks among the top two states with the highest teen birth rates in the U.S., frequently appearing at 1st or 2nd place. With around 23.8 to 27.8 births per 1,000 females aged 15–19, the state’s rate is over 90% higher than the national average. Arkansas also consistently holds pride of place among the worst states for maternal mortality in the U.S., often appearing in the bottom three. Recent reports place Arkansas with one of the highest rates in the nation (e.g., 44 deaths per 100,000 live births from 2018-2021), with 92% of these deaths deemed preventable, often driven by rural health deserts.
As of 2024–2026 data, Arkansas stands among the worst states in the U.S. for sexual violence, holding the 2nd highest rate of rape in the nation and ranking 3rd highest in registered sex offenders per capita. As of late 2024, Arkansas had the second-highest rate of registered sex offenders in the nation, with roughly 640 offenders per 100,000 residents. Reports indicate roughly 77 rapes per 100,000 residents. Reports indicate that the state has often ranked at or near the top nationwide for these instances.
Arkansas has historically ranked as the highest state in the nation for the rate of child sexual abuse reports. The state’s highest rate of child sexual abuse reports in 2020 was 254 cases per 100,000 children; in 2022, the numbers had increased to 267 per 100,000. During SFY 2025, sexual abuse accounted for 20% (1,384) of the 6,922 victim children involved in “true” maltreatment investigations. Neglect accounted for 64% of cases, and physical abuse accounted for 23%. That year the Arkansas Child Abuse Hotline processed over 32,574 reports for investigation or differential response through the Department of Human Services (DHS) and the Arkansas State Police Crimes Against Children Division (CACD). Of the substantiated victims, 48% were ages 5 and under, 54% were female, and 61% were white.
According to the 2025 America’s Health Rankings report, Arkansas shines forth as 49th out of 50 states, placing it among the lowest in the nation for overall population health for metrics like smoking rates, obesity, and dental visits, although it has shown improvements in reducing drug-related deaths, dropping from 637 in 2021 to 371 in 2025. Nevertheless, despite the recent drop in fatal overdoses, a 2026 study by WalletHub ranked Arkansas as the 2nd worst state in the nation for overall drug abuse, lagging due to a high rate of opioid prescriptions per capita and a scarcity of substance abuse counselors.
Arkansas typically stands among the lowest in the nation for median household income, usually appearing in the bottom three to five states, often ranking 47th or 48th. Recent data indicates a median household income of roughly $55,000 to $60,773, which is significantly lower than the national median, though the state also has a lower cost of living.
As of 2024-2025, the state was distinguished to sit in the bottom five for child well-being (45th) and has a child poverty rate of 21-22%. In keeping with the state’s abysmal performance in all these arenas, its school voucher program ranks near the top, among the top three to four states nationwide for school choice, specifically regarding its Education Freedom Accounts (EFA) program. The program has grown rapidly since implementation in 2023, with over 46,000 students approved for the 2025-26 school year. The 2026 Arkansas state budget for the upcoming fiscal year includes a base allocation of $309 million for the Educational Freedom Account school voucher program. Lawmakers set aside an additional $70 million in surplus funds to account for further anticipated growth in the voucher program.
Money
One might argue that the voucher program is meant to lead Arkansas to higher rankings in all these important areas. Would that this were so. But 95% of Arkansas students attend public schools, which were already under-financed and otherwise hamstrung from adequately educating the state’s youth. Now, with vouchers sucking down tax dollars, public schools will be even less able to provide adequate education to the majority of the state’s youth.
The increasing adoption of universal voucher policies threatens to divert even more funds away from public-school systems and to worsen the quality of education for students remaining in public schools. In recent years, debates about banning books and diversity, equity, and inclusion curricula decisions have eclipsed discussions on the damage caused by pulling back resources from public schools. Wherever one comes down on debates about the precise curricula taught in public schools, arguing that it should be taught with less funding and under-resourced teachers and classrooms is misguided at best.
The Arkansas voucher programs are not without critics.
For the upcoming school year (2026-2027), all parents in Arkansas qualify for about $6,800 in state subsidies for private school tuition or homeschool expenses, no matter how much money they make or the test results of the public schools their children attend. So not surprisingly, as of this writing, 45,500 applicants have stepped up to the trough, blowing through not only the $187 million legislators appropriated for the program in the state budget but another $90 million in reserve funds set aside just in case the appropriation ran out. …Whether the money runs out this year or not, what’s clear is that the vouchers program, [Governor] Sanders’ pet project, has become a voracious consumer of taxpayer dollars, with more than $374 million spent in the first three years — on a program that hasn’t, doesn’t, and won’t improve a single public school anywhere in Arkansas and which research shows will negatively affect educational outcomes for students who use it.
More than a few taxpayers might also be chagrined that voucher money has been used to subsidize enrichment activities for homeschool students that include horseback riding, ninja warrior training, cooking classes, and archery — activities that parents of public school students must pay for themselves. Or that vendors getting money from the program operate largely on an honor system when it comes to complying with program rules.
…They could pay for vouchers by raising taxes, clearly a nonstarter for the Republican supermajority. They could also keep costs in check by limiting the number of participants. However, telling parents no after promising them free money would create intolerable political pressures, given that the point of the program is to allow parents with ideological opposition to public schools to escape from them. [1]
This last bit is key to understanding the embrace of school vouchers in Republican-majority states like Arkansas. Over the past five years, 14 states—all with Republican-dominated governments—passed universal Education Savings Account (ESA) or voucher laws, allowing public funds for private tuition. These programs face significant criticism for draining funding from public school districts, showing mixed or negative student achievement results, and lacking academic and financial accountability. These programs benefit families already enrolled in private school rather than low-income families.
During the 2021-22 academic school year, six percent of Arkansas’ K-12 students were homeschooled, more than the number of students in the state who attend private schools. In some areas of the state, the percentage is much higher, with districts like Eureka Springs and Searcy topping out at twenty percent. As of late 2025, 6.7% to over 8% of Arkansas K-12 students are taught at home, with recent data estimating over 32,000 students. Homeschooling in Arkansas surged post-pandemic and continues to grow, representing one of the highest percentages in the nation, particularly in Northwest and Central Arkansas. [2]
Arkansas pays families for homeschooling and for private school costs, as described in the Tulane study cited on Page 38. Funds are deposited quarterly into a ClassWallet account and are not given directly to parents as cash. Parents can use the funds to purchase:
While payments through the ClassWallet program are meant to ensure money goes specifically to allowed materials and activities, some lawmakers and critics have raised concerns that, once goods are purchased, the program relies on an “honor system” to ensure the items are actually used for education; physical home checks are not conducted. While expensive items like computers are intended for educational use, they do not remain the property of the state once purchased by the family, a de facto gift of taxpayer dollars to that household.[3]
These expenditures might be justified if there were some method in place to test the academic success (or lack thereof) of homeschooled students. But following the repeal of testing requirements by Act 832 of 2015, Arkansas does not require any state-standardized testing for homeschool students. Parents have complete autonomy in choosing their own assessments for academic progress, and there are no mandatory subject tests, even for high school “graduation.” If the parents wish, some school students can participate in optional state-funded tests, such as the PSAT (10th grade) or ACT (11th grade). To opt for homeschool, parents only must file an annual “Notice of Intent” with their local school district superintendent between June 15 and August 15, declaring responsibility for their child’s education. No state-mandated curriculum, teacher qualifications, testing, or hours of instruction are required.
Once an Arkansas parent has filed notice of intent to homeschool with the local school superintendent, the parent is free to choose his/her own curriculum. Parents are blissfully free to do whatever they like, including nothing at all, toward the ability of their child to function productively and with understanding of their responsibility as a citizen in American society.
Apparently, “Education Freedom” means two things—the ‘freedom’ to demand tax dollars for religious teaching and the freedom not to be educated while spending tax dollars.
As reported by Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, based on a report compiled by the Arkansas Educational Freedom Accounts Program Annual Report:
The 2024-2025 Arkansas Education Freedom Accounts Program Annual Report does not demonstrate that Arkansas’s voucher program is fiscally modest. Evidence from the first two years shows that the program has created substantial new spending obligations, with costs already exceeding initial projections and only a small fraction of expenses offset by switchers. The overwhelming majority of EFA recipients were never enrolled in public schools, meaning the program largely subsidizes private education for those who already had the ability to choose which school to attend. Outcomes from other universal voucher states further illustrate the long-term budgetary risk this program poses, including escalating costs and reductions in public school funding. As Arkansas begins to determine adequate and equitable funding for public education amid a challenging economic environment, policymakers must carefully weigh the growing financial burden the school voucher program creates. [4]
The cultural changes which have allowed women to vote and work outside the home, that freed Blacks from slavery and granted equal rights, that more recently have recognized the right to privacy in matters such as abortion rights, gender identity and LGBTQ+ existence are all grist for the Christian Nationalist mill. These advances they wish to overturn stem from court decisions upholding these rights as constitutionally-guaranteed rights for all Americans.
Court battles yet to be fought include whether or not tax-funded promotion of Christian Nationalism is a form of sedition. Those battles can’t come soon enough.
Laws against drug use do not stop drug use or abuse, as clearly evidenced by the continuing rise of substance abuse and overdose deaths over the last sixty years despite the so-called “drug war.” We spend nearly a trillion dollars a year supporting draconian laws and their enforcement, but that only exacerbates conditions which lead individuals to substance abuse. Current drug policy feeds a system of violence by funneling drug traffic to underground markets which in turn finance gangs and cartels. This violence escalates as community law enforcement shifts toward militarized weaponry and strategies, which leads to violations of individual, constitutionally-guaranteed rights.
The following discussion uses existing research and statistics to show that the drug war has failed in a wide array of human needs as well as public policy. We show what changes would useful in eliminating this destructive approach and how we can improve American lives and the society as a whole.
What will happen to them, these lovers of Trump, the men and women who act as if he is the next risen Christ, or at least the best man possible to lead the United States of America? Who even now cling to their fantasy in the face of his utter perfidy—starting a war, abandoning the American economy, exposed as a defiler of children. What will happen when the inexorable turn of the wheels of justice—or perhaps death—finally finally grind him into the ground? Will they weep? Yes. Will their anger grow exponentially to the point of ignition? Yes.
When the inevitable happens—and yes, I believe in the Constitution and our system of laws which have steered this nation through war and despair for over 200 years—when Trump is finally held accountable for all his lies and frauds and empty promises that continue to spill from his deteriorating mind, mouthed in nonsensical phrases and welcomed with open arms into the aisles of churches and homes of the True Believers, I believe that the witnesses and the attorneys and the juries and judges will do their duty, that he will be convicted of his crimes against the people and the nation, that he will at some point have to face the truth about himself.
Nothing could be more terrifying for a man like Trump than to face the truth, that his life was wasted in harming his fellow man, that he was a liar, thief, an adulterer and a rapist, that he could produce nothing of value in this world. That he had every advantage and he squandered that gift in his ignorance, in his greed and desperation for his life to have some meaning but never did.
What will these people do who hold him up before themselves and now will find him cast down into the depths of human failure, deceit, corruption? When the proof of his amoral guilt opens their eyes with blinding light, will they refuse to believe the truth? Will they take up arms and storm the courthouses and prison, or stand in line to honor his corpse, cry out demanding a new day still grasping for that promise, that fable of his greatness?
They believed. They tied their lifeboats to his ship, that great phantasm of belief that he was the strong man, the savior of our times, that their lives could be made meaningful and fruitful under his leadership, that their hatreds and prejudices would be vindicated. As the seas toss and roll, tossing his ship into wreckage, will their lives also capsize, splinter into driftwood to drift back to the littered beaches over the coming months and years?
Somewhere deep inside, most of the True Believers sense the truth, that Trump is a fool, an emperor without clothes. They know in that secret room of themselves that they have followed a lie. But for many of them, the truth is too painful, too terrifying, and their solution is to justify war, believe they will emerge triumphant in a new white Christian America led by God Almighty with Trump seated on His right hand.
