It is past time to legalize drugs. All of them.

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.

  • Personal: $193 billion[4]

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 annually as 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 of Psilocybe are members of genus Psilocybe, such as P. azurescensP. 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 report seeing 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

[2] https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp

[3] Prison Policy Initiative and Bureau of Justice Statistics

[4] https://www.gatewayfoundation.org/blog/cost-of-drug-addiction/

[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.

[6] https://www.niznikhealth.com/research-articles/self-medicating-in-america/

[7] U. S. Department of Justice, U.S Department of Justice with a Housing First program.

[8] https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/facts-stats/index.html

[9] https://drugabusestatistics.org/alcohol-abuse-statistics/

[10] https://www.kff.org/quick-take/new-federal-guidelines-for-alcohol-use-come-as-alcohol-deaths-remain-above-pre-pandemic-levels/

[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.

[12] See https://denelecampbell.com/2025/12/09/trumps-drug-war/

[13] Data for 2024, https://americanaddictioncenters.org/rehab-guide/addiction-statistics-demographics

[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.

[16] https://cprlaw.com/blog/why-people-are-seeing-more-ads-for-drugs-on-tv/

[17] https://nida.nih.gov/about-nida/noras-blog/2024/09/commercial-interests-contribute-to-drug-use-addiction

[18] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1043661816312002

[19] https://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e2502#:

[20] https://nautil.us/is-christianity-based-on-psychedelic-trips-623594

[21] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6985449/

[22] https://www.who.int/news/item/31-05-2022-who-raises-alarm-on-tobacco-industry-environmental-impact

[23] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3069146/

[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

I am an American

The United States is supposed to be an effort toward a more evolved culture. No kings. No one above the law. That’s the ideal—freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, a country for all of us to be equal. Thousands have fought and died for this.

How did this vision get perverted into a front for rapacious capitalism? Or was it that way all along?

Time and again we have confronted waves of greed and division, but we have pulled ourselves up from those depths.

It is painful to see the bad guys win, to slide in with their buddies and cover stories to start raping and plundering through every government department and every principle, abandon all integrity and honor and holding no one responsible.

Will this disgrace on our nation’s promise bring about a renewal of all we stand for? Will common sense and the common good rise up in November to put the Trump regime to an end?

That is the hill I will die on. 

Trump’s Drug War

The absurdity is overwhelming. Here we are as Americans, all party to the White House’s illegal murder of over eighty (so far) men in boats on the premise they are bringing drugs to the United States. As well remarked elsewhere, there is no evidence these boats are carrying drugs and no credibility in the idea these small vessels with a fuel range of 100-200 miles are embarking on a thousand mile journey to the U.S.

But even more insane is the idea that a nation under any government can stamp out drug use/abuse by ‘interdicting’ drugs enroute to this country. We can’t even stamp out drugs manufactured in within the borders of this country. Anyone who believes such nonsense needs to have these words tattooed onto their forehead: Supply-Demand. If people want a product, no matter how potentially dangerous, there will ALWAYS be a supplier. Basic economic fact. Reducing supply only results in higher prices for said product, i.e. better profits, more incentive to supply.

So let’s get real about illegal drugs. First, “drug users” include people who depend on caffeine in their morning coffee, iced tea at lunch or other caffeinated beverages, persons who ‘must have’ their cigarettes or other tobacco products, and persons prescribed any of a multitude of pharmaceuticals which address any of a multitude of human conditions from depression to headache to cancer. Secondly, there is an enormous difference between the use of and the abuse of any drug. Prohibitionists prefer to consider all illegal drug use as ‘abuse’ in order to justify draconian laws punishing users. We must keep in mind the blurred line dividing legal and illegal drugs is primarily based on their regulatory status and whether their production, sale, and use are permitted by law. Theoretically, this status is determined by government authorities based on factors like medical utility, potential for abuse, and perceived harm to the individual and society. In other words, there is no truly ‘illegal’ drug.

This theory supporting the prohibition of certain drugs has been shown to be a fabrication serving other less savory objectives. The drug war is a tool used by government to carry out activities which are illegal. For example, one might wonder about the president’s single-minded assault on alleged drug smugglers from Venezuela when coca leaf is grown in three other Latin American countries: Peru, Bolivia and Colombia. Surely the fact that Venezuela possesses the world’s largest oil reserves has nothing to do with it. Surely.

Never mind the fact that cocaine is hardly relevant in drug abuse circles since fentanyl hit the streets. In 2023, there were approximately 72,776 overdose deaths involving fentanyl (synthetic opioids other than methadone) compared to about 29,449 deaths involving cocaine.

Postcard showing an underground opium den in San Francisco, pre-1906 earthquake. By 1896, there were around 300 opium dens in San Francisco, mostly in Chinatown. In the 19th century and the early 20th century, opium smoking was common worldwide, especially in Asia, which was one of the sources of the opium poppy.

In order to better understand this absurdity, let’s go back more than a century to the country’s first ‘drug war’. The San Francisco Opium Den Ordinance of 1875 made it a misdemeanor to maintain or visit places where people smoked opium. These places were mainly in Chinese immigrant neighborhoods. Similar racially inflammatory state laws emerged. Soon after came the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which barred Chinese laborers from entering the U.S., a ban expanded to all Chinese people in 1902 and not fully repealed until 1943. The first federal drug law, the 1909 Smoking Opium Exclusion Act, prohibited importing and using opium. It wasn’t that the government suddenly became concerned about opium use. In a nutshell, it was that the railroads powering the economic growth of that period were now built, and thousands of Chinese who had been welcomed to this country to do the backbreaking work of carving tunnels out of rock and laying steel track were no longer of use. Even worse, these immigrants, the primary users of opium, were inviting relatives to immigrate and their jobs were seen as threats to white workers.[1]

Then there was alcohol. After nearly a century of growing religious fervor stemming from massive evangelical movements, especially the “Second Great Awakening,” characterized by fiery camp meetings, frontier revivalism, and emotionally charged preaching, a rising cry against alcohol resulted in ‘prohibition,’ enacted on a federal basis in 1920 but in individual states as early as the 1880s.

Carrie Nation became famous for her attacks on alcohol-serving establishments, using rocks, bricks, and her signature hatchet to destroy liquor bottles, mirrors, and bar fixtures. Before resorting to violence, she would kneel outside saloons, sing hymns, and deliver strong sermons to patrons and owners, sometimes calling herself the “Destroyer of Men’s Souls”.

“A wide coalition of mostly Protestants, prohibitionists first attempted to end the trade in alcoholic drinks during the 19th century. They aimed to heal what they saw as an ill society beset by alcohol-related problems such as alcoholism, domestic violence, and saloon-based political corruption.”[2]

Alcohol prohibition led to massive increases in organized crime (bootlegging, speakeasies), rampant corruption of officials, dangerous unregulated alcohol leading to sickness/death, huge losses in government tax revenue, and a general disrespect for the law, with little measurable public health benefit, ultimately proving a costly failure. Ultimately, prohibition led to the development of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), significantly expanding the role and authority of the FBI’s predecessor, the Bureau of Investigation (BOI), making it central to federal law enforcement by creating massive new criminal enterprises (bootlegging) that required federal intervention, strained resources, spurred corruption, and ultimately led to bigger federal crime-fighting roles and the rise of modern organized crime, impacting federal investigations for decades.

This powerful new agency could have drifted into irrelevance when alcohol was once again legal in 1932, but instead there is evidence that the federal official who spearheaded cannabis prohibition saw it as a way to maintain his department’s relevance and budget. Harry Anslinger, the head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN), needed a new focus for his agency after alcohol prohibition was repealed. He launched a public campaign against cannabis (often using the “marihuana” spelling to associate it with Mexican immigrants), portraying it as a dangerous substance to justify his department’s continued existence. Anslinger’s rhetoric carried strong undercurrents of racial prejudice and xenophobia, targeting Mexican immigrants and Black jazz musicians.

Then as the ‘60s ended with massive marches in support of equal rights for minorities and women, against the Vietnam war, and in support of gay rights, President Richard Nixon officially launched the “War on Drugs” in the early 1970s, declaring drug abuse a public enemy and enacting significant federal legislation like the Controlled Substances Act to combat drug production, distribution, and use, though policies intensified under subsequent administrations. 

One of Richard Nixon’s top advisers and a key figure in the Watergate scandal said the war on drugs was created as a political tool to fight blacks and hippies, according to a 22-year-old interview recently published in Harper’s Magazine.

