War on Drugs Continues Under Obama

The so-called "War on Drugs" is a failed Nixon-era campaign that continues the U.S. Government's focus on prohibition and control, rather than on education and letting people choose. In addition, it serves government a handy excuse for political, economic and military intervention around the globe.

The Obama administration does not use the term "War on Drugs". They say that it isn't a productive way to term it and, besides, it is very non-PC. The real truth is that they know the term is met with derision, not just by Americans, but the world over. Instead of a war, they speak of drug addiction as a disease. Obama promised change that would make a real difference by treating the drug problem as a health issue, but the only change under Obama's leadership has been an increase in the amount of wasted money spent on ineffective interdiction and law enforcement activities. The war continues.

After 41 years and over $1 trillion dollars spent wasted, even the U.S. "drug czar", Gil Kerlikowske admits failure. The unjust disparity in sentences for drug-related crimes, along with the highest incarceration rate in the world has accomplished nothing. Nothing but to actually increase the sophistication and level of violence of the international drug trade.

Everyone recognizes that the "War on Drugs" is a complete failure, but there is substantial political pressure to continue the high level of expenditures on law enforcement, border control and foreign involvements that make up the campaign. A lot of government agencies have grown fat on the monies thrown down this particular toilet, and they don't want to see that dry up. In my opinion, it's well past time to reign in these excesses.

First Amendment takes a Bipartisan Hit

The "reauthorization" (that should be read: massive broadening) of the Violence Against Women Act is a First Amendment nightmare. This bill actually criminalizes protected speech if anyone claims to be "distressed" by it.


The Senate has passed 68-31 a bill to renew the government's main domestic violence program. Fighting domestic violence? All good. And, of course, the bill contains plenty of juicy sound bites for politicians on both sides of the aisle to leverage, so ensuring bipartisan support.

But, as usual, the Devil is in the details. For example, Section 107 of H.R. 4271 strengthens the law to make it a criminal offense for anyone who "... engages in conduct that ... would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress ...". 

Since "substantial emotional distress" is a purely individual and subjective measure and one doesn't even have to be communicating to the distressed person to run afoul of the law, it opens up all kinds of First Amendment issues. Send a tweet or make a Facebook post criticizing a public official and they may just claim to be "caused substantial emotional distress".

Read the HR bill here: http://bit.ly/Kgi7H9

The Democracy Restoration Act

Like most federal mandates, the so-called "Democracy Restoration Act" will cause more problems than it solves.

The ACLU is promoting the passage of a bill called the Democracy Restoration Act (http://bit.ly/IpFgFQ). This bill mandates states to restore voting rights to released convicts for federal elections.

No one is suggesting that the goal of the bill is not worthy. Social reintegration is a key factor in reducing recidivism rates. Voting rights are obviously an important part of this reintegration into society. Permanent disenfranchisement of citizens who have paid their dues to society is another way in which the criminal justice system is failing in its responsibilities.

The issue is not the motive, but the means. Actually implementing this federal mandate will inflict yet higher costs, additional bureaucratic overhead and even more confusion to already stressed state polling systems. Since the bill can only mandate participation in federal elections, states will basically need to manage two versions of the ballots. The normal one and one for disenfranchised voters for which votes in state and local elections cannot be counted. Many states already have difficulties with the polling process and the accuracy of tallied ballots. Imagine the doubt and confusion under this new rule.

A better approach that both respects states' rights and works to address the injustice would be to work at the state level to eliminate permanent disenfranchisement entirely and streamline the process of restoring voting rights when a convict is released.

The ACLU should be lauded for their advocacy on this issue, but they are misguided in following their usual pattern of "pass another law."