These are the fantasies of those who have never understood their purpose in life. They mouth the words of the Bible without comprehending their personal duty to act on those words. They labor under the belief that their primary duty is to follow a person like Trump because he says what they want to hear, that they are the chosen ones. In their glorious imaginings of redeeming the nation, the radical right imagines the fight as taking down the figureheads of ‘liberal’ democracy without realizing the liberal agenda aligns with the teachings of Christ.
Will justice for Trump open the door to insight, even epiphany, for his True Believers? Will they be able to accept the truth of his malfeasance or the rectitude of the courts’ judgements? Some will. Some already have. But many will not, reliant on media that supports their viewpoint, reinforcing their perception of Trump. Many of them align with his fight against “the system” over specific policy successes or moral scrutinies and focus on the broader, long-term impact they expect from his policies. We probably should feel compassion for their loss of a dream, of a self-made parody of a god who misled them, made promises he couldn’t keep, presented himself in a fictional persona simply to aggrandize himself no matter the price to be paid.
The private, personal cost will be great for those True Believers unable to let go of the fantasy, that they alone stood by a true hero. They will not be treated kindly by history.
The greater cost to the rest of us, and to our nation, is incalculable.
For the record, I predict that Trump is in the last stages of destroying the goals of his Enablers—Evangelical extremists and their Zionist fantasies, Christian Nationalists, oligarchs, racists, misogynists, and the rest. By the time they wake up to the damage he is doing in his ignorant, ham-fisted effort to implement their objectives, it will be too late to undo it. The end result will be a complete destruction of those Enabler goals and their power in U.S. society.
Make no mistake. In the process already well underway, these morons including Trump will have significantly damaged our nation and each of us individually. Any respect or trust felt toward the United States by other nations will have been destroyed. Our military will have squandered its strategic reserves as well as uncounted lives in a war initiated on a whim without any strategic preparation. Our standing in the world will be trashed.
Our privacy in Social Security, tax, and medical records is lost as the DOGE boys walk off with that information on flash drives. Our natural treasures from forests to wetlands to wildlife is being sold off to the highest bidder, and our hope of stopping global warming will be utterly destroyed. Hard-working men and women, along with their families, who dared to attempt citizenship in this country are being lost to the gulags of foreign countries while our crops rot in the fields. Gas prices are skyrocketing in Trump’s little war, not to decrease for untold months as our fate rests in the hands of the nation Trump attacked.
The end of the Enabler wet dream is near. While the draft dodger plays war games from the Oval Office, his Gestapo/ICE is killing U.S. citizens. Thanks to the SCOTUS, his tariff wet dream is over, with only his remaining grab lasting until July. Invading Venezuela pushed the envelope, and invading Greenland was too much to allow. We have yet to discover the full truth of his submission to Russia, but the irrefutable evidence is mounting.
There’s only so much Trump can do to avoid the consequences of his party time with Epstein, and he’s up to his neck in doing it. But his grab bag of distractions is slowly emptying, and one way or the other, the truth will out.
And there’s only so much the Enablers can do to keep him awake and walking before dear old Mother Nature cuts him off for good.
The Enablers chose to elevate him to the presidency because he is easily manipulated. He pretends to be Christian, enough for the Evangelical and Zionist Enablers to claim he was sent by God as a “flawed vessel,” an imperfect man guided by God’s own hand to lead a nation away from its wanderings; they seek to ensure Israel’s dominance in the Middle East in order to usher in the Second Coming. Why, he could lead the nation back to its Christian roots, its Manifest Destiny to claim this land from its former residents (those heathen tribes) and turn it to God’s plan for a white Christian patriarchy just like the Bible promised!
The Oligarch Enablers touted his financial experience, claiming he was a billionaire who knew the business world. They promoted his reputation of wealth and ignored the common knowledge that in his stomping grounds of New York, Donald Trump was viewed by many, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s, as a “slippery” real estate developer and a “laughing stock” who was “wildly tacky,” according to reports. He was often described in NY as a “con man” or a “shyster” in the context of being a negotiator who would use any means, including “spurious” lawsuits and “scurrilous” tactics, to get his way. But he was malleable, which is all the billionaires needed, claiming that with his financial skills, he could turn the economy around to benefit all people. They knew he had failed at all his financial projects, but believed he would be successful in shifting onerous taxes away from the superrich, which was their true objective.
Then there were White Supremacist Enablers’ concerns about all the non-white immigrants (even those who were citizens) slowly shifting the population away from whiteness. Oh my, what will happen when the browns outnumber the whites?! Could it be that browns will treat whites the way whites have treated browns? After all, whites are by far superior, inventing “everything,” as Trump announced at the 2025 DAVOS meeting. Well, he said the United States was the ‘inventor of everything,’ but to him, in that setting of Western European whites, he meant white. In his garbaged brain, he has no inkling of all the important inventions made by brown people. His personal racism was inherited from his father and grandfather in the tradition of paternal relatives living in Germany in a culture that embraced Hitler’s vision of a white Christian Europe. This all made Trump a great candidate to implement the Enablers’ vision.
The White Racists overlap with the ChristoFascists, whose entire existence seems riveted to the idea that their ticket to heaven lies in convincing everyone to believe what they believe. Already their ‘gospel’ of greed, hate, and selfishness is being effectively repudiated by people who understand and follow the teachings of Christ, not that those teachings differ much from those of basic human morality.
Then, women. For crying out loud, the WOMEN! How dare they stand alongside men as ‘equals’ instead of being barefoot and pregnant in men’s kitchens?! Didn’t God Himself ordain that woman were men’s helpers? But God of the Jews didn’t ordain women as ‘less.’ That idea came from the Romans who by around 400 AD had managed to edit the early Christian writings down to what they deemed appropriate in their patriarchal society: “In Roman culture, a paterfamilias could legally kill a wife or daughter primarily for adultery (violating sexual purity). Other actions, such as drinking wine or other perceived transgressions, were historically punished with death in early Roman history.” (See Council of Nicaea, “…The primary purpose of the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, convened by Emperor Constantine, was to unify the Christian Church by resolving the Arian controversy over the divine nature of Jesus Christ and establish core doctrines, leading to the creation of the Nicene Creed and decisions on Easter dates.”)
Those pesky early Christian writings revealed, in the Gospel of Mary, a path to faith without churches or hierarchy, “a radical interpretation of Jesus’ teachings as a path to inner spiritual knowledge; it rejects His suffering and death as the path to eternal life; it exposes the erroneous view that Mary of Magdala was a prostitute for what it is—a piece of theological fiction; it presents the most straightforward and convincing argument in any early Christian writing for the legitimacy of women’s leadership; it offers a sharp critique of illegitimate power and a utopian vision of spiritual perfection; it challenges our rather romantic views about the harmony and unanimity of the first Christians; and it asks us to rethink the basis for church authority.”
But I digress.
Trump is a figurehead, uninterested and incapable of “running” the United States of America. Instead, he does what his Enablers direct him to do, which is to appoint sycophants to do this administration’s various jobs. Stephen Miller is the force behind Homeland Security, ICE, and all the other ugly, criminal activities currently underway in our Democratic cities. Perhaps criminally insane, Miller is thrilled that brown people are being killed and dispossessed but most of all he enjoys seeing people and their families being terrorized. The terror for the rest of us is just so much collateral damage.
The Enablers have a plan, Project 2025. Destroying the federal government ranks high on the list, with only a few to be saved from the Musk/DOGE destruction which not only eliminated 260,000 to 308,000 federal jobs but also stole a “dataset of more than 300 million Americans’ sensitive information into a virtual database without following required security protocols.”
That information can be used in several damaging ways to:
• Copy data to use for unauthorized purposes
• Deny access to public services, benefits, and opportunities such as: medical care, housing, food or student financial assistance, veteran or military benefits, public contracts, and more.
• “Doxx” (share personal information online)
• Provide or sell data to foreign governments, data brokers, and/or private companies
The Enablers don’t feel personally at risk from these data thefts and have specific methods of using such data to their own financial advantage.
Evangelical Extremists won’t turn away from Trump because their religious beliefs fix them in unquestioning support of the Flawed Vessel. Likewise, few Racists will never be able to overcome their inbred fear and hatred of brown people.
I predict it will be the Oligarchs who finally draw the line and end Trump. It will be interesting to see what finally flips their switch and ends him. Sadly, unless Republicans in Congress stand up and impeach with the Constitution’s Article 2, Section 4 (President, Vice President, and “civil Officers of the United States” including cabinet secretaries and federal judges) to rid us of the entire Trump circus, we’ll be saddled with the vice president who is already groomed by oligarch Peter Thiel for the job.
We can’t count on patriotism to motivate any Enabler to take action. One group has traded its moral judgment for what they believe is God’s favor. Another group has lost their humanity in fear and hatred for brown people. The Oligarchs see nothing wrong with skewing the tax scales in their favor, since their concept of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” means dog-eat-dog capitalism. But now with the losses of war in the Middle East and the stranglehold on oil supply, how much longer will the Oligarchs wait?
Laws against drug use do not stop drug use or abuse. Instead, such laws and their enforcement exacerbate conditions in individuals which have led to their substance abuse. Current drug policy feeds a system of violence by funneling drug traffic to underground markets which in turn finance gangs and cartels. This violence escalates as community law enforcement shifts toward militarized weaponry and strategies, which leads to violations of individual, constitutionally-guaranteed rights. Meanwhile, taxpayers fund ever increasing costs for failed policies.
The Money $$
Incarcerating drug offenders costs U.S. taxpayers over $10 billion annually for over 485,000 prisoners. The federal government spends approximately one million dollars per day just on drug-related incarcerations, with state governments spending billions more. The average annual cost to incarcerate a single person is roughly $40,000 to over $65,000, far exceeding the cost of treatment.[1]
Imprisonment: $10 billion
Beyond incarceration, the total cost for police, prosecution, and adjudication of drug law violations are estimated at over $47 billion per year. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) budget for 2021 (last available year) was $3.28 billion.
Enforcement: $47 billion.
When including the societal costs of substance abuse (health care, criminal justice, lost productivity), the total impact is estimated at over $500 billion annually for substance abusers. Then there’s the cost of social services for families of persons convicted for drug crimes. An average of nearly $4,200 annually is paid by families to support their incarcerated loved ones, with a cumulative financial burden on families estimated at approximately $350 billion per year nationwide. Federal prison populations average 42.9% drug prisoners, costing tax payers $150 billion in social services for their dependents, while state prisons contain an average of 20% for drug crimes adding another $70 billion for social services, a total of $220 billion.[2][3]
Society: $720 billion.
The total societal cost for individuals with substance abuse problems, including lost productivity and health consequences, is much higher, with estimates exceeding $820 billion annually. For illegal drugs, the cost is estimated at $193 billion.
The United States military spends roughly $1 billion annually directly on drug interdiction and counter-drug activities, with over $8 billion in surplus equipment transferred to law enforcement agencies since 1990. This spending involves the Department of Defense (DoD) supporting federal, state, and local agencies through intelligence, surveillance, and equipment transfers, particularly through the 1033 program.[5]
Military: $9 billion
Total estimated dollar cost of the U.S. drug war: $979 billion ANNUALLY.
The Human Cost
Roughly 75% of illegal drug users are self-medicating.[6] Research has shown that people with conditions like depression, anxiety disorders, bipolar disorder, PTSD, and ADHD may use illegal drugs to temporarily alleviate symptoms. For example, a person struggling with alcoholism through most of the fifty years of his life seeks therapy and discovers that he was bi-polar. Once appropriately medicated for bi-polar disorder, he no longer cared to drink. Many patients misusing drugs and alcohol have chronic pain and use these substances (such as marijuana and heroin, which have pain-relieving properties) to cope. Finally, in the absence of emotional support, individuals may use drugs to deal with increased stress, trauma, or a recent loss.
In a nation eager to spend billions of dollars to punish intoxication, far less energy and money is expended to provide physical and mental health care for persons in need. Illegal street drugs are less expensive than medical care. Even subsidized medical care often fails to fully address mental health or nutritional needs. For a chronically depressed person, for example, methamphetamine can elevate that person’s mood. Opiates can also seem the perfect answer, i.e. escape from reality.