“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people,” former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper’s writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.

“You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities,” Ehrlichman said. “We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”[3]

A 2017 study showed that police forces which received military equipment were more likely to have violent encounters with the public, regardless of local crime rates. A 2018 study found that militarized police units in the United States were more frequently deployed to communities with large shares of African-Americans, even after controlling for local crime rates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarization_of_police#cite_ref-17

In the next administration, First Lady Nancy Reagan famously addressed the drug “problem” with her “Just Say No.” advice, unwittingly illustrating the parental role now assumed by government over the private, consensual behavior of drug users. Reagan’s successor, George H.W. Bush, took it a step further. He promoted the 1033 Program (Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Disposition Services) in the early 1990s to transfer surplus military gear to local law enforcement for the “War on Drugs.” Nowhere in this rush to judgement did anyone point out that M16/AR-15 rifles, grenade launchers, armored vehicles (APCs, MRAPs), night vision, tactical robots, and “less-lethal” gear (beanbag/pepperball guns, flashbangs) have absolutely no effect on drugs. These weapons and the “war” in which they are being used are against PEOPLE—American citizens, most of whom simply preferered to toke a joint after work rather than drink an alcoholic beverage.

This despite the fact that in the 1970s and ‘80s, marijuana was by far the most widely used of illegal drugs, was found in multiple studies not to be addictive and also found not to be a ‘gateway’ to harder drugs, as so often alleged in government reports. Even today, with drugs like cocaine and even fentanyl in the headlines, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) World Drug Report 2024, the estimated number of people who used various drugs at least once in the prior twelve months was: Cannabis (Marijuana): 228 million users; Opioids: 60 million users; Amphetamines: 30 million users; Cocaine: 23 million users; Ecstasy: 20 million users.

All the while, the drug war of those decades provided cover for illegal U.S. government operations in Central and South America as those nations began to resist colonization by American corporations seeking to exploit natural resources like oil, minerals, and agricultural opportunities. Fertile land and cheap labor could produce crops such as coffee, bananas, and other foods requiring year-round growing seasons.

According to Tim Weiner, the Central Intelligence Agency “has been accused of forming alliances of convenience with drug traffickers around the world in the name of anti-Communism” since its creation in 1947.[4] The CIA has a long, controversial history in South America, primarily during the Cold War, involving covert operations like coups, political destabilization, and support for right-wing regimes (e.g., Operation Condor) to counter perceived communist influence, leading to significant human rights abuses and democratic declines, with operations continuing into recent times, such as those in Venezuela. Key actions included overthrowing governments (Chile, Ecuador, Brazil), supporting anti-communist forces (Contras in Nicaragua, a major scandal where in U.S. operatives sold guns to Iran between 1981 and 1986, facilitated by senior officials of the Ronald Reagan administration. The administration hoped to use the proceeds of the arms sale to fund the Contras, an anti-Sandinista rebel group in Nicaragua.), and involvement in conflicts like the Salvadoran Civil War, with consequences like suppressed democracy and economic impacts.

This kind of interference in the affairs of other nations more or less permeates American history. In the early 20th century, during the “Banana Republic” era of Latin American history, the U.S. launched several interventions and invasions in the region (known as the Banana Wars) in order to promote American business interests. During the Cold War (1950s-1980s), the CIA carried out coordinated campaigns to install South American dictatorships (Argentina, Chile, Brazil, etc.) to track, kidnap, torture, and kill left-wing dissidents, with CIA support and intelligence sharing. In Guatemala (1954), the CIA overthrew the democratically elected President Jacobo Árbenz, linking to U.S. corporate interests, using exile forces and propaganda. In Chile (1970s), CIA efforts undermined President Salvador Allende, paving the way for a military coup. Same idea for Brazil (1964): Supported a coup against President João Goulart, leading to a military dictatorship. Nicaragua (1980s): Funded and trained the right-wing Contra rebels fighting the socialist Sandinista government, with alleged links to cocaine trafficking. El Salvador (1980s): Trained and equipped military units involved in massacres during the civil war.

CIA interventions often resulted in the collapse of democratic institutions, reduced civil liberties, and economic hardship, despite justifications of promoting democracy or fighting communism, according to research. The support ‘troops’ for these political objectives has become de facto occupation of these nations with armed agents of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, with 87 foreign offices in 67 countries. For example, in the so-called “Southern Cone,” (Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay), are considered to be transit zones for the movement of cocaine base, cocaine HCL, and heroin being shipped from Colombia and Peru to markets in the U.S. and Europe, or producers of coca leaves. The end result of these often violent interventions in the affairs of our neighbors is the current and ongoing flood of desperate people arriving at our borders.

Not only are drug laws used outside our nation’s borders as cover for extra-judicial interference in international relations, they also serve domestically to selectively target specific individuals and politically inconvenient groups or based on racism or other prejudices, most recently undocumented immigrants. This is a useful tool for xenophobes determined to turn the United States into a white patriarchal “Christian” nation. The current administration manipulates this demographic by playing up the drug war.

Public support for prohibition policies relies on judgments of morality, that becoming intoxicated is immoral, an echo of the early 1800s temperance movement which reached its zenith with alcohol prohibition, the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This same moral judgment about private consensual activity remains a strong current in the United States where prostitution, gambling, and drug use (other than legal drugs) fall under strong government control. While government cannot (yet) spy on the living rooms and bedrooms of its citizens, government agents find such laws useful in targeting specific types of people, as previously illustrated.

“Today, police make more than 1.5 million drug arrests each year, and about 550,000 of those are for cannabis offenses alone. Almost 500,000 people are incarcerated for nothing more than a drug law violation, and Black and brown people are disproportionately impacted by drug enforcement and sentencing practices. Rates of drug use and sales are similar across racial and ethnic lines, but Black and Latinx people are far more likely than white people to be stopped, searched, arrested, convicted, harshly sentenced, and saddled with a lifelong criminal record.

“The wide-ranging consequences of a drug law violation aren’t limited to senseless incarceration: people with low incomes are denied food stamps and public assistance for past drug convictions; states including Texas and Florida suspend driver’s licenses for drug offenses totally unrelated to driving; and numerous other policies deny child custody, voting rights, employment, loans, and financial aid to people with criminal records.”[5]

Despite apparent national political resolve to deal with the drug problem, inherent contradictions regularly appear between U.S. anti-drug policy and other national policy goals and concerns. Pursuit of drug control policies can sometimes affect foreign policy interests and bring political instability and economic dislocation to countries where narcotics production has become entrenched economically and socially. Drug supply interdiction programs and U.S. systems to facilitate the international movement of goods, people, and wealth are often at odds.[6]

  • “We are still in the midst of the most devastating drug epidemic in U.S. history,” according to Vanda Felbab-Brown, senior fellow at the Center for Security, Strategy, and Technology at Brookings Institution. In 2020, overdose deaths in the United States exceeded 90,000, compared with 70,630 in 2019, according to research from the Commonwealth Fund. Yet, the federal government is spending more money than ever to enforce drug policies. In 1981, the federal budget for drug abuse prevention and control was just over a billion dollars. By 2020, that number had grown to $34.6 billion. When adjusted for inflation, CNBC found that it translates to a 1,090% increase in just 39 years.[7]

What if that money had instead been applied to individuals and programs that support individual ambitions and needs—tiny homes for the homeless, for example? What if the costs of our interference in foreign nations had instead been directed toward helping the people of those nations deal with loss of farmland to multinational corporations, climate-change induced drought and hurricane damage, and support for social programs, education, and entrepreneurship, thereby reducing the urgency of people in those countries to flood to U.S. borders in hope of better lives?

Without hot button issues like women’s reproductory rights and drugs, politicians would have to gain votes based on performance rather than propaganda. Stepping away from “government as nannies” and the idea of controlling private behavior would allow taxpayer dollars to support programs that help deter substance abuse in the same way that public education has helped reduce the use of cigarettes. No one knows better than addicts that they, individually, are the only ones who can control their addiction. Ultimately, as free people, we must claim the fundamental right to kill ourselves if we wish it. Most importantly, awareness of draconian drug policies as a cover for illegal objectives both in and outside our nation’s borders would forever eliminate travesties such as the murdering of likely-innocent people in boats leaving Venezuela.

And, in the case of the current administration, understanding the real agenda of the drug war could rightfully turn the public attention fully to the president’s dirty Epstein laundry.


