Surprise: The Drug War Isn’t About Drugs
On the morning of November 6 the US Federal Bureau of Investigation trumpeted its takedown of the Silk Road 2.0 website and the arrest of alleged operator Blake Benthall.
In so doing the FBI demonstrated, once again, that the War on Drugs has nothing to do with anything its propagandists claim it’s about. If drug criminalization is a public safety issue — about fighting violent crime and gangs, or preventing overdoses and poisoning — shutting down Silk Road is one of the dumbest things the feds can do. Silk Road was a secure, anonymous marketplace in which buyers and sellers could do business without the risk of violence associated with street trade. And the seller reputational system meant that drugs sold on Silk Road were far purer and safer than their street counterparts.
This is true of all the other selling points for the Drug War. Hillary Clinton, in possibly one of the stupidest remarks ever uttered by a human being, says legalizing narcotics is a bad idea “because there’s too much money in it” — referring, presumably, to the lucrative drug trade and the cartels fighting over it.
But there’s so much money in it, and the cartels fight to control it, only because it’s illegal. That’s what happens when you criminalize stuff people want to buy: You create black markets with much higher prices, which organized crime gangs fight to control. Alcohol prohibition created the gangster culture of the 1920s. It’s been with us ever since. When Prohibition was repealed, organized crime just shifted to fighting over other illegal markets. The more consensual, non-violent activities are made illegal, the larger the portion of the economy that’s turned into black markets for gangs to fight over.
In related news, the Mexican drug cartels are reportedly making less money since the legalization or decriminalization of pot in several American states. I wonder why.
Perhaps the biggest joke is that the War on Drugs is fought to reduce drug use. No doubt many people involved in the domestic enforcement side of the Drug War actually believe this, but the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand’s doing. The narcotics trade is an enormous source of money for the criminal gangs that control it, and guess what? The US intelligence community is one of the biggest criminal drug gangs in the world, and the global drug trade is a great way for it to raise money to do morally repugnant stuff it can’t get openly funded by Congress. It’s been twenty years since journalist Gary Webb revealed the Reagan cabinet’s collusion with drug cartels in marketing cocaine inside the United States, to raise money for the right-wing Contra death squads in Nicaragua — a revelation he was gaslighted and driven to suicide for by the US intelligence community and mainstream press.
Now we hear that the US is “losing the drug war in Afghanistan.” Well, obviously — it’s a war that’s designed to be lost. The Taliban were so easy to overthrown in the fall of 2001 because they really did try to stamp out opium poppy cultivation, and with a fair degree of success. This didn’t sit well with the Afghan populace, which traditionally makes a lot of money growing poppies. But the Northern Alliance — which the United States turned into the national government of Afghanistan — was quite friendly to poppy cultivation in its territory. When the Taliban was overthrown, poppy and heroin cultivation resumed normal levels. Putting the US in charge of a “war on drugs in Afghanistan” is like putting Al Capone in charge of alcohol prohibition.
Besides, actually “winning” the drug war would mean ending it. And who in US domestic law enforcement wants to cut off the source of billions in federal aid and military equipment, militarized SWAT teams and unprecedented surveillance and civil forfeiture powers? This is a war meant to go on forever, just like the so-called War on Terror.
The state always encourages moral panic and f “wars” on one thing or another in order to keep us afraid, so we’ll give it more power over our lives. Don’t believe its lies.
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.






Hey, great piece. Really demonstrated the hypocrisy of the drug war. Would you be interested in me cross-posting your article to my drug policy website: The Prohibition Post (www.TheProhibitionPost.com). Best, Avinash
Since we’ve cross-posted it, I don’t suppose Thomas Knapp will mind if you do.
I wonder what Kevin’s opinion of The Puritan Hypothesis is.
I don’t know. But Thomas is a regular here. If he’s listening in, he might care to comment on his own view of it.
In the middle of the normal Kevin Carson lies and distortions (about the Taliban and so on), a central TRUTH is hidden.
The Federal government of the United States has no Constitutional authority for its drug laws (which are sincere – sincere, but illegitimate) no Constitutional Amendment has been passed to give the Federal government the power to ban drugs (as the 18th, long since repealed, was passed to give the Federal government the power to ban booze), therefore it has no such power (or the Tenth Amendment is meaningless).
Also (the second half the central truth) the war-on-drugs has terrible consequences – for example in Latin America where it puts vast amounts of money in the hands of Communist (“Social Justice”) forces. And it also puts vast sums of money in the hands of criminal gangs in the United States – and some of the leading Hispanic gangs in the United States also have “Social Justice” links.
One does not have to be tender hearted liberal to oppose the war-on-drugs – for example the President of Guatemala does – an ex army general with many years experience in the brutal Civil War (hardly a limp wristed type).