Enforcement of prohibition laws further harms a person using illegal drugs. Humiliation, disenfranchisement, and poverty are collateral damage intentionally inflicted by arrest and prosecution. An arrest or conviction record can lead to eviction or denial of housing, particularly in public housing, with formerly incarcerated people being ten times more likely to experience homelessness. Interactions with the legal system can trigger child welfare investigations, potentially leading to family separation and foster care placement, adding to generational damage. Consequences can include the loss of voting rights, firearm privileges, and driver’s license suspension. Individuals may lose access to student loans, public benefits (like TANF or SNAP), and face significant financial burdens. These deleterious effects of prohibition laws only exacerbate an individual’s underlying problems.
There were approximately 105,000 to 108,000 annual drug overdose deaths reported in 2022 and 2023, with provisional data for 2024 indicating a significant decrease to around 80,000–81,700 deaths. The vast majority of these deaths involve illicit drugs, specifically synthetic opioids like illegally-made fentanyl, the primary driver of the overdose crisis in the United States, responsible for approximately 72,000 to 73,000 deaths annuallyas of 2023. These synthetic opioids account for nearly 70% of all illegal drug-related deaths.
Between 2001 and 2018, deaths from drug and alcohol intoxications in prisons and jails rose 600% and 400%, respectively. Factors in these surprising numbers include limited access to evidence-based treatment, such as Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) (e.g., methadone, buprenorphine), and high-turnover, high-stress environments. Additionally, researchers suggest that the true number of intoxication-related deaths is likely higher, as many are often miscoded on death certificates as “illness” or “unknown” causes, particularly when they occur shortly after booking. Treatment or medications for substance use disorder are rarely available behind bars.[7]
What makes the news are deaths from fentanyl, over 80,000 annually as noted above. But compared to drug deaths, deaths from legal alcohol use are estimated at 178,000 annually. Additionally, another 13,000 deaths (average) per year result from drunk driving. Excessive alcohol use remains a leading preventable cause of death, with estimates frequently exceeding 100,000 annual deaths attributable to chronic health conditions and acute events like accidents.[8]
Death from illegal drugs:
2024 (Provisional): Approximately 79,384 drug overdose deaths were reported, representing a substantial, nearly 24% decrease from 2023.
2023: Approximately 105,007 people died from drug overdoses, which was a slight decrease (about 3%) from the 107,941 deaths reported in 2022.
2022: A total of 107,941 drug overdose deaths occurred.
2021: A total of 106,699 drug overdose deaths
In comparison, deaths due to excessive alcohol use increased from 30,722 in 2014 to 54,258 in 2020-21 to 46,796 in 2024. These are direct results while alcohol-related causes totaled 178,000 deaths “in an average year.”[9] Polling shows that 54% of adults say that someone in their household has struggled with an alcohol use disorder.[10]
As we should have learned from efforts to eliminate alcohol use/abuse with the 1920 passage of the Volstead Act (repealed in 1933), prohibition laws open a vast underground market where criminals earn huge profits by supplying prohibited substances to the public. While there is no single definitive figure for the total size of the underground alcohol market between 1920 and 1933, the federal government lost an estimated $11 billion in tax revenue during Prohibition and spent another estimated $300 million in enforcement. Meanwhile, organized crime syndicates flourished, with major figures like Al Capone generating up to $100 million annually. Deaths attributed to alcohol poisoning during the thirteen years of prohibition are estimated at 50,000, i.e. slightly less than 4,000 per year.[11] This total is separate from other alcohol-related deaths including drunk driving and alcohol-related diseases such as cirrhosis of the liver.
Worse than the dollar cost for the current prohibition laws on certain drugs, however, is the human cost and the cost to our democracy.
Prohibition was—and is—a powerful political tool heralded by countless public office hopefuls who don’t hesitate to proclaim their support for prohibition laws. Notably, President Donald Trump has used drug trafficking to justify the outright murder of (so far) over 130 individuals by claiming they were carrying drugs in their boats—no judge, no jury.[12] Keep in mind that over 100,000 people die each year from prescribed drugs. Legal drugs. These include psychostimulants, cocaine, prescription opioids, benzodiazepines, heroin, antidepressants.
Data shows us that 27.9 million people, 9.7% of the population, will suffer an alcohol use disorder, while 28.2 million (9.8%) will suffer a drug use disorder. Equally noteworthy is that 21.2 million people had both a mental health disorder and a substance use disorder.[13] Other evidence is found to support the idea that at least half of persons with a substance abuse problem are self-medicating an underlying problem. Contributing factors include early use (before age 15 compared to those who wait until age 21 or later) and/or a family history of problem drinking. Altogether, nearly 20%–one in five people—face substance abuse problems.
The cost to our democracy is not just the extra-judicial murder of people in boats. It is the ridiculous idea that the government has the right and capability to monitor individual lives. To this end, government has armed community police departments with military-grade weapons and the development of SWAT teams in order to carry out the ‘war’ on our citizens. Yes, this is a response to wealthy street gangs protecting their turf against competing gangs as well as against law enforcement, but prohibition policies created this war that can never be won. People will continue to recreate and self-medicate. Police will continue to try to enforce the laws, failed as they are. Such laws open the way to selective enforcement, wherein persons of color or low income become easy targets. Black people are significantly more likely to be arrested for drug violations, with studies showing they are 3.6 times more likely than white people to be arrested for marijuana possession. Black and Latino people make up the majority of those in state and federal prisons for drug offenses. The imprisonment rate for Black adults for drug charges is nearly six times that of white adults. Almost never does law enforcement act against the wealthy or other ‘elites’ who most certainly can access effective legal advice before ever entering a jail cell.
These shameful outcomes in a so-called free society are due to the fact that drug laws are fundamentally unenforceable. Government cannot surveil private activity in the homes of American citizens, so traffic stops for spurious reasons lead to police sniffing the air rolling out of the car window to justify acceleration of their ‘investigation.’
This ouroboros of ill-considered public policy not only destroys our communities, it infects the entire nation with violence and lost opportunities.
Cost of Appropriate Care for Persons with Substance Abuse Disorder
Experts emphasize that substance abuse is often both a cause and a consequence of homelessness. While addiction can contribute to housing loss, many individuals also experience substance use as a form of “self-medication” to cope with the trauma and physical pain of living without stable housing, as previously discussed.
Walk-in, free community health clinics that focus on addiction treatment should include excellent nutrition, mental health diagnosis and treatment, and healing exercise (T’ai chi, mindful meditation, low impact exercises, walking, swimming). Such clinics must be established in every community where homeless populations are found and, subsequently, in every community of 25,000 or fewer or equivalent parts of larger communities. Each person must be linked with a counselor who advises not only on treatment options, but also on what social services are available and recommended, to include physical (including dental) and mental health care, educational options, job training programs, counseling on matters of family, personal relationships, and living conditions. Referral to housing with follow-up oversight requires that housing be available.
Housing for unsheltered persons is an important element in addressing addiction and mental health issues. Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) is the gold standard for individuals experiencing chronic homelessness who have diagnosed disabilities. It combines long-term, stable housing with intensive, voluntary supportive services (such as mental health care, addiction treatment, and case management) to ensure long-term success. Cost: $12,000–$20,000 range, with some specialized cases involving higher service needs costing more. Rapid Re-Housing (RRH), often in the form of tiny home villages, is best suited for those experiencing non-chronic homelessness. This model focuses on getting individuals into their own apartments as quickly as possible. It provides short-term financial assistance (rent/utilities) and time-limited support services to help people stabilize and gain independence. RRH is lower-cost, short-to-medium-term assistance, estimated at roughly $8,500 annually.
Many experts argue that the high cost of homelessness—driven by public spending on emergency rooms, jails, hospitals, and crisis services—often exceeds the cost of providing stable, permanent housing.
National Alliance to End Homelessness:
We calculated the additional Housing First placements needed to provide assistance for every household who experienced sheltered homelessness in 2022. Table 2 applies financial cost estimates (in 2022 dollars) to this expansion in placements. At an annual cost of $8,486 and $20,115 per adult household for each placement in Rapid Re-Housing and supportive housing, respectively, it would cost an additional $8.2 billion to rehouse all adult households who stayed in shelter in 2022.
The comparatively smaller number of families experiencing homelessness, almost all of whom are temporarily homeless, would mean that all sheltered homeless families could be rehoused using Rapid Re-Housing at an additional annual cost of $1 billion. The highly successful veterans Housing First placements can be expanded to cover all sheltered homeless veterans at an additional annual cost of $442 million. At an estimated total additional cost of $9.6 billion, all households that used shelter in 2022 could have been provided with a Housing First program.
Between 2001 and 2018, deaths from drug and alcohol intoxications in prisons and jails rose 600% and 400%, respectively. Treatment or medications for substance use disorder are rarely available behind bars.[14]
Estimated number of homeless persons in the United States (2024) is 772,000. For this number, high end estimated cost for PSH would total $15.4 billion.
Subtracted from the savings found in ending the drug war, providing housing for the homeless would leave$963.6 billion for other uses.
Lost Potential Income
The global illegal drug industry is estimated to be worth between $426 billion and $652 billion per year. The United States illegal drug industry is estimated to be worth between $200 billion and $750 billion per year. If you believe the people profiting from this income flow will hesitate to spend some of their ill-gotten wealth to lobby legislators at any hint of drug policy reform, I have a bridge to sell you.
If currently illegal drugs were legalized in the United States, regulated like alcohol for purity and dosage strength, and taxed, the income from those taxes would range between $7.5 billion and $225 billion per year. This 3% approximation is based on the rate used on alcohol in Arkansas. Alcohol tax differs from state to state, in addition to federal tax per ounce of pure alcoholic content. For spirits, wine, and beer, the federal rate is 21 cents, 6 cents, and 9 cents, respectively, leaving no easy method of comparing alcohol tax rates to potential tax on currently illegal drugs. No doubt a modest tax rate on what is currently sold on the black market would be substantial. Potential tax income from legalized drug tax: $7.5 to $225 billion.
Also profiting the nation would be new income for farmers, processors, and retailers providing drugs to the public. For comparison, consider the Arkansas medical marijuana market. Since its 2019 launch, the Arkansas medical marijuana industry has exceeded $1.1 billion in total sales. In February and March 2024 combined, the state’s 38 dispensaries sold nearly $45 million in products. As of March 2, 2026, the average annual pay for a Cannabis Grower in Arkansas is $51,905 ($24.95/hour), with most salaries ranging from $31,100 to $66,500. Top earners (90th percentile) in the Arkansas cannabis cultivation sector can make up to $81,841 annually. Broader roles within the Arkansas cannabis industry average around $118,867 a year ($57.15/hour). Of key note, Arkansas has collected over $127 million in state tax revenue from medical marijuana in the last five years.
Imagine these numbers amplified if production and sales weren’t limited to people certified as medical use! Instead, current policies are supporting various actors in this international underground drug trade, including:
Transnational Criminal Organizations (Cartels): These “international logistics companies” manage the large-scale trafficking and distribution. Leaders (“kingpins”) can accumulate immense personal fortunes, often running into billions of dollars, though the majority of revenue is distributed among lower-level participants in destination countries.
Wholesalers and Distributors: Individuals in destination countries like the US and the UK who break down large shipments and distribute them to local dealers capture an estimated 70% to 80% of the total revenue, primarily due to the high retail price and significant risks involved at this stage of the supply chain.
Street-level Dealers: While often making modest incomes (sometimes compared to minimum wage, though still a living wage for many), these individuals are numerous and collectively account for a large portion of the market’s revenue. Their earnings are often used for everyday living expenses.
Farmers and Producers: At the very beginning of the supply chain, farmers in producer countries (e.g., Afghanistan for poppy, Colombia for coca) earn very little compared to the final street value of the drugs.
Corrupt Officials: Bribes and payoffs supplement the incomes of government officials, police, and border control agents at various levels, enabling the flow of drugs and money.
Professionals involved in Money Laundering: Individuals such as lawyers and accountants are involved in creating shell companies, using offshore accounts, and running cash-intensive businesses (like bars, salons, or construction companies) to disguise illicit funds as legitimate income.
Legitimate Businesses: Drug money is often laundered by investing it in the legitimate economy, including the stock market, real estate, and various small businesses, which in turn profits from these cash infusions.