[1] https://muse.jhu.edu/article/240064

[2] Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

[3] https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_drug_trafficking_allegations

[5] https://www.vera.org/news/fifty-years-ago-today-president-nixon-declared-the-war-on-drugs

[6] https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL33582.html

[7] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/the-us-has-spent-over-a-trillion-dollars-fighting-war-on-drugs.html

What Trump Will Bring

In the pending Trump presidency, there will be no support for Ukraine or Palestinians, and it will be the desperate people of those countries who suffer. That suffering will spill over, from Ukraine into more of Europe, from Palestinian lands into Lebanon and the broader Middle East. Trump’s buddy Vladimir Putin is thrilled. The wealth of Ukraine in natural resources and rich cropland will strengthen the weaknesses of Russia and move Putin closer to seeing his lifelong dream realized, the re-creation of the Soviet empire.

If Trump et al succeed in tearing down the U.S. Constitution and all we stand for, pretty soon the war will be on our land, in our towns and farmland. Communist nations like Russia, Iran, and China will simply walk in through the doors Trump is leaving open.

There will be no acknowledgement of climate change or its inevitable, already-apparent crises as insurance rates skyrocket in a futile effort to mitigate losses from flooding, storms, and other weather extremes. If we’re troubled by immigration now, wait a few more years of uncontrolled climate change when entire nations are unable to house or feed their populations due to floods or lack of agriculture. Do we shoot them at the border? Let them starve?

What would Jesus do?

Most telling will be the nosedive of our economy, not just in the four years of Trump’s legal term of office, but thereafter as his exploitation of U.S. oil reserves undermines our future energy independence. Trump’s ‘drill baby drill’ cries ignore the wisdom of alternative energy. He is simply too stupid to understand why we should use anything but oil even though all known reserves will run out by 2070. Theoretically, we may never run out of oil because, given the depth of the Earth’s core, there will be new wells to discover. That said, it’s highly unlikely that the practice of mining such depths will become economically viable.

Trump’s second presidency will expand on his previous dismissal of health crises preparation which left us vulnerable to the COVID outbreak after he liquidated the pandemic preparedness established by previous presidents. What will happen with the next pandemic? Researchers say there’s as much as a 50 percent chance that we’ll see something like this again in the next twenty-five years. Trump’s lack of intellect leaves the entire nation unprepared.

Even more concerning is his ignorance of history, which allows him to pursue his fantasy of shifting civil service jobs to political appointments in direct violation of the United States Constitution. Traditionally, the civil service has been a sector of government that operates under a merit-based system to ensure that government jobs are filled by the most qualified individuals. This system protects civil servants from political influence and allows them to make independent decisions without fear of reprisal. The civil service is a key part of the constitutional framework because it helps to uphold the rule of law and ensure that the government is run by merit, not political affiliation. Trump’s affection for the idea of government work force composed of loyalists completely overturns this tradition.

Trump doesn’t care what happens in the future as long as he stays out of prison for his multitude of felonies. He doesn’t care about the lives of anyone besides himself. He’s eager to turn over the economy to people like Elon Musk, who acknowledges he is autistic, a condition marked by impaired social interactions, verbal and nonverbal communication deficits, and restricted, repetitive behavior patterns and associated with poor emotional control. To place the future of the U.S. economy in the hands of such a person means loss of critical social support for the weakest and neediest among us. Such suffering would not be a concern to Musk. Or Trump, who, when confronted with the disability of his nephew’s son, famously told his nephew ““Those people…” Donald said, trailing off. “The shape they’re in, all the expenses, maybe those kinds of people should just die.”

Similarly, Trump has nominated Robert Kennedy Jr. to head the U. S. departments in charge of public health including the Department of Health and Human Services, the Center for Disease Control, and the Food and Drug Administration. But Kennedy has no science or medical background, other than claiming to have had worms in his brain. He also reported that at one point, mercury poisoning in his body reached ten times safe levels. Studies show that high exposure to mercury induces changes in the central nervous system, potentially resulting in irritability, fatigue, behavioral changes, tremors, headaches, hearing and cognitive loss, and dysarthria (a speech disorder that makes it difficult to speak due to issues with the muscles, nerves, or brain that control speech). Kennedy’s negative attitude about vaccines no doubt attracted voters who were petulantly annoyed by public health measures enforced during COVID like wearing masks and being vaccinated to prevent spread of the virus.

Perhaps the most immediately dangerous is Pete Hegseth, a FOX News commentator and host of “Fox & Friends” now nominated to be Secretary of Defense. An Army veteran of eight years, he plans a “frontal assault” to reform the Department of Defense from the top down, including by purging “woke” generals, limiting women from some combat roles, eliminating diversity goals and utilizing the ‘real threat of violence’ to reassert the United States as a global power.” (ABC News) He has called the United Nations a ‘farce’ and “giant joke’ and believes military action is the best plan to solve world problems. Aside from his warmongering ideas, he has advocated for the pardon of war criminals. He holds no sympathy for Palestinians and embraces Israelis as “God’s chosen people” with “Zionism and Americanism at the front lines of Western civilization.” (Wikipedia) His concept of “civilization” apparently follows the same moral codes as Trump. “Hegseth and his first wife, Meredith Schwarz, divorced in 2009. He married his second wife, Samantha Deering, in 2010; they have three children. In August 2017, while still married to Deering, Hegseth had a daughter with Fox executive producer Jennifer Rauchet, with whom he was having an extramarital relationship. He and Deering divorced in August 2017. Hegseth and Rauchet, who has three young children from her first marriage, married in August 2019.” (Wiki)

Miller, left. Goebbels, right

Even if the new Republican majority in the Senate rejects one or more of these nominations, there’s little likelihood that Trump’s subsequent appointments would be any less unsuitable for government positions. He has already put extremist Stephen Miller in a position that will control immigration, our very own Joseph Goebbels, a German Nazi politician who was the chief propagandist for the Nazi Party and then Reich Minister of Propaganda from 1933 to 1945. He was one of Adolf Hitler’s closest and most devoted followers, known for his deeply virulent antisemitism which was evident in his publicly voiced views. He advocated progressively harsher discrimination, including the extermination of the Jews in the Holocaust.

Finally, there is the nomination of Tulsi Gabbard as the head of our national intelligence agencies. As noted by news media, Gabbard’s record “reflects an alarming pattern of siding with Russia and other authoritarian regimes, raising questions about whether she should serve as America’s top-ranking intelligence official. Her selection has alarmed lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, though most Republicans have refrained from public criticism. …[She] lacks deep intelligence experience and is seen as soft on Russia and Syria. …Among the risks, say current and former intelligence officials and independent experts, are that top advisers could feed the incoming Republican president a distorted view of global threats based on what they believe will please him and that foreign allies may be reluctant to share vital information.” (Reuters)

But Trump’s voters don’t care about such details. He was elected because he made promises to enact policies which reflect old prejudices and enshrine ignorance under an authoritarian ruler. Old habits don’t vanish simply because new opportunities are presented, not when those habits have been ingrained for tens of thousands of years. The brain wiring isn’t there. The ‘conservative’ clings to the past because it is familiar.

Not better.

Coming soon: What the Democrats Did Wrong

In the United States today, apparently…

https://carolbodensteiner.com/2014/01/13/what-did-rural-life-look-like-1910/

Progress came too fast for the evolutionary capabilities of humans. Suddenly, within one hundred years, men were expected to accept women as equals after millennia of their submission. Men were expected to adjust to working with their minds instead of their hands, their bodies eager and waiting for the first throw of the spear, the first clubbing of an enemy. The majority of men needed those physical triumphs to feel like man, and they still do.

A significant percentage of women still believe men are their superiors, the representative of their male god who tells them how to live in submission. It’s too much to expect that suddenly after only 100 years of having the right to vote and the right to contraception, women would universally embrace the responsibility of citizenship, of bodily autonomy.

Sadly, an official return to policies constructed of old fears and prejudices destroys people, most of whom have worked for decades—lifetimes—to ensure that Americans are able to pursue our personal needs and dreams, to become who we want and need to be despite centuries of repression and exploitation. Progress means making the world a better place where people don’t suffer from old hatreds and fears. Now women are losing the right to control what happens to their own bodies. Men and women risk losing their right to live and love as they are—gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and more. Anyone who isn’t white need not exist.

While attempting to fling us backwards to a time without electricity, running water, or air conditioning, not to mention television, cell phones, and antibiotics, conservatives seem to think society could obtain all those things WITHOUT concurrent changes in social norms. That’s not how it works. Advances in technologies and sciences go hand in hand with social change. In a democratic society, education sufficient to produce people who invent cell phones also produces realization of our innate value as individuals—no matter what gender, skin color, or ethnic background.