For example, a DEA memo, part of a recent (early 2026) release of Justice Department files, shows that the agency opened an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and others in December 2010. The investigation was still pending as of 2015, the date of the memo. The document specifically noted that Epstein was suspected of transferring more than $5.6 million for the purpose of acquiring narcotics.
Ultimately, illegal profits sustain the operations of the entire criminal network and fund related illicit activities such as human trafficking and arms trafficking.
Farmers would be one of the primary beneficiaries of legalized drugs, capable of producing not only crops of marijuana, but also opium poppies and coca bush. The two latter agricultural products are well established outside the continental U.S., as are harvesting and processing methods. Populations which have traditionally produced opium are primarily Afghanistan and parts of the North-West Frontier Province (now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan). Coca production and processing are traditionally in Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, and Ecuador. These areas would greatly benefit from legalizing their farming of these substances.
Clearly, ending the U.S. drug war would create tremendous benefits around the world.
The Drug War’s Role in Illegal Immigration
In particular, legalized drugs would remove the U.S. boot from the necks of Central and South American nations whose drug cartels currently exercise a combination of extreme violence, territorial control, corruption, and diversification into other criminal and legitimate economic activities in their home nations. Drug cartels exert a profound, direct, and increasingly violent influence on immigration into the United States by controlling, taxing, and facilitating the movement of people across the U.S.-Mexico border. They have transformed migrant smuggling into a multi-billion dollar business that often works in tandem with drug trafficking, turning the border into a “pay-to-pass” system.
But that is only part of the drug war benefit to cartels in the immigration arena. Violence, including that stemming from drug trafficking, gang activity (maras), and extortion, is a primary driver of emigration from Central America, with studies suggesting it acts as a, or the, main catalyst for 39% to over 60% of migrants, particularly from the “Northern Triangle” (El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala). The violence associated with the drug trade damages local economies, reduces investment, and destroys jobs. Research indicates that this “economic channel” is the dominant force behind migration, as people flee not just the immediate threat of violence, but the loss of livelihood. Gangs frequently target youth for forced recruitment, leading many families to send their children to the U.S. for safety, resulting in surges of unaccompanied minors.
The immigration problem for the U.S. is not limited to Central America. Even further south from our borders are people desperate to leave South America. The majority of South American immigrants to the southern border of the United States are from Colombia, Venezuela, Brazil, Ecuador, and Peru.
As of early 2026, the political-economic situation regarding the drug war in Venezuela is defined by a deeply entrenched, state-involved narco-trafficking infrastructure that functions amid a severe economic, humanitarian crisis, and intense pressure from the United States. The government is largely seen as a “gangster state” where, under the Maduro regime, the military and security apparatus became reliant on illicit revenue streams to maintain power, particularly through the “Cartel of the Suns”. Roughly 49% to over 72% of Venezuelan migrants to the U.S. have cited insecurity and violence as a reason for leaving their country.
As of early 2025, over 400,000 Ecuadorians had left the country since 2021, with a significant and growing percentage driven by drug war violence and, in some cases, forced recruitment. The political and economic situation regarding the drug war in Ecuador is characterized by a “new phase” of intense, US-backed military operations against “narco-terrorist” gangs, which have largely taken over criminal control of the country’s Pacific ports. Despite President Daniel Noboa’s “iron fist” policies—declaring an internal armed conflict and deploying the military—homicides reached record-highs in 2025, with over 9,000 violent deaths, making it one of the most violent nations in the world.
The political and economic situation regarding the drug war in Colombia in early 2026 is characterized by heightened tensions with the United States, record-high cocaine production, and a contentious shift in strategy under President Gustavo Petro. Cocaine trafficking is a massive, parallel economy in Colombia, generating an estimated $15.3 billion annually, equivalent to roughly 4.2% of the country’s GDP. Petro has moved away from forced eradication toward voluntary substitution and “total peace” negotiations with armed groups, a policy that has struggled to show results and has antagonized the Trump administration.
In Brazil, the highest rates of homicide, often linked to drug trafficking disputes, are concentrated in the North and Northeast regions, prompting migration from these areas. Brazil struggles with high rates of homicide (roughly 23.8 per 100,000 residents), gang violence, and robbery, largely driven by the illegal drug trade.
In Peru’s rural, coca-growing regions like the VRAEM (Valley of the Apurímac, Ene, and Mantaro Rivers), violence, extortion, and illegal mining have forced many to leave. Drug traffickers have increased violence against indigenous communities, causing displacement. The reduction of USAID funding, particularly under the Trump administration, has created uncertainty regarding the continuation of alternative development programs that were designed to encourage farmers to switch from coca to legal crops.
Overall, immigration enforcement and border security costs have reached record highs in the U.S., with proposed and approved funding for FY2025–2026 exceeding $100 billion over four years, including a roughly $10 billion annual budget for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and nearly $20 billion for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in 2024. Recent legislation has significantly boosted these figures, allocating $45 billion for detention, $30 billion for removals, and $46 billion for border walls, creating a massive “deportation-industrial complex.”
Obviously, ending the drug war would destroy the cartels, thereby allowing for a return to normalcy in these Central and South American nations. Granted, this won’t occur overnight. The damage has occurred over decades. Still, if such an improvement came to pass, we could estimate at the very least a 50% reduction in this budget, from $100 billion to $50 billion, and probably significantly more.
Dispensing Drugs in a No-Prohibition Nation
Almost 300 million people are estimated to consume illicit drugs regularly, with the three most popular being cannabis (228 million users), opioids (60 million) and cocaine (23 million). But that is a drop in the bucket to the actual drug consumption. Nearly 260 million Americans use over-the-counter (OTC) medications, purchasing them an average of 26 times per year. In 2024, OTC medication sales in the U.S. were estimated at $44.3 billion. Studies show that 81% of U.S. adults used at least one OTC medication, prescription medication, or dietary supplement in the past week. Further, approximately 6.3 billion prescriptions were filled in the U.S. in 2020 alone. Nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults (about 64.8%) report taking at least one prescription medication annually, treating conditions such as Type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol.
The mean cost of developing a new drug from 2000 to 2018 was $172.7 million (2018 dollars) but increased to $515.8 million when cost of failures was included and to $879.3 million when both drug development failure and capital costs were included. Clearly pharmaceutical companies are betting on a return, with profits. According to the healthcare intelligence company IQVIA, the U.S. alone accounted for nearly half of all worldwide prescription drug sales in 2024, generating almost $800 billion in revenue, within a global pharma market estimated at $1.7 trillion. Pharmaceutical companies spend over $10 billion annually on direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising in the U.S., with the top 10 drugs accounting for over one-third of that total. TV ads represent about half of this, totaling over $5 billion. Total marketing and sales spending for some major companies, such as AbbVie and Johnson & Johnson, frequently exceeds their research and development (R&D) budgets.[15]
Face it. Drugs are everywhere. Large signs declare “DRUGSTORE.” Television offers drug advertisements up to 16 hours of drug ads per year, with some studies suggesting even higher exposure of over 30 hours, exceeding the average time spent with a primary care physician. The pharmaceutical industry spends billions on direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising, with $6.58 billion spent in 2020 alone. The U.S. is one of only two countries—along with New Zealand—that allows direct-to-consumer drug advertising on TV. As the population ages and chronic disease rates rise, pharmaceutical companies have responded by increasing their ad spend to promote new and patented drugs directly to consumers.
According to the FDA’s Office of Prescription Drug Promotion, these are the most common issues found in today’s drug commercials: Omitting or downplaying of risk; Overstating the drug’s benefits; Failing to present a “fair balance” of risk and benefit information; Omitting material facts about the drug; Making claims that are not appropriately supported; Misrepresenting data from studies; Making misleading drug comparisons; and Misbranding an investigational drug.[16] Not mentioned is the unstated theme that every human problem can be solved with medication. Ads show the medicated person suddenly surrounded by happy dancing people reveling in sunny vistas of idyllic surroundings.
Direct-to-consumer advertising has contributed to a rise in overall prescription drug use among Americans, from 39% (1988-1994) to nearly 50% (2017-2020), fostering a culture that seeks pharmaceutical solutions for various conditions. The most direct parallel occurred in the late 1990s, when pharmaceutical companies aggressively marketed opioids (like OxyContin). The deluge of marketing fueled over-prescription, leading to widespread addiction, and as legal restrictions increased, many users shifted to cheaper illegal alternatives like heroin and fentanyl, according to experts.[17]
Drugs, like alcohol, are also useful for recreation, a way to quickly switch one’s mood and energy from the caffeine-fueled drive to complete tasks to the relaxed kick-back mode when enjoying music, movies, alone time, or other people. While a beer or mixed drink serves that role for many, many others may prefer marijuana which doesn’t leave a hangover or, for alcoholics, trigger a lapse.
Marijuana
Names include ‘hemp’ (for industrial, low-THC types, use is primarily of plant stalks) and cannabis strains such as Cannabis sativa, indica, and ruderalis. Active ingredients area found primarily in flower buds, isolated from male plants by growers who force females to keep producing flowers instead of seeds.
There are no recorded, verifiable cases of a fatal human overdose from marijuana alone. Cannabis (marijuana) produces various physical and mental effects by acting on brain receptors, commonly causing euphoria, relaxation, and heightened sensory awareness. Short-term, it can impair memory, motor skills, and judgment, with risks including anxiety, panic, or psychotic symptoms. Long-term effects may include respiratory issues, cardiovascular strain, and dependence.
Despite fluctuations, marijuana use rose from 10.17% in the 1990s to 17.81% from 2010-2017. A 2021 study using U.S. data found that in some states (e.g., Colorado), legal recreational cannabis was associated with a 13% average monthly decrease in the purchase of all alcohol products, with wine sales showing a 6% decrease. A 2024 survey indicated that 36% of U.S. cannabis users reported drinking less alcohol. Legalization, particularly of medical marijuana, has been linked to a 15% decrease in monthly alcohol sales, specifically beer and wine, in legalizing counties compared to control counties. Some studies show that legal cannabis access is associated with a decrease in alcohol-related traffic fatalities. Recent 2025 research indicates that following the opening of retail cannabis stores, alcohol use declined among young adults (18–29), and binge drinking frequency decreased among adults aged 50–59. Some studies suggest that since alcohol is a common factor in violent crime, the substitution of cannabis for alcohol may contribute to a reduction in violent crime rates.
Cannabis cannabinoids (like THC and CBD) bind to the same natural, endogenous cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2 that exist naturally in the human body. There are natural cannabinoids our bodies naturally use to regulate functions like mood, memory, sleep, and pain. These receptors are part of the endocannabinoid system (ECS), which is widespread throughout the brain and body.
Coca
Erythroxylum coca var. coca
Coca leaves, traditionally used in the Andes to combat hunger, thirst, and fatigue, act as a mild stimulant similar to strong coffee. They are rich in nutrients, aid with altitude sickness, and are used for cultural/religious purposes. While generally safe in traditional, low-dose, unprocessed forms, they can still cause positive drug tests. There are no data on possible deaths due to coca leaf use. Although the leaves are used to treat common ailments and boost energy every single day, it has been found that regular use is nothing but a cultural habit, and is not addictive, harmful or mind-altering, unlike cocaine.
Indigenous peoples of South America have used coca leaves for at least 8,000 to 10,000 years. Archaeological evidence, including findings in Peru’s Nanchoc Valley, confirms that early Andean societies integrated coca into their cultures for medicinal, religious, nutritional, and social purposes long before the rise of the Inca Empire. Cocaine was first isolated from coca leaves in 1855 by German chemist Friedrich Gaedcke, who named it “erythroxyline.” It was later purified in 1859-1860 by Albert Niemann, who gave it the name “cocaine.”