Back in the ‘good ole days’ women made the cloth. “Heagerty family members demonstrating the steps needed to spin cotton, Cave Springs (Benton County), about 1900. From right: removing the seeds, carding the fibers, spinning the thread, and winding it on a reel.” Jerry Ritter Collection (S-2004-20-6)

Irony is when people vote for policies that are oppositional to their personal needs. Irony occurs when those voters cherish their cell phones while remaining ignorant of the high levels of education required for their invention or the vast technological network that serves them. Irony occurs when those voters flock to doctors to deal with cancer and other life-threatening conditions whose increasingly successful treatments come about at the hands of highly educated scientists who understand the cellular function of DNA and RNA, terms about which those voters are utterly ignorant. Undoubtedly, key figures in those fields are women and/or LBGTQ+.

It’s called shooting yourself in the foot.

Next: What Trump Will Bring

Sanders’ school reforms don’t address the problems

Newly installed Arkansas Governor Sanders could have picked any number of other issues more critical to the welfare of Arkansas residents than CRT. Her decision to address Critical Race Theory signals her lack of insight or, more likely, her debt to her behind-the-scenes bosses who care nothing for Arkansas citizens—with the exception of manipulating them into voting Republican.

Like her predecessors in the Arkansas state house, Sanders won office with the votes of a minority of eligible voters. Over 1.79 million Arkansans are eligible, but only 50.8% of them voted, meaning that Sanders won office with the votes of only 31.9% of eligible voters. Arkansas ranks last in both voter turnout and registration and has the highest absentee ballot rejection rate in the nation. This parallels other low rankings of the state:

  • 44th in health matters. Measures contributing to Arkansas’s low overall performance include the number of adults who have lost six or more teeth, adults without dental visits, and premature deaths from treatable causes — all measures for which Arkansas is ranked last among states. Other factors include the number of children who are overweight or obese, the number of adults with any mental illness reporting unmet needs, and preventable hospitalizations for adults ages 18–64.[1]
  • 47th in education, based on factors including educational attainment, school quality and achievement gaps between genders and races[2]
  • 43rd in economic activity, economic health, and a state’s innovation potential[3]
  • 4th worst state to live in, with the breakdown as follows:
    • 35th – Homeownership Rate
    • 45th – % of Population in Poverty
    • 18th – Income Growth
    • 29th – % of Insured Population
    • 48th – % of Adults in Fair or Poor Health
    • 42nd – Average Weekly Work Hours[4]
  • 2nd unhappiest state based on employment, leisure activities, mental health, personal finance, personal relationships, physical health, and social policies[5]
  • 3rd highest in pornography use[6]
  • 2nd in teen pregnancy with 27.8 per 1,000 – Sex education is allowed but not required, and local districts largely sidestep the topic. Arkansas schools are not required to offer instruction on HIV or STIs. Further, sex education—in the rare instances it is offered—is hamstrung with multiple restrictions:
    • If sex education is offered, curriculum must stress abstinence.
    • If sex education is offered, curriculum is not required to include instruction on consent.
    • If sex education is offered, curriculum is not required to include instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity.
    • Arkansas has no standard regarding the ability of parents and guardians to remove their children from sex education instruction.
    • Arkansas has no standard regarding medically accurate sex education instruction. However, instruction on dating violence must be based on scientific research.
  • Children in foster care (2022): 4,127.  Households with grandparents responsible for grandchildren under age 18: 70,290[7]
  • 5th highest incarceration rate of all states, higher than the national rate[8]
  • Poverty rate
    • Extreme poverty 9%
    • Poverty rate 16.2%
    • Working family under 200% of poverty line 39.4%
    • Percent of jobs that are low-wage 30.1%

In a 2014 study, of the total eligible voters in the state, 46% were Republican, 38% Democrat, and 16% non-affiliated. Evangelicals comprise 61% of Republican voters, 29% of Democrat, and 11% of non-affiliated. Predictably, Republican voters are less educated, with 42% with high school or less, 34% with some college, 17% with a college degree, and 6% with post-graduate degree compared to Democratic voters with 52% high school or less, 30% some college, 9% college graduate, and 9% with post graduate degree.[9]

While Sanders states her priority is education improvement, the areas of education which she targeted in her statement are very limited. Aside from banning CRT, she has nominated Jacob Oliva to head the Department of Education. Oliva has previously served that role in Florida, where ‘Don’t Say Gay’ has been one of the guiding mantras of the DeSantis administration; the measure “contains language to prevent the ‘instruction’ or ‘discussion’ of sexual orientation and gender identity at certain grade levels and in an ‘age-appropriate’ way. The vagueness of the law has called into question how teachers could handle teaching history or questions raised in class about sexual orientation.”[10]

Undoubtedly the most destructive education measure touted by Sanders is the voucher option for parents, which Sanders vows to enact. The National Education Association explains why vouchers are not in America’s best interests:

  • No matter how you look at it, vouchers undermine strong public education and student opportunity. They take scarce funding from public schools—which serve 90 percent of students—and give it to private schools—institutions that are not accountable to taxpayers. This means public school students have less access to music instruments and science equipment, modern technology and textbooks, and after-school programs.  Moreover, there is ZERO statistical significance that voucher programs improve overall student success, and some programs have even shown to have a NEGATIVE effect for students receiving a voucher. Furthermore, vouchers have been shown to not support students with disabilities, they fail to protect the human and civil rights of students, and they exacerbate segregation.
  • Vouchers were first created after the Supreme Court banned school segregation with its ruling in Brown v Board of Education. School districts used vouchers to enable white students to attend private schools, which could (and still can) limit admission based on race. As a result, the schools that served those white students were closed, and schools that served black students remained chronically underfunded. The pattern of discrimination continues with vouchers today. Unlike public schools, private schools can (and some do) limit their admission based on race, gender, sexual orientation, ability, and any other number of factors. Furthermore, vouchers rarely cover the full tuition, so families who were promised a better education are left footing the bill.  

Many Arkansas parents are strongly evangelical and would prefer religion and prayer be included in their children’s education. But we’ve already been there.

  • The Supreme Court entered the evolution debate in 1968, when it ruled, in Epperson v. Arkansas, that Arkansas could not eliminate from the high school biology curriculum the teaching of “the theory that mankind descended from a lower order of animals.” Arkansas’ exclusion of that aspect of evolutionary theory, the court reasoned, was based on a preference for the account of creation in the book of Genesis and thus violated the state’s constitutional obligation of religious neutrality.

We’ve seen what can occur when religious belief usurps rational education. The Duggar family homeschooled their children in ‘devout Christian beliefs’ including oldest child Josh Duggar who, after molesting his younger sisters and their friends, is serving a twelve-year prison term for ‘receiving’ child pornography. Reports state that Jim Bob Duggar consulted ‘church elders’ who apparently did not urge him to report his son’s abuse to the authorities. Josh’s parents kept it secret until the statute of limitations had expired.

In fact, it was this nest of evangelical excess in Springdale from which sprang the Reverend Ronnie Floyd. The following is excerpted from Wikipedia’s page on Floyd:

  • A strong advocate of evangelism and discipleship, Floyd was a member of the “conservative resurgence” that retook control of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) during the 1980s. In 1989 he was a candidate to become president of the Arkansas Baptist State Convention, but was defeated by Mike Huckabee.  …On June 10, 2014, Dr. Floyd was elected president of the Southern Baptist Convention at the SBC’s annual gathering held in Baltimore. Upon close of the meeting, he became the 61st president of the SBC, succeeding the Rev. Fred Lute. …In October, 2019, at a conference regarding care for those who have been sexually abused in Christian contexts, Rachael Denhollander referenced abusive treatment of a sexual abuse victim by Dr. Floyd and other leaders at the Executive Committee as an example of why those who are abused are reticent to report.
  • Subsequently, in May, 2021, multiple internal whistle blower reports alleged Dr. Floyd had actively sought to intimidate victims, advocates, and stall progress in the sexual abuse inquiry within the Southern Baptist Convention. …In an unprecedented move following weeks of turmoil over allegations of Floyd’s handling of the sexual abuse crisis in the Southern Baptist Convention, the delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention voted to mandate an independent third party investigation into the Executive Committee’s handling of sexual abuse cases, victims, and advocates, including an investigation into Dr. Floyd’s actions.
  • …Floyd’s leadership was marked by yet another unprecedented milestone for the Southern Baptist Convention when he and the Executive Committee trustees failed to fully comply with the directive of the Convention’s delegates when, amidst calls for his removal and a tumultuous trustee meeting, Floyd’s resistance to complete transparency and participation in the commissioned abuse task force was supported by the Executive Committee trustees.