Cocaine is a powerful, highly addictive stimulant drug that acts on the central nervous system to produce intense, short-lived feelings of euphoria, high energy, and mental alertness. It works by causing a massive buildup of dopamine in the brain’s reward circuits, while also constricting blood vessels and increasing heart rate. The effects are generally divided into immediate (short-term) and long-term consequences, both of which carry significant health risks. Before the widespread influx of illicitly manufactured fentanyl (roughly prior to 2013-2015), the cocaine-involved overdose death rate in the U.S. was significantly lower and relatively stable, often fluctuating between 1.3 and 2.5 deaths per 100,000 population. As fentanyl entered the market, the rate began rising by about 27% annually starting in 2013, surpassing the 2006 peak by 2016 and reaching 7.3 per 100,000 by 2021. Approximately 79% of cocaine-involved overdose deaths also involve opioids, mainly synthetic opioids like fentanyl, which is the primary driver of the increased death rate. Legalizing cocaine with requirements for product purity, the cocaine death rate would once again drop to its low baseline of pre-2013.
At the extreme end of the stimulants, methamphetamine (meth, also called crystal, chalk or ice) is an addictive stimulant that can be administered orally, smoked, snorted or injected. Smoking or intravenous injection delivers meth to the brain rapidly, resulting in immediate and intense euphoria. Meth use is associated with severe neurological and physical consequences (e.g. paranoia, violent behavior, psychosis, anxiety and depression) and has become a serious public health problem worldwide. The age-adjusted rate was 8.5 deaths per 100,000 population.[18]
In the family of synthetic stimulants:
Methamphetamine (Crystal Meth): Often considered more powerful and addictive than cocaine, methamphetamine releases significantly more dopamine in the brain and has a much longer-lasting high (12–14 hours compared to 1 hour for cocaine). It is generally considered the strongest stimulant available, providing a longer, more intense, and faster-acting addictive effect.
Desoxypipradrol: Research indicates this compound, found in some “legal highs” is more potent than cocaine in causing dopamine release and slowing dopamine re-uptake, with studies suggesting a sevenfold increase in dopamine levels compared to three times for cocaine.
MDPV (“Bath Salts”): MDPV acts similarly to cocaine by inhibiting dopamine re-uptake but is reported to be nearly 10 times more potent, providing a much stronger, uncontrollable high. “Bath salts” is a slang term for this dangerous, lab-made synthetic cathinone (a naturally-occurring stimulant monoamine alkaloid found in the khat shrub (Catha edulis), chemically similar to amphetamines and ephedrine) and are central nervous system stimulants designed to mimic the effects of illegal drugs like cocaine and methamphetamine.
Opiates
Opium poppy Papaver somniferum
The poppy’s offering for human use began as early as 5000 BCE in the Neolithic age, with the oldest archaeological evidence found in the Mediterranean region. Seeds from this era suggest it was used for food, rituals, and early medicinal purposes. It was later documented in ancient Egyptian, Greek, and Roman medical texts. The plant’s chemistry has moved from the most basic form of flower pod gum named opium (dried latex obtained from the seed pods of the opium poppy) to morphine, developed in 1804 through a process involving harvesting raw opium, followed by chemical extraction and purification to isolate morphine from other alkaloids like codeine, which was developed in 1832 and touted as a ‘cure’ for morphine addiction.
Heroin was first synthesized in 1874 by C. R. Alder Wright from morphine. It was later commercialized by the Bayer pharmaceutical company in 1898 as a cough suppressant and pain reliever, widely marketed as a non-addictive alternative to morphine before its addictive nature was fully understood, leading to its eventual strict regulation. Thereafter, numerous semi-synthetic and synthetic opioids were developed, largely in the 20th century, to provide pain relief with the hope of reducing addiction potential. Key opioids developed after heroin include:
Methadone (1930s-1940s): Developed in Germany, this synthetic opioid is used for pain management and to treat opioid use disorder.
Meperidine (Demerol) (1930s): The first synthetic opioid, designed to be a safer alternative to morphine.
Oxycodone (OxyContin/Percocet) (1916): While synthesized shortly after heroin, it gained widespread prominence in the late 20th century, particularly with the 1996 release of OxyContin.
Hydrocodone (Vicodin) (1920s): A semi-synthetic opioid created from codeine.
Buprenorphine (1960s): Developed as a partial agonist for pain and later approved in 2002 for the treatment of opioid addiction.
Fentanyl (1960): A highly potent synthetic opioid, roughly 50 to 100 times more potent than morphine, developed for surgical anesthesia and pain management. Its extreme potency makes the risk of fatal overdose significantly higher than that of cocaine, especially since it is often found as a contaminant in other illicit substances. It is less expensive than natural opioids because it is made from synthetic substances whereas natural opioids depend on poppy production.
Opiates exert their main effects on the brain and spinal cord. Their principal action is to relieve or suppress pain. Like all opiates, opium causes a pleasant, drowsy state, in which all cares are forgotten and there is a decreased sense of pain (analgesia). Immediately after injection, the feelings are most intense. This feeling is described as similar to a sexual orgasm. The drugs also alleviate anxiety; induce relaxation, drowsiness, and sedation; and may impart a state of euphoria or other enhanced mood. In the body, opiates also have important physiological effects; they slow respiration and heartbeat, suppress the cough reflex, and relax the smooth muscles of the gastrointestinal tract. Opiates are addictive drugs–i.e., they produce a physical dependence (and withdrawal symptoms) that can only be assuaged by continued use of the drug.
Long-term opium use is associated with a significantly increased risk of death from nonmalignant respiratory diseases (such as COPD, asthma, and pneumonia) and cardiovascular disease. In one study, opium consumption was significantly associated with increased risks of deaths from several causes including circulatory diseases (hazard ratio 1.81) and cancer (1.61). The strongest associations were seen with deaths from asthma, tuberculosis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (11.0, 6.22, and 5.44, respectively).[19]
The most powerful synthetic opiate invented so far is fentanyl. Similar to other opioid analgesics, fentanyl produces effects such as: relaxation, euphoria, pain relief, sedation, confusion, drowsiness, dizziness, nausea and vomiting, urinary retention, pupillary constriction, and respiratory depression. Death rates for fentanyl are 14.3 deaths per 100,000 standard population in 2024, marking a significant 35.6% decrease from the 2023 rate of 22.2. Despite this recent decline, fentanyl remains the dominant driver of fatal overdoses in the U.S., involved in roughly 60% to 70% of all drug overdose deaths.
Hallucinogens
The most potent species ofPsilocybe are members of genus Psilocybe, such as P. azurescens, P. semilanceata, and P. cyanescens. Above, Psilocybe semilanceata
Not mentioned so far are the hallucinogens, primarily LSD, peyote/mescaline, psilocybin, salvia, and DMT/Ayahuasca. Considered sacramental to many, use of these drugs can lead to spiritual insights, so-called “mystical” experiences such as the sense of “pure” being, the sense of unity with one’s surroundings, the sense that what one experienced was real, and the sense of sacredness. There are similarities between psychedelic experiences and non-ordinary forms of consciousness experienced in meditation and near-death experiences. The phenomenon of ego dissolution is often described as a key feature of the psychedelic experience.
Peyote cactus Lophophora williamsii
Ancient religions used various plant-based hallucinogens (entheogens) for rituals, including Soma in Vedic Hinduism circa 1500 BCE, psilocybin mushrooms and morning glory among the Maya/Aztecs circa 3000 BCE, Tabernanthe iboga in African Bwiti, and Datura by Mississippian cultures. These substances were used to achieve ecstatic states, connect with deities, and induce prophetic visions. Some scholars argue that early Christian, Roman-Egyptian, and Greek rites used psychoactive substances in their sacraments.[20]
Users typically reportseeing colors, patterns, and shapes that are not real, such as complex, moving geometric patterns (fractals), or trails/tracers behind moving objects. Other effects range from Sensory Confusion (Synesthesia),acommon experience where senses blend, such as “hearing colors” or “seeing sounds”; Time and Space Distortion: Perception of time can slow down significantly, speed up, or seem to stop; and Self-Identity Alteration: Users may experience “ego dissolution,” where the boundary between self and the external environment becomes blurred, sometimes leading to a feeling of becoming one with their surroundings.
Multiple studies suggest psilocybin can produce rapid, substantial, and long-lasting antidepressant effects, sometimes for as long as six months to a year after just one or two doses. The FDA has granted “breakthrough therapy” designation to psilocybin for both conditions to expedite research and development. Psilocybin has shown efficacy in reducing anxiety and distress in patients with life-threatening conditions, such as cancer, promoting improved quality of life and well-being. Pilot studies for alcohol use disorder and tobacco addiction have demonstrated promising success rates, with some participants achieving long-term abstinence. The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) is funding a multi-site study on its effectiveness for tobacco addiction. Research is also exploring its potential for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and cluster headaches, with encouraging initial results in small studies.
LSD molecule
First time users of hallucinogens are best served by exploring the experience in the company of an experienced user. Best results with hallucinogens would occur when the user is not under the influence of alcohol or any other drug. He/she should remain for the duration in a safe, comfortable space with no unexpected interruptions. Since the effects of LSD, for example, take at least 1-2 hours to gradually come into force, then continue to rise for 3-4 hours, then linger for up to another six hours, the user should pay attention to periodic refreshment with water. Generally the user will experience no appetite for food. The experience can be unsettling if the subject is trying to interact with the public or large crowds, or if the experience is initiated when the subject is already tired or not feeling well. These nuances of the psychedelic experience with any particular drug are why first time users benefit from being accompanied by a trusted, experienced user.
Tobacco and Alcohol
Tobacco is the common name of several plants in the genus Nicotiana of the family Solanaceae, and the general term for any product prepared from the cured leaves of these plants. Seventy-nine species of tobacco are known, but the chief commercial crop is N. tabacum. The more potent variant N. rustica is also used in some countries
Not mentioned in the discussion so far are tobacco products. Known to be carcinogenic, tobacco is credited with 490,000 deaths per year in the United States. This is more than all illegal drugs and alcohol combined at total of 278,000—80,000 to 100,000 per year from currently illegal drugs and 178,000 from legal alcohol use. However, there is evidence that pesticides and other chemicals contribute to tobacco-related deaths, both for smokers and for agricultural workers who are directly exposed during farming.[22] However, no research to date is found showing less harm from organic tobacco.
Different policy approaches to these various substances is a combination of tradition and risk of collateral damage in those who abuse the substance. For example, tobacco has been popular in its various forms of usage for over 600 years in Western cultures, although indigenous peoples have used it over 10,000 years. Aside from the real damage caused by second-hand smoke, there is no perceived risk to others from its use.
Nicotiana tabacum was used traditionally for wide range of disorders, it administered externally for bites of poisonous reptiles and insects, pain, neuralgia, gout, to enhance hair growth, in the treatment of ringworm, ulcers, wounds, and as respiratory stimulant. It is the nicotine that causes smokers to become addicted to tobacco, and the chemical itself is lethal in small doses. When tobacco smoke is inhaled, the nicotine passes quickly to every organ of the body. The brain and nervous system are stimulated by small doses and depressed by larger ones.
Alcohol use, on the other hand, with the earliest chemically confirmed, recorded use dating to approximately 7,000–6,600 BCE in Jiahu, a Neolithic village in China’s Yellow River Valley, has several legitimate, modern medical uses, primarily as a topical antiseptic-disinfectant (hand sanitizer, skin prep), an ingredient in pharmaceuticals, and an agent in specialized procedures like nerve ablation or cyst sclerotherapy. Historically used for pain and sedation, it is not recommended for systemic consumption and been linked to liver disease, heart problems, and certain cancers. Alcohol can cause brain damage, especially with chronic use.
Alcohol adversely affects behavior in some users, leading to problems like drunk driving and negative behavior including:
Intimate Partner and Family Violence: Alcohol is present in a significant percentage of domestic violence incidents, often increasing the severity of the abuse.
Assault and Battery: Impaired judgment and increased aggression frequently lead to physical altercations, including aggravated assault.
Sexual Assault: Alcohol use by both perpetrators and victims is frequently observed in sexual assault cases, where it can suppress inhibitions or affect risk perception.
Homicide: Alcohol is highly correlated with violent crimes, including homicides.
Property Crimes: Impulsive decision-making and reduced consequences-awareness can lead to crimes such as robbery, theft, and vandalism.