Floyd subsequently resigned after the independent investigation revealed that Floyd’s committee members responded to sexual abuse survivors with “resistance, stonewalling and even outright hostility” to nearly two decades of allegations against clergy. According to the report, the group kept a secret, running list of accused Baptist ministers to avoid being sued – even as the committee publicly claimed it didn’t have the authority to create such a list. A LIST OF BAPTIST MINISTERS ACCUSED OF SEXUAL ABUSE!

While multiple sexual abuse scandals within churches is not the topic at hand, hardly a week passes without yet another report of sexual misdeeds by pastors, youth counselors, or other church personnel. To a disinterested bystander, it seems the frantic outrage over drag queens (who, incidentally, are rarely if ever accused of sexual misconduct) would be more appropriately directed toward religious leaders. To assume that children are ‘safer’ or more lovingly educated within the context of parochial schools is yet another example of willful ignorance. Yet Sanders, herself the child of a Baptist minister, is apparently blind to this hypocrisy.

Republicans routinely cultivate a receptive audience of voters by spotlighting hot button issues such as abortion, homosexuality, ‘woke’ culture, and religion, yet there is scant evidence that any of their radical rhetoric or legislation has any positive impact on the troubles Arkansas faces. [Based on the outraged edicts from evangelicals, a casual observer might assume that it’s drag queens abusing all these children rather than religious leaders. Strangely, no record of drag queen abuses is found.] Children still leave their school years without the ability to read or reason, without understanding of how the government works or the scientific method, without the skills necessary to negotiate life in the modern world.

Some of this results from the parents’ inadequacy in time or knowledge, a generational failing in many Arkansas households. But it can be argued that the greater failing is in Arkansas’ penchant for electing more of the same, people like Sanders, who can’t seem to grasp the actual needs of Arkansas children—not banning CRT or saying ‘gay,’ not siphoning tax dollars away from public schools, not school prayer or any of the other worthless ideas promoted by Republicans. What is needed is for government to get its foot off the neck of teachers and offer much higher pay in order to attract skilled instructors who know how to engage students in the love of learning.


[1] https://achi.net/newsroom/arkansas-ranked-44th-among-states-in-health-system-performance-scorecard/

[2] https://www.kark.com/news/state-news/arkansas-among-least-educated-states-study-says/

[3] https://www.thecentersquare.com/arkansas/report-ranks-arkansas-as-one-of-the-ten-worst-economies-in-the-u-s/article_97cf8c72-e679-11ec-8105-8753bf509325.html

[4] https://www.nwahomepage.com/news/report-arkansas-is-2022s-4th-worst-state-to-live-in/

[5] https://www.ozarksfirst.com/news/missouri-news/missouri-arkansas-rank-as-some-of-unhappiest-states-in-us/

[6] https://web.archive.org/web/20160416220848/http://www.cyberpsychology.eu:80/ view.php?cisloclanku=2015120302

[7] https://spotlightonpoverty.org/states/arkansas/

[8] https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/incarceration-rates-by-state

[9] “Party affiliation among adults in Arkansas,” Pew Research Center, https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/state/arkansas/party-affiliation/

The Agenda of Gov. Sarah H. Sanders

Arkansas’ new governor, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, has raised the colors for her term at the helm of the ship of this state. Not that these are ‘her’ colors, per se, but rather edicts scripted for her by her bosses behind the Republican curtain. These are the same entities who put her in front of a microphone to lie for Trump as his press secretary, apparently under the promise that they would support her efforts toward future political office.

Evidence of her bought-and-paid-for status can be found in the immediate issuance of her ban on Critical Race Theory (CRT) in the public schools. The boiler-plate executive order commands, in part, that the Arkansas Department of Education:

“Review the rules, regulations, policies, materials, and communications of the Department of Education to identify any items that may, purposely or otherwise, promote teaching that would indoctrinate students with ideologies, such as CRT, that conflict with the principle of equal protection under the law or encourage students to discriminate against someone based on the individual’s color, creed, race, ethnicity, sex, age, marital status, familial status, disability, religion, national origin, or any other characteristic protected by federal or state law.”

Sanders’ measure is put forth as enforcement of Title IV and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241), which was established to ensure equal rights to everyone.

“People of one color, creed, race, ethnicity, sex, age, marital status, familial status, disability, religion, national origin, or any other characteristic protected by federal or state law are inherently superior or inferior to people of another color, creed, race, ethnicity, sex, age, marital status, familial status, disability, religion, national origin, or any other characteristic protected by federal or state law…”

This and similar bans present two absurdities. One, the ban alleges that efforts to reduce and/or eliminate the negative impact of entrenched racism are a form of racism. Two, the ban demonstrates either an utter lack of understanding of CRT or an ingrained denial of systemic racism, either of which would be remedied by a study of CRT. The rightwing furor over CRT is a perfect example of racist thinking and reassures its racist followers that rightwing Republicans will resist any effort to encourage white people to think equitably of their darker-skinned brethren.

Critical Race Theory advances the idea that multiple aspects of American law, institutions, and social structures enshrine racist ideas. Wikipedia describes the tenets of CRT as follows:

“Scholars of CRT say that race is not “biologically grounded and natural”; rather, it is a socially constructed category used to oppress and exploit people of color; and that racism is not an aberration, but a normalized feature of American society. According to CRT, negative stereotypes assigned to members of minority groups benefit white people and increase racial oppression. Individuals can belong to a number of different identity groups…

“Derrick Albert Bell Jr. (1930 – 2011), an American lawyer, professor, and civil rights activist, writes that racial equality is ”impossible and illusory” and that racism in the U.S. is permanent. According to Bell, civil-rights legislation will not on its own bring about progress in race relations; alleged improvements or advantages to people of color “tend to serve the interests of dominant white groups,” in what Bell calls “interest convergence.” These changes do not typically affect—and at times even reinforce—racial hierarchies. This is representative of the shift in the 1970s, in Bell’s re-assessment of his earlier desegregation work as a civil rights lawyer. He was responding to the Supreme Court’s decisions that had resulted in the re-segregation of schools.

“The concept of standpoint theory became particularly relevant to CRT when it was expanded to include a black feminist standpoint by Patricia Hill Collins. First introduced by feminist sociologists in the 1980s, standpoint theory holds that people in marginalized groups, who share similar experiences, can bring a collective wisdom and a unique voice to discussions on decreasing oppression. In this view, insights into racism can be uncovered by examining the nature of the U.S. legal system through the perspective of the everyday lived experiences of people of color.

“According to Encyclopedia Britannica, tenets of CRT have spread beyond academia, and are used to deepen understanding of socio-economic issues such as “poverty, police brutality, and voting rights violations,” that are impacted by the ways in which race and racism are “understood and misunderstood” in the United States.[1]

Conservatives, including Governor Sanders’ managers, look for any advances toward greater social equity as a destructive force to their world view. Or, perhaps more to the point, greater acceptance of social equity would reduce or eliminate race as a hot button issue in driving Republican voters to the ballot box.

“One conservative organization, the Heritage Foundation, recently attributed a whole host of issues to CRT, including the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, LGBTQ clubs in schools, diversity training in federal agencies and organizations, California’s recent ethnic studies model curriculum, the free-speech debate on college campuses, and alternatives to exclusionary discipline—such as the Promise program in Broward County, Fla., that some parents blame for the Parkland school shootings. “When followed to its logical conclusion, CRT is destructive and rejects the fundamental ideas on which our constitutional republic is based,” the organization claimed.”[2]

“[On the other hand,] Leading critical race theory scholars view the GOP-led measures as hijacking the national conversation about racial inequality that gained momentum after the killing of George Floyd by a white police officer in Minnesota. Some say the ways Republicans describe it are unrecognizable to them. Cheryl Harris, a UCLA law professor who teaches a course on the topic, said it’s a myth that critical race theory teaches hatred of white people and is designed to perpetuate divisions in American society. Instead, she said she believes the proposals limiting how racism can be discussed in the classroom have a clear political goal: “to ensure that Republicans can win in 2022.”[3]

Other early signals from oligarchs behind Sanders’ governorship include her push for school vouchers whereby tax dollars can be funneled into religious and private schools who can offer non-scientific theories of human origin and alternative histories while ignoring important preparation for citizenship such as debate and civics. Sanders also has plans to address the state’s shortcomings in prison space, although it is doubtful this will translate into an innovative look at ways to reduce the demand. More likely, her ‘reforms’ will mean spending more of the state’s scarce tax dollars on building more prisons in order to, as she has stated, requiring prisoners to serve out their full terms.

Speaking of tax dollars, Sanders also plans to reduce taxes with the goal of eliminating income tax. Her plan for accomplishing this pipe dream is to find ways for the state to operate more efficiently. Her campaign statement on this topic hints at the real goal:

“When I take office, we will work on responsibly phasing out the state income tax to reward work – NOT government dependency – and let you keep more of your hard-earned money in the failing Biden economy,” Sanders said in a Twitter post.

According to critics, this is simply the latest Republican iteration of their efforts to please their masters: “to wreck the state’s fiscal system so that people of inherited riches or high incomes will never again have to worry about paying much in the way of taxes to support education, health care and law enforcement — i.e. government services for the needy and the commoners, for which a few comfortable people think they should not have to pay.”[4]

With all cannons on deck loaded with her preprogrammed agenda, we can be certain this is only the beginning of pushing Arkansas further into the sea floor. Ironically, argument can be made that the label ‘ideologies’ such as forbidden in the CRT ban could be assigned to religion, i.e. “the beliefs and practices of that religion [which] support powerful groups in society, effectively keeping the existing ruling class, or elites, in power.”[5]


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory

[2] Sawchuk, Stephen. “What Is Critical Race Theory and Why Is It Under Attack?” Education Week, Ma 18, 2021. Accessed Jan 12, 2023 @  https://www.edweek.org/leadership/what-is-critical-race-theory-and-why-is-it-under-attack/2021/05

[3] “Critical race theory is a flashpoint for conservatives, but what does it mean?” PBS Newshour, Nov 4, 2021. Accessed Jan 12, 2023 @ https://www.pbs.org/newshour/education/so-much-buzz-but-what-is-critical-race-theory

[4] https://arktimes.com/columns/ernest-dumas/2022/08/25/a-point-of-no-return-an-end-to-income-tax-in-arkansas-would-be-permanent

[5] https://revisesociology.com/2018/11/09/is-religion-ideological/

What’s the Goal?

[Note: All images posted to this article are efforts to damage Democrats and/or progressives.]

Hardly a day goes by on my Facebook newsfeed that doesn’t include a bashing of Democrats. And this by those who consider themselves liberals or progressives. This is deeply troubling.

For one thing, what other party has a chance of stopping the Republican power play that has brought us Trump? Some of my friends who post these tirades against Democrats like to believe that the Greens, or the Democratic Socialists, or Libertarians are a viable alternative to Democrats. To that I say, what are you smoking?

No third party has won a presidential election since … uh, never –

The last third party candidate to win a state was George Wallace of the American Independent Party in 1968, while the last third party candidate to win more than 5.0% of the vote was Ross Perot, who ran as an independent and as the standard-bearer of the Reform Party in 1992 and 1996, respectively; the closest since was Gary Johnson in 2016, who gained 3.3% of the vote running as the Libertarian nominee. The most recent third party candidates to receive an electoral vote were Libertarian  Ron Paul and Yankton Sioux Nation independent Faith Spotted Eagle who received a vote each from faithless electors in 2016.[1]

You’ll note that among those names of third party ‘winners,’ not one of them has become president.

Not that this bit of logic holds any sway with rabid anti-Democratic Partiers who insist on calling themselves progressives.

Note the not-so-subtle bow tie signaling the likelihood this man is gay.

Oh, I get it. We’re tired of not getting the reforms we’ve championed for a generation. Corporations have become more empowered, not cut down to subhuman status where they belong. We need universal healthcare, an end to the drug war, and foreign policies that do not involve our military in 150 countries around the world. It’s a long list of disappointments for a generation of idealists.

Never mind the advancements Democrats have achieved in reproductive rights, gender rights, labor rights, healthcare, and minority rights, to name a few.

The visceral anger voiced against Democrats seems to stem from many sources. Sadly, one of the loudest voices in that anger is that of people who see themselves as progressives, perhaps most notably those who supported the failed campaign of Bernie Sanders. An entire industry of conspiracy theories has sprung up to explain why Bernie did not win the Democratic nomination rather than Hillary Clinton. The most popular of these theories is that she and her henchwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz somehow changed votes in key states in order to cheat Bernie out of the nomination.

There has never been a shred of evidence that anyone changed votes or didn’t count votes in the Democratic primary elections which ultimately gave Clinton the nomination. Intense scrutiny by multiple interested parties has concluded that no laws were broken. The “yeah, but” claims rise from the Ever Faithful Bernie Supporters who argue that Bernie didn’t get a fair shake, no matter whether laws were broken or not.

But there’s a larger context that is more important than what happened at the DNC and is getting lost in the back and forth over joint fundraising agreements and staffing power. The Democratic Party — which is a different and more complex entity than the Democratic National Committee, and which includes elected officials and funders and activists and interest groups who are not expected to be neutral in primaries — really did favor Hillary Clinton from early in the campaign, and really did shape the race in consequential ways. ..The irony is that Sanders was a prime beneficiary of this bias, not a victim of it. The losers were potential candidates like Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Warren, or Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper — and, thus, Democratic primary voters, who ended up with few choices in 2016… [2]

A similar conclusion by the Washington Post stated:

Clinton received 3.7 million more votes than Sanders did — and it is questionable that this was due solely to the timing of debates. For this reason, there is an important difference between the DNC’s preferring one of the presidential candidates and its rigging the nomination process.

In short, two things can be true simultaneously: The DNC tried to help Clinton’s campaign, but this did not have much impact on whether Clinton won the nomination.[3]

These details and scores of other similar conclusions carry no water for the Bernie faithful. Every possible conspiracy against Bernie is held aloft as his supporters do their best to undermine the Democratic Party. “Oligarchy” is the buzz word for this angry cohort–any wealth that supports Democrats is evil.

It’s not just that the DNC subjected itself to unfavorable opinion doing what other political parties have done since the beginning of time. It’s that key figures from Clinton on down have been singled out for hate campaigns, arguably incited in part by Russian propagandists who have seized on any and all means to eviscerate the progressive movement in the U. S.

This image and the article attached was posted on Facebook by a progressive friend of mine who apparently never questioned the source. The image has been altered to make Pelosi look evil. Not surprisingly, the origin of this post is the Free Beacon, an extremist rightwing group. http://freebeacon.com/politics/pelosi-trashes-inconsequential-democrats-new-leadership-following/

But why do otherwise intelligent liberal/progressive voters suddenly despise the Democratic Party?

It’s as if they don’t understand that the party is made up of local committees peopled by hard-working volunteers who elect local representatives to go to state conventions where decisions are made about the position of the party in that state. At the state level, delegates are elected to carry out the party’s wishes. These people then go to the national convention where they become active voters on the party’s platform and formalize the primary vote into an elected candidate.

So we’re pissed that the Democrats lost and want to blame anyone within range. That anger is directed not only to Clinton, but to party officials like Tom Perez and Democratic Congressional leaders.

Is it Bernie’s fault for taking advantage of his outsider status to undermine Clinton’s support?

Is it the DNC’s fault for allowing Bernie to run as a Democrat?

Is it Hillary’s fault for her pattern of support for big money interests and political maneuvering and being Bill’s wife and whatever you want to say about her work as Obama’s secretary of state?

Was Hillary a flawed candidate? Yes—she’s the perfect example of an empowered woman lacking the charisma that political figures must have.

Did unconscious gender bias impact her campaign? Of course it did. Women are supposed to be nurturing and submissive, not aggressive and powerful. Did this cognitive disconnect cause her to seem dishonest, i.e. not a ‘real’ woman?

Would Bernie have won the election if it weren’t for the bad acts of the DNC?

Personally, I think it’s highly unlikely. Even with the full support of the Democratic Party, Bernie would have suffered massive campaign assault for his embrace of socialism, even if it was/is ‘democratic socialism.’ It’s the word ‘socialism’ that makes this position vulnerable, not necessarily the policies it espouses. It’s too fine of a point to expect a majority of voters to understand the difference between communism, socialism, and democratic socialism.