Alcohol is highly addictive because it acts on multiple neurotransmitters, slowing down the nervous system while releasing a surge of dopamine. Alcohol addiction withdrawal can be fatal, requiring professional, medical supervision. But modern medications like Xanax and Valium, designed to treat anxiety, also are highly addictive, causing severe physical dependence and dangerous withdrawal symptoms. Considered a behavioral “addiction,” gambling stimulates the same reward circuits in the brain as drugs, driven by the anticipation of reward and risk. Addictions to high-sugar or high-fat foods can trigger intense cravings similar to drug addictions. Most recently, technology (Internet/Social Media) has been determined to be addictive, characterized by compulsive use driven by dopamine hits from social interaction and instant gratification.
But What About the People?
In order to fulfill the promise offered by the end of prohibition, we as a society must accept that each individual is responsible for his/her own well-being. The state is not a parent who must watch over and discipline its children. By declaring drugs, drug dealers, or Satan, or any other phantom as the ‘reason’ someone uses drugs, we take away that individual’s agency as a human being while assigning responsibility to an invisible non-entity that no one controls. By taking away a person’s direct responsibility for his or her problems, we render them helpless. This is, sadly, a mantra for Alcoholics Anonymous, which states “We admitted we were powerless over alcohol — that our lives had become unmanageable.”
This mindset is criticized by many for the following reasons:
Undermining Self-Efficacy and Agency: Critics argue that constantly reminding individuals that they are fundamentally powerless can damage their belief in their own ability to change. This loss of self-efficacy—the belief in one’s capacity to succeed—can lead to a fear of attempting to change behaviors independently.
Encouraging a “Victim” Mindset: By emphasizing that the individual is powerless against a disease, it may become easier for them to deflect blame for their actions, leading to a mindset of helplessness.
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy of Failure: The belief that “I am powerless” can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Critics contend that this mindset, combined with an “all-or-nothing” approach to sobriety, can cause individuals to abandon recovery entirely after a single relapse or slip-up.
Disempowerment vs. Empowerment: Instead of promoting empowerment, some argue that the focus on powerlessness can be psychologically damaging, negatively impacting self-esteem by forcing individuals to define themselves as broken or lacking control.
Discounting Personal Responsibility: A major criticism is that the focus on powerlessness can lessen the urgency to take personal responsibility for one’s actions, which many believe is a cornerstone of behavioral change.
Potential for Shame and Despair: The requirement to admit total defeat, or “hit rock bottom,” can plunge individuals into intense shame, guilt, and despair rather than providing an immediate sense of hope.
Other programs that adhere to this 12-step concept are Narcotics Anonymous (NA), Cocaine Anonymous (CA), Crystal Meth Anonymous (CMA), Marijuana Anonymous (MA), Gamblers Anonymous (GA), Overeaters Anonymous (OA), Sexaholics Anonymous (SA), plus Al-Anon and Nar-Anon, programs for families and friends. (Clearly addictive behavior is not limited to illegal drugs) Success data for these programs is not encouraging: Long-Term Abstinence: 5% to 10% of participants achieve long-term, sustained sobriety. Some studies have shown that 50% to 70% of those who attend weekly or near-weekly meetings maintain abstinence. AA’s own surveys have indicated that approximately 35% of members have been sober for more than five years. Evidence-based treatments like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) and medication-assisted treatment (MAT) often yield higher success rates, with some studies showing 60% abstinence after one year of therapy.
In a 2011 study, the cumulative probability estimate of transition to dependence was 67.5% for nicotine users, 22.7% for alcohol users, 20.9% for cocaine users, and 8.9% for cannabis users. Half of the cases of dependence on nicotine, alcohol, cannabis and cocaine were observed approximately 27, 13, 5 and 4 years after use onset, respectively.[23] In comparison, approximately 14% to 20% of U.S. adults are estimated to have an addiction to highly processed foods. This condition, which involves compulsive eating behaviors similar to substance abuse, is higher in specific groups, including up to 28% of adults with obesity and roughly 13% of adults aged 50–80. Roughly 3% to 11% of the U.S. population may experience issues related to pornography addiction, with studies indicating a higher prevalence among men. Approximately 3% to 5% of Americans experience some form of gambling-related harm. Estimates suggest that approximately 3% to 6% of the U.S. population may suffer from sex addiction or compulsive sexual behavior, affecting roughly 10-20 million people. Some research indicates this figure may be as high as 8.6% to 10%, with men being more frequently affected than women.
Pricing Legalized Drugs
Upon purging U.S. policies of the drug war, prices for legalized natural intoxicants (marijuana, coca leaf, opium gum) should be substantially lower than for legalized refined products like cocaine or opium derivatives such as morphine and codeine. This type of pricing reflects the relatively less harmful effects of the naturally-occurring material. Currently, forty states (80%) have legalized marijuana for medical use and twenty four states (48%) have legalized for recreational use. As of early 2026, the price range for a gram of recreational marijuana typically falls between $3 and $20, with the national average often hovering around $10–$15. The price varies significantly based on state, quality (budget vs. premium), and market maturity. In states where marijuana remains illegal, the price per gram in early 2026 typically ranges from $10 to $20, with some premium or highly restricted areas seeing prices reach up to $50 per gram. In current commercial grades of marijuana, THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) can range from less than 10% up to 30%. One time dose for 20% THC content, with one puff delivered either from a “joint” or in a pipe and containing .32 gram, will be felt almost immediately and last 1-3 hours.[24]
Oregon (2020) and Colorado (2022) have legalized or decriminalized the supervised use of psilocybin. In those states, a 1-2 hour micro-dosing session may cost around $500. A complete psilocybin-assisted therapy session, which can last up to six hours and includes pre- and post-session consultations, typically costs between $1,000 and $3,000, and sometimes more. Multi-day, immersive experiences offered by some companies can cost between $4,000 and over $7,700. Street prices for psilocybin mushrooms range from one gram for $5 – $12, one-eight ounce (3.5 grams) $32 – $35, and half ounce (14 grams) for $100 – $120. Two to three grams is considered an average dose. Dried mushrooms taken at doses between 2.5 grams to 5 grams will induce classic psychedelic experiences with kaleidoscope visuals whether eyes are closed or open, sensory and perceptual changes, synesthesia (like hearing colors or tasting sounds), cognitive changes, and ego dissolution.
That pricing policy would put the least harmful drugs in the most available price range for persons self-medicating or for recreational use. A level higher in concentration and cost for opium derivatives would be one or more of hydrocodone, hydromorphone, oxycodone, oxymorphone, nalbuphine, naloxone, naltrexone, buprenorphine, and etorphine. Similarly, cocaine’s further refinement is crack cocaine. Pricing should reflect the risk.
By making currently illegal substances available in the same type of setting as alcohol or tobacco, each person is left to choose what/how much of a substance they will obtain, if any. That individual is then directly in charge of his/her life in the most meaningful way. Instead of being treated like a child with permanent governmental parents, he/she is treated as an autonomous adult who faces life with full awareness that choices made are his/her responsibility. With this level of autonomy, an individual must decide if he/she is ready to face death as a possible result of his/her choices. We as a society absolutely must grant each person this responsibility and accept that some will die.
But will 100,000 die from abuse of these substances, as are currently? Possibly. Possibly not. Since fentanyl is responsible for up to 80% of current overdose deaths, regulated drugs sales with product testing for purity would eliminate most of these deaths since it is the adulteration of popular drugs like cocaine and other drugs with cheap fentanyl that causes most overdoses. Illegal dealers add fentanyl because it is cheaper to produce and easier to smuggle than traditional drugs, allowing traffickers to significantly increase their profit margins. Because fentanyl is roughly 50 times more potent than heroin and 100 times more potent than morphine, small, easily hidden amounts can mimic the effects of larger quantities of other substances. Other potentially adulterated drugs are methamphetamine; pills sold illegally and made to look like legitimate medications (such as oxycodone, alprazolam, or amphetamine salts); and substances like MDMA and illicitly-obtained benzodiazepines.
All we can do in a just and empathetic nation is provide options. The choice must be made by each person. No one can claim that current policies are working. Clearly the drug war has failed. Illegal drug use has shifted from a primarily recreational, counterculture phenomenon in the 1970s to a more dangerous, high-potency, and widespread crisis today, characterized by a massive increase in synthetic drug prevalence and overdose deaths. While past-month illicit drug use among Americans age twelve or older increased from 25.4 million in 1979 to 47.7 million by 2023, the nature of these drugs also has changed, leading to a six-fold increase in drug-related deaths over the past two decades. Mortality from drug overdoses has grown exponentially since 1979. Between 1980 and 1995, adult drug arrests increased by 173% and juvenile arrests by 73%.
As to lethality of illegal drugs, keep in mind that deaths due to drugs bought and sold in high-risk environments without any assurance of dose strength or purity equal half the deaths from legal alcohol and a quarter of deaths from legal tobacco.
Moral Failing?
Instead of taking a punitive approach to potentially harmful behaviors, whether drug abuse, alcoholism or overeating, why shouldn’t we try a more loving approach? Centuries of religious judgment have deemed addictions a moral failing, yet modern research has shown that measurable physical, emotional, and mental elements drive addiction. Addiction in no longer considered a moral issue, but rather a medical ‘disorder’—specifically a chronic, relapsing brain disorder—because it involves functional, long-lasting changes to brain circuits responsible for reward, stress, and self-control. It is classified as a medical condition because, like heart disease or diabetes, it disrupts the normal, healthy functioning of an organ (the brain), has serious harmful effects, and is preventable and treatable.
Yes, persons under the influence of certain drugs, primarily alcohol and stimulants like meth, can exhibit disruptive behavior. For alcohol, such behaviors can include aggression and hostility where individuals may become argumentative, confrontational, and misinterpret social cues, perceiving innocent actions as provocations. Drunkenness can cause extreme mood swings, ranging from intense, irrational anger to profound sadness, depression, or loneliness. Impaired decision-making leads to dangerous actions, such as driving while intoxicated, risky sexual behavior, or initiating fights.
For persons using meth, users may display erratic, violent, or aggressive behavior, including rage and temper tantrums. Methamphetamine is strongly associated with a wide range of criminal behaviors, acting as a catalyst for violence, property crimes, and drug-related offenses. The drug’s effects—including intense paranoia, hallucinations, insomnia, and aggression—often lead users to commit crimes, while its high addiction potential drives theft and trafficking to fund the habit. The primary reason for meth use (or other stimulants) is the powerful, immediate rush of euphoria and sense of well-being that meth provides. Users may seek increased energy, alertness, concentration, and confidence to perform better at work, school, or in social situations. It is also sometimes used to enhance sexual performance and stamina during “sexual marathons.” Meth is relatively inexpensive and easy to produce (illicitly), making it readily available in many communities, particularly compared to other stimulants like cocaine.
Unlike stimulants, benzodiazepine drugs and opiates of all stripes create a sense of pleasure. This effect is largely due to these drugs trigger the brain’s powerful reward centers and release endorphins. As a powerful opioid, fentanyl can produce strong feelings of euphoria, happiness, and relaxation.
How We Got Here
The U. S. National Institute on Drug Abuse gave the following reasons for substance use: To Feel Good (Hedonism)—to produce intense feelings of pleasure, euphoria, relaxation, or to get ‘high’; To Feel Better (Self-Medication): Individuals may use substances to cope with stress, anxiety, depression, trauma, or emotional pain. It is a common, though temporary, way to manage mental health conditions or escape life’s problems; To Do Better (Performance Enhancement): Some use stimulants (like Adderall or cocaine) to improve focus in school or at work, increase alertness, boost energy, or enhance athletic performance; To Fit In (Social Pressure): Particularly common among teenagers, individuals may use substances to conform to a peer group, feel accepted, or out of curiosity; Because of Addiction (Compulsion): Individuals may continue to use drugs to manage dependence, avoid withdrawal symptoms, or “get through the day”; Specific Needs: Sleep: To help fall asleep or treat insomnia; Weight Loss: To reduce appetite; Pain Relief: To manage physical pain.
But is that all? Or even the real issue? Yes, some of these reasons seem valid. But all of the answers fail to mention a major underlying cause: the modern age. These substances have been around for thousands of years and were used by cultures as far-flung as India and the (now) American Southwest. Historically, cannabis was first cultivated around 12,000 years ago in East Asia during the early Neolithic period. While evidence of its use dates back to 8800–6500 BCE (Before Current Era), the oldest written record is from Greek historian Herodotus (c. 440 BCE), who described Scythians using cannabis in steam baths. A 3rd millennium BCE text mentions its use in China, and a 2459-2203 BCE grave in the Netherlands contained cannabis pollen, suggesting use as a painkiller. It was used in the Indian subcontinent since the Vedic period, roughly 1500–2500 BCE.
Or consider opium, potentially far more risky than cannabis. The earliest reference to opium growth and use is found on 8,000 year-old hardened Sumerian clay-tablets where prescriptions of opium are recorded. Records are found from 3,400 BCE when the opium poppy was cultivated in lower Mesopotamia. The Sumerians referred to it as Hul Gil, the “joy plant.” The Sumerians soon passed it on to the Assyrians, who in turn passed it on to the Egyptians. Ancient Greeks, Indians, Chinese, Egyptians, Romans, Arabs, people in middle ages, Europeans from Renaissance to now, knew opium as an ever-approved next-door medicine—a panacea for all maladies. References in the Odyssey and the Bible, and use by known leaders and minds like Homer, Franklin, Napoleon, Coleridge, Poe, Shelly, Quincy, Hitler and many more, have removed the label of immorality from its use.
Why, then, are these substances now considered a plague, with medical warnings that opiates cause fatal respiratory depression, have a high potential for addiction, and can lead to severe, long-term health complications? Why is the public advised cannabis is considered harmful due to risks of addiction, impaired brain function, and serious physical health issues? That regular use can lead to cardiovascular problems like heart attacks and strokes, respiratory issues, and mental health conditions such as anxiety, depression, and psychosis?
Clearly some recent development in human existence is involved. Yes, some of the problem can be laid at the feet of ‘modern science,’ who never met a natural substance that science couldn’t make stronger, purer, and more profitable. Most people could grow a few marijuana plants in their back yard, but the potent hybrids now widely marketed are proprietary. Plus over-the-counter sales of aspirin and other pain killers would be impacted by that free availability. Worse than the chemical manipulation of marijuana, however, scientists have, in the last century, given us opium clones up to 100 times stronger than opium, not even reliant on the poppy, with which to addict and kill thousands. In medical settings, fentanyl is often chosen over morphine for superior acute pain management due to its rapid onset of action (2–3 minutes vs. 15–30+ minutes for morphine). It is preferred for causing less hypotension (no histamine release) and having fewer side effects like constipation and nausea, making it ideal for rapid, severe pain relief in emergency settings.
But the more fundamental problem isn’t drug purity or strength increasing the risk for users. It’s modern culture itself.
The historical correlation between industrialization and drug abuse is rooted in the social, economic, and technological upheavals of the 18th to 20th centuries, which shifted substance use from traditional, localized consumption to mass-marketed, addictive, and often, harmful patterns. Industrialization created a high-stress environment that fostered addiction while simultaneously increasing the availability of substances like alcohol, opium, and later, pharmaceuticals. In the early 1800s, the push for a sober, efficient workforce drove the initial, often slow, regulation of alcohol. Increased grain production and industrial farming made distilled alcohol (especially whiskey) cheaper and more accessible. Urbanization and the grueling, rigid nature of factory work created intense stress. Alcohol became a common coping mechanism for the working class. Opium and its derivatives (morphine) were widely marketed as “miracle cures” for various ailments, leading to widespread, unintended addiction.
Technological advancements allowed for the refinement of stronger substances like cocaine, morphine, and heroin. The emerging pharmaceutical industry began mass-producing drugs by cloning the biochemistry of natural drugs, facilitating widespread, unregulated access to addictive substances. The industrial capacity to produce and market substances on a mass scale directly fueled addiction rates. Rapid urban migration and the loss of traditional community structures increased the reliance on pharmacological, rather than social, support. Industrialists in some contexts, such as in the U.S. South, supplied cocaine to Black laborers to boost productivity, a practice that later fueled “drug scare” propaganda when the drug was associated with minority populations. The social harms caused by increased alcohol and drug consumption during industrialization fueled major backlash, leading to the Temperance Movement and Prohibition in the U.S. (1920–1933) and similar actions in Russia, Norway, and Finland.
During World War II, governments and industries promoted amphetamines to enhance worker and military productivity. Increased global trade and transportation, essential to the industrial model, facilitated the growth of international drug trafficking. By the late 20th century, while early industrialization caused addiction through high-stress production, modern deindustrialization (the decline of manufacturing) has been linked to the recent opioid epidemic. Studies indicate that areas with high unemployment, poverty, and the loss of manufacturing jobs (“rust belts”) have experienced higher rates of addiction and overdose deaths. The erosion of middle-wage jobs has spurred economic anxiety, which is directly correlated with increased substance use disorders.
No matter what drug of abuse under discussion, the relatively recent rise in computer, internet, and smartphone use over the last two decades has occurred in tandem with increasing rates of both substance abuse and behavioral addictions (such as internet gaming or social media addiction). Research indicates that for every 10% increase in high-speed internet use, there was a corresponding 1% rise in treatment admissions for prescription drug abuse. The internet has served as a pipeline for narcotics, with increased online access correlating to higher rates of abuse for prescription opioids, sedatives, and stimulants. Digital addiction and substance addiction often activate the same brain reward pathways (nucleus accumbens/ventral striatum), with digital media providing “dopamine hits” similar to drugs. High levels of social media use (3+ hours per day) are associated with a 1.99 times higher risk of drinking and increased vaping/cannabis use among adolescents. The proliferation of screens (7+ hours daily for teens) has been linked to higher rates of anxiety, depression, and substance experimentation. There is a strong, positive correlation between the risk of internet addiction and substance use, with those using technology excessively being more likely to also engage in substance abuse.
Pre-industrial life, characterized by agrarian subsistence and localized, artisan-based economies, offered experiences now lost to modern industrialization. These pre-industrial lifestyles include extreme reliance on daylight hours, intense connection to seasonal cycles, close proximity to livestock, and deep, often isolating ties to a small, local community. Daily life was dictated by the sun and seasons, with work, food availability, and even safety, determined by nature. Most individuals lived in small, rural settlements, rarely traveling far from their birthplace, with communication limited to their immediate surroundings. For warmth and survival, people often shared living quarters or homes with farm animals, especially during cold winters. Families worked together as a unit on farms, and communities relied on localized barter systems for goods and services. Goods were hand-made by skilled craftspeople rather than mass-produced in factories, which enabled the worker to see a project through from start to finish. In most modern production, workers only see a small part of the process.
This cultural shift is the instinctive motivation behind efforts such as “Make America Great Again,” the idea that things were better “back then.” A driving force is the often mythical belief that America was superior in the past and has declined due to foreign influence and internal changes. Adherents to MAGA, as well as right-leaning conservatism around the world, point to changes such as advancements in women’s rights, immigration, increased acceptance of homosexuality, or people they see as unlike themselves (skin color, physical features) as the reasons for their outrage. But in looking back to, say, 1870, American life not only operated under white-male dominance, prison and/or death for outed homosexuals, and entrenched racism but also was a time when most families were working long hours every day to produce and preserve food for their tables and the greatest skills required were successful seed saving, animal husbandry, and fishing/hunting wildlife.
Before agriculture, the hunter-gatherer lifestyle was even less complicated as people wandered over their known habitat gathering lean meats, fish, wild fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, and tubers. Slowly, as the idea of agriculture spread and people gained the advantage of permanent settlements, some may have felt a distant longing for roaming to find food instead of laboring to plant and harvest. There’s comfort found in a pastoral life pattern that has been practiced for 12,000 years. With agriculture, a person knew what to expect as seasons changed and dictated the week’s agenda. But by the late 19th century, only a few in mainstream societies followed the primeval lifestyle.
As formalized in the mid-20th century rise of a philosophy of existentialism, existential dread, or existential anxiety, has created a profound, overwhelming sense of fear, anxiety, or unease regarding the meaning, purpose, and value of human existence. Often triggered by contemplating death, isolation, freedom, or the apparent lack of inherent meaning in life, it manifests as deep anxiety about one’s place in the universe. Four alienations suffered by modern mankind are tenets of this philosophy:
Alienation from the Product of Labor: The worker creates products they do not own, which then exist as a hostile, independent power.
Alienation from the Act of Production: Work is not fulfilling or creative but coerced, monotonous, and merely a means of survival.
Alienation from Species-Being (Human Nature): Humans are separated from their intrinsic creative potential and consciousness, reduced to animal-like functions.
Alienation from Other Humans/Society: Social relations are reduced to competitive, transactional interactions, breaking down community and cooperation.
Similarly, Paul Tillich (German and American Christian existentialist philosopher, religious socialist, and Lutheran theologian) conceptualized these alienations as:
Separation of Man from the Ground of Being (Alienation from God): This is the fundamental, ontological, and religious alienation. It is the loss of the essential union between human existence and the “Ground of Being” (God), resulting in a loss of ultimate meaning.
Separation of Man from Himself (Self-Estrangement): This involves the loss of personal center and self-actualization. Humans are split within themselves, failing to become what they essentially are, leading to existential anxiety and despair.
Separation of Man from Others (Alienation in Social Relationships): A separation between individual lives, characterized by a lack of true community, high levels of distance or isolation, and conflicts that make mutual understanding impossible.
Separation of Man from the World of Nature: A further consequence of estrangement, where humanity is detached from the natural world, often resulting in a desire to exploit or dominate nature rather than participate in.
Tillich’s work, particularly in The Courage to Be, provides a framework for understanding addiction as an attempt to fill the “void” of meaninglessness.
Jean Paul Sartre, another mid-20th century existentialist, famously stated, “Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself”. An addict, in this view, is constantly choosing to be an addict through their actions. His work explores the anxiety (angst) of existence, with some interpreting the “bohemian” lifestyle of intense substance use (tobacco, alcohol, amphetamines) as a way to cope with this existential weight. To maintain a rigorous, high-speed, 10-hour-a-day writing schedule, Sartre heavily used Corydrane, a mixture of amphetamine and aspirin. He reportedly took up to 20 pills a day. According to Annie Cohen-Solal, who wrote a biography of Sartre, his daily drug consumption was thus: two packs of cigarettes, several tobacco pipes, over a quart of alcohol (wine, beer, vodka, whisky etc.), two hundred milligrams of amphetamines, fifteen grams of aspirin, a boat load of barbiturates, some coffee, tea, and a few “heavy” meals (whatever those might have been).
Other 20th century notables who abused substances include Hunter S. Thompson, who was famously known for a daily, high-octane consumption of drugs and alcohol that powered his “Gonzo” journalism. His routine notoriously included cocaine, marijuana, LSD, and large quantities of Chivas Regal, Heineken, and Dunhill cigarettes, often beginning in the afternoon and continuing through the night.
Aldous Huxley (1894–1963), author of fifty books including Brave New World, was a prominent proponent of using psychedelic drugs for consciousness expansion, most famously documenting his 1953 mescaline experience in The Doors of Perception. He believed these substances provided mystical experiences and enhanced creativity, later exploring LSD and advising early researchers like Timothy Leary.
Numerous popular artists of the mid-20th century were known for their abuse of drugs and alcohol, including Elvis Presley, Marilyn Monroe, Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, Frank Sinatra, Judy Garland, John Belushi, Billie Holiday, Truman Capote, Dylan Thomas, Philip K. Dick, Tennessee Williams, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Howard Hughes, Adolf Hitler, Jackson Pollock, Bill Wilson, and Timothy Leary.
Industrialization most severely impacted the U.S. population between 1880 and 1920, marked by rapid urbanization, massive immigration, and harsh factory conditions. During this “Second Industrial Revolution,” the population shifted from primarily rural to urban, with cities becoming overcrowded, leading to significant social and economic inequities. During that period, the United States experienced a significant, unregulated, and largely unrecognized drug epidemic, with addiction rates for opiates and cocaine comparable to, or in some estimates exceeding, modern levels. It is estimated that up to 5% of the U.S. population was dependent on drugs, with a high concentration of opiate addiction.