Bernie’s continuing call for raising taxes wouldn’t have helped either. Whether his identity as a Jewish American would have been a factor remains unknown, but it is worthwhile to note that a Jew has yet to be elected to the presidency. Not to be forgotten, also, is his out-of-wedlock son and a honeymoon visit to the Soviet Union in 1988.

It’s easy to romanticize a curmudgeonly white-haired man who says all the things the left wants to hear. But it’s foolish to lose sight of the real question here. Losing sight is what put Trump in office.

Yes, the Democrats have done plenty to provoke progressive ire starting with the devastating 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago where the party’s powerbrokers allegedly encouraged Mayor Daly’s assault on protesters, undermined the candidacy of Eugene McCarthy, and defeated the anti-war effort. The result was the election of Richard Nixon.

Similar angry disenchantment with the Democratic Party came into play when Bill Clinton not only did nothing to advance progressive causes like marijuana legalization but also managed to get caught messing with an intern. Then there were Hillary’s actions as Obama’s secretary of state that caught her in the web of controversy in big money, corporate maneuvers, and foreign debacles like Benghazi. Evidently neither Clinton recognized the potential for their enemies to use such activities against them.

Which is another big complaint about the Democrats — we’re not mean enough, not vicious enough, in fighting the oligarchs/conservatives/fascists of our day.

But none of that compares to the harm caused by Republican administrations, a list that needs no repeating here.

Nothing would please our adversaries, foreign and domestic, more than to convince us not to support Democrats.

What matters is the outcome. With the help of hate toward Democrats, we now have Trump.

Two factors must rule the end game in any political contest: (1) Which is the more progressive choice and (2) Which more progressive choice has an actual chance of winning. Compromise, whether we like it or not, is the bedrock of politics.

The choice is simple–move forward toward a better future (progressive) or step backwards toward a mythical ideal past (conservative).

 

~~~

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_third_party_performances_in_United_States_presidential_elections

[2] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/14/16640082/donna-brazile-warren-bernie-sanders-democratic-primary-rigged

[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/11/04/no-the-dnc-didnt-rig-the-democratic-primary-for-hillary-clinton/?utm_term=.2a736b57ee42

NOW HEAR THIS!

 

With apologies to The Men’s Shouting Chorus, http://www.acappellanews.com/archive/003086.html

Once upon a time, people reserved loud outbursts for very special occasions.

HELP!

FIRE!

CHARGE!

In each case, the raised voice with its guttural message alerted anyone within earshot that an emergency required their immediate attention. Or in the case of warfare, now was the time to kill or be killed.

Polite company abhors a loud voice, such breech of manners considered the province only of drunkards, boors, or madmen. Like the boy crying wolf, making a loud noise with our voice serves us when normal communication fails, calls attention, and provokes a fight or flight response in those who hear it.

We respond to shouting both physically and emotionally as adrenalin dumps into our system. Our hands may form fists, our jaw clenches, our heart rate accelerates. Psychological studies have shown the negative impact of shouting:

Yelling activates structures in the limbic system that regulate “fight or flight” reactions. Repeated activation to these areas tells the brain that their environment is not safe, thus the interconnecting neurons in these areas must remain intact. …At work, overreacting creates a perceived unsafe environment and can also put others into constant fight or flight mode.[1]

Countless studies and publications warn against shouting at children, spouses, or employees. But why? Here’s an explanation.

The threat response is both mentally taxing and deadly to the productivity of a person — or of an organization. Because this response uses up oxygen and glucose from the blood, they are diverted from other parts of the brain, including the working memory function, which processes new information and ideas. This impairs analytic thinking, creative insight, and problem solving; in other words, just when people most need their sophisticated mental capabilities, the brain’s internal resources are taken away from them.[2]

Most of us realize that shouting is bad form. We also recognize that we don’t like to be the target of shouts. Then why do some of us tolerate shouting on a daily basis?

In the mid-1980s, a certain conservative radio announcer discovered that shouting on air provoked a rewarding response – people listened. Rush Limbaugh had been fired from previous radio jobs but finally found his niche after Congress repealed the Fairness Doctrine.

In 1984, Limbaugh returned to radio as a talk show host at KFBK in Sacramento… The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine—which had required that stations provide free air time for responses to any controversial opinions that were broadcast—by the FCC in 1987 meant stations could broadcast editorial commentary without having to present opposing views. … Rush Limbaugh was the first man to proclaim himself liberated from…liberal media domination.”[3]

It’s no surprise that the media had become, in some views, rife with so-called liberal viewpoints. Journalists are exposed to higher education before qualifying for a media job. Not only do journalists study literature, history, and political science which paint the broad picture of human suffering, but also upon being hired to a media job, journalists are immediately thrust onto the front lines of all the world’s social ills—crime, disease, prejudice, and injustice among them. Through these experiences, many journalists embrace a point of view that can be described as ‘liberal’ – by definition, “tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others” and “concerned with general cultural matters and broadening of the mind.”

Professional journalists and the media outlets where they work must adhere to professional standards.

Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist’s credibility.[4]

Not so with Rush Limbaugh, a college dropout. His admitted objective in radio is to sway people to a conservative point of view. People not only listened to his bombastic style but became agitated as if whatever was said in this shouting voice carried greater meaning, more importance, and undoubtedly revealed a threat heretofore unnoticed. His attention-grabbing delivery gained purchase among a vulnerable demographic.

The lesson quickly spread to other media, most notably to FOX News who came on air in 1996 with commentators who never miss an opportunity to shout. Few of these ‘announcers’ are professional journalists. As noted in a 2017 report in the Washington Post,

With the departure of credible centrist and conservative voices and professional journalists (e.g. Megyn Kelly, Greta Van Susteren, George Will, Major Garrett), the alternative-reality programming seen in the Fox evening and afternoon lineup and on “Fox & Friends” now overwhelms the rest of the operation.[5]

Neither Sean Hannity nor Glenn Beck, both popular FOX News commentators, completed college and are not journalists. Yet their audiences believe these men are delivering unbiased news.

The success of both outlets in hooking rapt viewers didn’t go without notice among other media.  Some CNN reporters stepped up to the plate and began shouting as well, in particular Wolf Blitzer who doesn’t seem capable of speaking normally. Thus the current political and social crisis was born.

The Rush Limbaughs of the world use shouting not to intimidate listeners as might a parent, spouse, or employer, but to signal alarm. LISTEN TO ME! I’VE GOT NEWS! Whatever the content of such commentary, it’s not simply information that we can take or leave or interpret in comparison to equal but opposing information. This is life or death information. Dangerous. The context screams EMERGENCY!

Not only are listeners held captive by the threat of such emergencies, they suffer physical and emotional damage that makes them vulnerable to manipulation.

Researchers have long known about the infectious nature of stress… Studies have shown that there is “crossover” stress from one spouse to the other, between coworkers, and “spill over” from the work domain to home. The stress contagion effect, as it’s known, spreads anxiety like a virus. Our mirror neurons help suck us into the emotional eruptions of others. …Emotions are highly contagious, as film directors and fear-mongering propagandists know, especially negative emotions.[6]

Held captive by unconscious physical and emotional response to shouting newscasters, listeners become victims of a kind of Stockholm syndrome, “strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other.”[7] An urgent need to hear what the shouters say takes over normal intellectual function. There’s an emergency and they’re telling us about it. We have to listen.

No one questions that regular shouting at a spouse is a form of domestic abuse, or that shouting repeatedly at children is a form of child abuse. So why do so many people not question the harmful impact of loud-mouthed media personalities?

What could be a more perfect explanation for the masses of people walking around seemingly without the ability to think rationally about matters of critical importance in our nation’s politics? While liberals may gravitate to quietly spoken news of the day uttered by a calm commentator on the PBS NewsHour, many conservatives seem to require regular doses of shouting. There’s probably a clear connection between being shouted at with its rush of body chemistry and the acceptance of a point of view that seems to solve the problem just described in those shouts.

What any reasoning adult should know is that shouting is a theatrical tactic used to capture the attention of listeners/viewers, a form of bullying meant to hold its beleaguered  audience. Sportscasters shout in order to build visceral excitement for whatever game they’re announcing. But why would we want the adrenaline rush of sports when we’re hearing news?

Isn’t ‘news’ at its most basic concept a source of information about important events around the world? About electing those who will steer our nation through challenging times? Do we really want to unquestionably accept a shouter’s point of view on such critical topics?

Limbaugh, FOX and other conservative shouters groom their audiences by occasionally lowering their voices, providing strokes to calm those just incited by the shouts. “Here, here,” the shouters say. “It’s not so bad. Here’s how to think about this.” And then the prescription is delivered, a calming pill of hate and prejudice, of unthinking narrow-mindedness convinced that any further information is not needed. The audience becomes like other sufferers of Stockholm syndrome, eager to defend their captors, afraid to turn away from the source of their agitation.