Fast forward to 2020 when the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), estimated that 13.5% of people aged 12 or older (37.3 million people) used an illicit drug in the past month. Not surprisingly, the digital age in the United States most severely impacted the population through a combination of rapid, transformative shifts between 1995 and 2010, with the most intense, widespread disruption occurring around the introduction of the smartphone (2007) and the subsequent rise of social media. This era shifted technology from a professional tool to an immersive, always-on part of daily life.
We all feel the weight now inherent upon us in the cultures of the modern day. In the United States, the greatest incidence of suicide in recent history occurred in 2022, with nearly 50,000 deaths, marking the highest rate since 1941. While suicide rates spiked in 2018, the 2021-2022 period (COVID epidemic) showed the largest increases, with the highest daily averages occurring during spring and summer. Drug overdoses have killed over 1 million people in the U.S. alone since 1999. The global mortality rate due to drug use increased by 31% between 1990 and 2021.
Today, the highest risk group for substance abuse is young men. Data shows that approximately 19.1% of males have used illegal drugs or misused prescription drugs in the past month, compared to 14.6% of females. They are facing a crisis of despair driven by a combination of economic insecurity, shrinking social connections, and a profound lack of purpose. Many are struggling with the transition to adulthood, often living with parents longer, delaying marriage, and facing higher rates of loneliness. This ‘depths of despair’ phenomenon is aggravated by declining academic/career prospects and a perceived lack of societal value. It would easy for blame this fall on women, who are slowly carving out a place for themselves in the world of business and politics, among others. But a powerful factor in the young male despair is the lack of new frontiers.
We have colonized the world—no more new continents, no more undiscovered caches of gold nuggets in rushing streams. As traditional markers of masculinity, such as being a primary provider or explorer, have faded or are criticized, many young men feel adrift, leading to, “depths of despair” (suicide and drug overdoses) and a retreat into the digital world. In the 21st century, new frontiers are considered to be redefining masculinity through emotional intelligence, mental health advocacy, and navigating digital economies, alongside pursuing high-demand, tech-forward skilled trades. These opportunities emphasize finding purpose through, rather than in opposition to, community, mentorship, and creative digital entrepreneurship. Missing from this scenario are ancient primitive motivations such as vistas of towering mountains and dense forests teeming with wildlife, the likelihood of finding treasure in the ground waiting for the taking, a world of possibilities to prove manhood. It is no longer possible to saddle a horse and ride off toward the horizon with every necessity packed in saddle bags and a bedroll and a plan to keep moving west where a homestead on a forty-acre claim of federal land awaits.
Women enjoy more freedom today to choose work outside the home, but may wish to find the right man and make babies. Many women expect some ideal of having both, which leads to the expectation that their man be a co-parent, helps with household duties, and otherwise provides support that was inconceivable even fifty years ago. Babies or not, women look for kindness, emotional safety, and consistent, clear communication, often valuing these traits over physical attraction. They desire a partner who is trustworthy, supportive of their personal growth, and who makes them feel cherished through both affection and active listening. These qualities are not traditional for men.
Circa 1900, women could largely expect men to be the primary financial providers, heads of households, and protectors. Men were expected to be hardworking, responsible, and capable of supporting a family, while acting as the public face of the domestic unit. They were also expected to show chivalry and respect towards women, despite the era’s patriarchal “separate spheres” social structure which divided social life into two distinct, gendered domains: the public ‘masculine’ sphere of work, politics, and commerce, and the private ‘feminine’ sphere of home, childcare, and morality.
These massive social changes have occurred over only four generations.
While we may reflect on the effects of these changes, short of a major cataclysm, there’s no going back. Few of us would wish to give up running water, telephones, antibiotics, or electricity, but as a society, we obviously have some problems adjusting to the new ways of things. Understanding this, we should stop punishing our struggling fellow man/woman for their efforts to accommodate difficult changes and embrace the best possible means of helping everyone evolve to the next level. Improved education plays an important role in this future, not the private/religious school agenda of clinging to outdated beliefs and behaviors. Most important will be programs that offer free post-secondary education either in academics or vocations like carpentry, electrical, plumbing, HVAC, dental assistant, nursing assistant, automotive repair, information technology support, culinary arts, or welding. The construction trades will always be needed despite any acceleration of AI. Further remaining viable careers will be professions involving complex problem-solving, high-level strategy, and creativity, such as managers, CEOs, artists, and writers, as well as teachers, instructors, and administrators.
It’s also instructive to consider the strong trend toward ‘simple’ lifestyles which hearken back to earlier times. About one million Americans engaged in the “back to the land” movement that peaked around 1970, of which about 70% were college educated. Key accomplishments of this movement were creating alternative, eco-friendly lifestyles, building community, reducing environmental impact, and fostering personal autonomy through skills like farming and building. Today, significant portions of the population likewise are shifting toward simpler, more intentional, or minimalist lifestyles, with surveys indicating that over 60% of Americans have changed their definition of a happy life to prioritize simplicity. While only about 10% to 11% of U.S. adults currently identify as strict minimalists, roughly 26% to 50% are actively seeking to adopt simpler, less consumer-driven lifestyles.
In all these arenas lie potential for an individual to face challenges that offer the same opportunity for growth and accomplishment as what was found in earlier times even if the noise and lure of bright shiny new things continue to expand. Adopting a simpler, more structured lifestyle significantly helps reduce and manage addiction by minimizing triggers, reducing stress, and fostering stability. Simplifying daily life through routine, healthy habits, and removing environmental cues for substance abuse allows addicts to regain control and focus on recovery. Or avoid addiction altogether while making use of what intoxicants have to offer.
[1] This and much of the following data gathered via Google AI
[5] The 1033 Program, managed by the Defense Logistics Agency’s Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO), transfers excess Department of Defense (DoD) equipment—including armored vehicles, aircraft, and weapons—to local law enforcement agencies (LEAs) for authorized, bona fide law enforcement purposes, particularly counter-drug and counter-terrorism. Since 1997, over eight billion in military-grade equipment has been transferred, aiding in SWAT operations and specialized, non-violent equipment needs, while sparking debate over police militarization.
[11] Starting in 1926, the U.S. government ordered the poisoning of industrial alcohol (used in paints and solvents) with methanol and other chemicals to prevent bootleggers from stealing and redistilling it into drinkable liquor. Despite knowing this, bootleggers sold it anyway, leading to thousands of deaths, blindness, and paralysis.
[14] U. S. Department of Justice, U.S Department of Justice with a Housing First program.
[15] The federal agency responsible for regulating human and veterinary drugs, vaccines, medical devices, the food supply, cosmetics, and tobacco, the FDA approves new medications, inspects manufacturing facilities, and manages product recalls. 47% of Food and Drug Administration funding comes from big pharmaceutical companies.
[24] Marijuana contains over 480 known distinct chemical compounds. Of these, more than 100 are cannabinoids (such as THC and CBD) that produce pharmacological effects, along with over 100 terpenes that contribute to aroma and flavor. THC has been cloned into “Marinol” prescribed for nausea but is considered more problematic than natural cannabis, perhaps due to the balancing effects of the other compounds. The human body contains natural
Regarding rampant sex crimes against children aka Epstein associates, arrest and prosecute every culpable molester/rapist no matter how rich or powerful they may be.
Ongoing genocide in Palestine and threat of war in Iran:
Stop all funding and other support to Israel.
Return Israel’s boundaries to the 56% of Palestine established in 1948
Ukraine. Give full-fledged U.S. military support to Ukraine. Impose additional restrictions on Russia including a full maritime services ban on oil, prohibiting LNG transshipments, banning additional IT/industrial software, targeting more financial institutions, and further restricting third-country intermediary trade. Expose and prosecute embedded Russian operatives in the U. S. government. Give currently impounded Russian funds of $300 billion to Ukraine for rebuilding.
Provide a public accounting of all U.S. military operations and presence around the world, with justification/purpose and cost. No more secret agendas.
Terminate the Mars Exploration Project until such time as our government is no longer in budget deficit. Cut back on other space exploration projects.
Take over any and all U.S. government projects that pay Elon Musk or his companies and make them nonprofit government programs, primarily SpaceX, for aerospace services, satellite communications, and electric vehicle incentives, totaling billions in contracts, loans, and tax credits over the past two decades. Major shifts include launch of military satellites, NASA missions, and purchasing Starlink services.
Restore U.S. partnerships with international agencies including 66 organizations, conventions, and treaties, including major entities like the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Also the World Health Organization (WHO), the Paris Agreement on climate change, and various arms control agreements.
Reverse all Trump actions exposing/selling national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, watersheds, national monuments, and other previously protected areas.
Restore water protection gutted by Trump including efforts to change the Clean Water Act, the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule which stripped federal safeguards from over 50% of wetlands and 18% of streams. He also reduced protections for ephemeral streams, narrowing the definition of Waters of the United States (WOTUS), and rolling back regulations on toxic coal ash disposal.
Hazardous chemicals regulation must be restored immediately.
EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding
PFAS (“Forever Chemicals”): The Trump administration failed to designate per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as hazardous substances, delayed setting drinking water standards for them, and allowed new, potentially toxic PFAS chemicals to enter the market with minimal review. In 2025, the EPA was reported to be weakening earlier, more stringent PFAS limits.
Air Toxics (Mercury, Benzene, Ethylene Oxide): In 2025, the administration invoked emergency provisions of the Clean Air Act to grant two-year exemptions to chemical manufacturers, medical sterilizers, and coal plants, allowing them to release toxic chemicals like mercury and ethylene oxide into the air. This included reversing a 2024 rule aimed at reducing ethylene oxide—a known carcinogen—by 90%.
Pesticides (Chlorpyrifos): Trump’s EPA reversed a proposed ban on chlorpyrifos, a neurotoxic pesticide linked to brain damage in children, allowing it to remain on the market.
Asbestos and Industrial Chemicals: The administration delayed or weakened proposed bans on trichloroethylene (TCE) and methylene chloride, which are known carcinogens and toxic to workers. They also initially moved to weaken regulations on asbestos, a mineral that causes mesothelioma.
Chemical Safety at Plants: Rules designed to prevent accidents and explosions at chemical manufacturing plants were delayed or weakened, even in the wake of chemical plant accidents, such as those that occurred after Hurricane Harvey.
“Corporate Self-Policing”: The EPA under Trump often shifted to relying on industry-provided data, and, as of 2025, removed requirements for scientific review of certain chemical risks.
Reverse/mitigate data removal by Trump and/or DOGE included topics related to DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion), long COVID, HIV/AIDS, vaccines, transgender and gender identity-related topics, foreign aid, environmental justice, emergency management, employment, and the January 6 United States Capitol attack.
Trump’s unvetted DOGE coders put the personal info of millions of Americans in jeopardy. Serious reconstruction of privacy must be undertaken immediately.
Tariffs imposed by Trump must be eliminated immediately.
Remove Trump’s name on national monuments and organizations.
Restore effective manpower levels in all federal agencies.
IRS and other agencies must be realigned so that there is no influence of church/religion upon government functions. This is of special importance in education. Re-establish separation of church and state by eliminating federal and state tax dollars provided to private/religious schools. Nationwide educational standards must be restored and enforced even for homeschooled children. No exceptions.
Congress must immediately:
legalize abortion nationwide.
resurrect the 2024 Bipartisan Border Bill (S.4361) and pass it.
abolish the Electoral College
establish national referendums on issues of national importance/interest
remove unnecessary/partisan restrictions on voting
demand a thorough review/return of any illegally-taken persons kidnapped and deported and/or imprisoned under Trump’s immigration actions.
require the return of money Trump coerced from media, universities, and other entities.
reverse any government actions meant to implement Project 2025
develop legal means to require stiffer ethical standards for the president and vice president and SCOTUS members as currently required for elected officials (primary federal conflict-of-interest statute (18 U.S.C. § 208) including ban on stock trading for Congress and executive branch. Strengthen the Emoluments Clause with clearly defined penalties and methods of enforcement.
Please feel free to comment with your additions to this list, or edits you think are needed. It will take all of us. Step up.