~~~

“Don’t raise your voice, improve your argument.” – Desmond Tutu

~~~

[1] https://mindfullifetoday.com/yelling-and-the-brain/

[2] http://www.businessinsider.com/stop-yelling-at-your-employees-its-making-them-stupid-2009-9

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh

[4] https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2009/10/27/30-reasons-why-fox-news-is-not-legit/156164

[5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/05/15/fox-news-undermines-a-free-independent-press/?utm_term=.90a81b4a1232

[6] https://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-robinson/dealing-with-stress_b_4097921.html

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

The Poverty of Conservatism

 

A continuing crisis plagues Arkansas. Like a snake eating its tail, poverty, addiction and mental illness, teen pregnancy, sexual violence against women, and low educational achievement perpetuate themselves as a result of entrenched conservative thinking. Costs for addressing these problems continue to skyrocket while the state’s earning power lingers near the bottom.

Where do we cut the snake?

Arkansas ranks 48th out of 50 states in terms of poverty. In 2015, 19.1% percent of the state’s households—one fifth—have incomes below the federal poverty line of $24,250 for a family of four.[1]  For 2016, the state’s population of 2,887,337 included 550,508 people living in poverty.[2]

In a direct correlation to the poverty rate, the state ranks 39 out of 50 states in how well students are educated.[3] The state slips further down the scale for persons 25 years of age when considering the following factors: Only 84.8% graduate high school. Only 21.1% obtain a bachelor’s degree, a ranking that puts Arkansas at 48th out of 50. And only 7.5% obtain graduate degrees, a rank of 49 out of 50.[4]

We hover near the bottom at 46 in terms of mental illness in a compilation of 15 factors including all ages, availability of treatment, and addiction rates.[5] Between 2010 and 2014, over one third of teens in need of mental health treatment did not receive it while over 53% of adults did not. Only 20% of Arkansas residents with drug dependence and 10% with alcohol dependence received treatment.[6]

The state consistently ranks in the top five for teen pregnancies with up to 80 births per 1000 occurring among teen girls ages 15 to 19. Of these, 60% are white, 27% are black, and 11% are Hispanic. Counties with the highest rates included Sevier, Nevada, Arkansas, St. Francis, Mississippi, Jackson, and Randolph.[7]

According to a 2014 report by the National Conference of State Legislatures:

Children born to teen parents are more likely to enter the child welfare or juvenile justice systems and to become teen parents themselves. Every year, thousands of young Arkansans enter one or both systems. Research shows that, nationwide, the children of teen mothers are twice as likely to be placed in foster care as their peers born to slightly older parents. Sons of teen mothers are 2.2 times more likely to be incarcerated than the sons of mothers aged 20 to 21.[8]

The crisis becomes most apparent in the number of Arkansas children in foster care. From March 2015 to March 2016, the total number of available and in-use beds in foster homes increased from 2,801 to 3,306, but the number of foster children also increased, from 4,178 to 4,791. A 2016 report states that substance abuse by caregivers accounts for over 50% of children in foster care.[9]

Despite such high rates of teen pregnancies, many Arkansas school districts do not provide any sex education. Many others offer abstinence-only education including a virginity pledge (14 districts[10]), a ridiculous non-starter since census records show that over 52% of Arkansas teens are sexually active. Only seven school districts provide comprehensive sex education addressing contraceptives, sexually transmitted infection, abortion, and sexual orientation.

The Centers for Disease Control report that 37.4% to 38.5% of women in Arkansas experience at least one event of sexual violence during their lifetimes. These experiences include rape, sexual coercion, and/or unwanted sexual contact.[11] Among sexually active teens, 18% of females report acts of violence (being hit, slammed into something, or injured with an object or weapon on purpose by someone they were dating) and 16% reported being raped.[12]

Are Arkansas citizens somehow genetically predisposed to suffer these conditions? Is it something in the water? Or might the answer be found in the conservative mindset of a majority of Arkansas citizens?

Arkansas ranks 5th in the number of churches per capita. Seventy percent of adults define themselves as ‘highly religious’ with 65% saying they pray daily and 77% saying they believe in God with absolute certainty.[13] The predominant religion practiced in Arkansas is Southern Baptist, a conservative Protestant sect which believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Predictably, any push for sex education and contraceptives in public schools provokes conservative outrage. By religious thinking, unwanted pregnancies serve as punishment for illicit sex. The burden borne by women in unwanted pregnancy, childbirth, and childcare is God’s retaliation for the sins of Eve. As stated in Southern Baptist doctrine, “A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband.”[14] Prevention either through birth control or abortion upends the natural order of things as ordained by God.

The prevailing idea of conservative parents is that talking about sex and especially advocating for birth control of any kind creates a permissive attitude wherein teens are more likely to have sex. Data clearly dispute this belief. But the refusal to accept widely accepted evidence about the effectiveness of sex ed fits perfectly with the greater mindset of religious conservatives: willful ignorance about any and all information that doesn’t square with religious teachings.

Under the belief that addiction or non-marital sexual activity are moral failings, many efforts to address non-marital sex, sexual abuse or substance abuse rely on faith-based programs. Yet as noted by a counselor with twenty years in faith-based addiction treatment, “Often times, Christian programs view the secular approach to recovery as counterproductive to their message and will often discredit and even disregard medical or empirical based advice to addiction recovery.”[15]

While embracing some aspects of modern science and the advances of civilization such as automobiles, cell phones, DVRs, and medical progress, conservatives refuse to acknowledge other key findings of our times. Early religions strictly regulated a woman’s sexual activity out of concern for proving paternity and reducing conflict between competing males, among other things.  None of that matters today. Genetic testing quickly solves questions of paternity. But religion has become so institutionalized its practitioners can’t back up far enough to consider its origins or usefulness.

There’s a blind adherence to the tradition of making babies as the primary goal in life.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that teen pregnancy leads to lack of education which in turn leads to poor employment opportunities, or that a state with a high rate of poorly educated adults won’t attract many employers. It also doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that poorly educated people with poor job opportunities are more likely to turn to drugs or alcohol or suffer other forms of mental illness. Inadequate nutrition also plays a role, another cause and result of mental illness and poverty.

Further, an embattled position in poverty with subpar education leads people directly to unreasoned fear of Other—xenophobia and racism.

We have to start with the head of the snake. If we hold any hope of interrupting this vicious cycle, our state and national educational standards must require sex education. Such requirements must be imposed even in private, religious, and home school settings.

The requirements can’t stop there. All children must be required to learn the basics of science, history, political science, and other fields that serve as major elements in critical thinking about the modern world. While the state cannot dictate whether someone embraces any particular religion, we can dictate that our children are adequately prepared to make an informed choice about what to believe.

We cannot allow reactionary religious beliefs and tribalism to undo what civilization has achieved thus far.

The hue and cry against such reforms in education will be loud and long. State and federal legislators will be hard pressed to maintain a firm stance in the face of entrenched dogmatic beliefs. It will take true leaders to enact reforms in a time when leadership seems missing from public life. That means we must elect educated progressives who will carry the weight. The future of our nation depends on it.

~~~

 

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_poverty_rate

[2] https://talkpoverty.org/state-year-report/arkansas-2016-report/

[3] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/education  The

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_educational_attainment

[5] http://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/issues/ranking-states

[6] https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/2015_Arkansas_BHBarometer.pdf

[7] “Say no to sex, most state districts teach,” Ginny Monk. Arkansas Democrat Gazette. Sunday September 24, 2017. Page 1.

[8] http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/teen-pregnancy-in-arkansas.aspx

[9] “Children in foster care in Arkansas reaches all-tine high.” Brian Fanney. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, August 22, 2016. Online access October 18, 2017

[10] “Say no to sex, most state districts teach”

[11] https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS-StateReportBook.pdf

[12] https://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/facts-and-stats/national-and-state-data-sheets/adolescent-reproductive-health/arkansas/index.html

[13] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/29/how-religious-is-your-state/?state=arkansas

[14] http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/basicbeliefs.asp

[15] http://www.addictioncampuses.com/resources/addiction-campuses-blog/3-reasons-christian-rehabs-dont-work-according-to-a-pastor/