The War on Drugs

In just a couple of decades the War on Drugs managed to make a mockery of nearly the entire Constitution.

The War on Drugs Was and Excuse to Wage a War on Civil Liberties
Harry Browne, the Libertarian Presidential candidate, says the War on Drugs is a total failure. "Government can't keep drugs out of the country," says Browne "It can't even keep drugs out of its own prisons. Democratic politicians like the War on Drugs just as it is -- because they love the power it gives the federal government. Republican politicians want to accelerate the War on Drugs -- by taking away more of your Constitutional liberties, by taking away more of your privacy, by turning America into more of a police state."

The War on Drugs wouldn’t be possible if the federal government obeyed the Tenth Amendment. We have seen the emergence of mandatory minimum sentences, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, the creation of drug courts, in lieu of anything acceptable under the Sixth Amendment, drug testing in schools, in disregard of the Fifth Amendment, and no-knock warrants and to increasingly lowered standards of probable cause for search and seizure, in open contempt of the Fourth Amendment. The War on Drugs has also been used to justify stronger laws against guns, in violation of the Second Amendment, and restrictions on commercial speech, in violation of the First Amendment.

During the Clinton years, the War on Drugs shredded much of what remained of the Bill of Rights. The biggest losers in the war on drugs were mothers, fathers, small-time dealers, medical-marijuana users and even children -- not the "drug kingpins".

Financially, police agencies involved in the forfeiture of property were winners. Following the passage of the 1984 Omnibus Crime Bill, police agencies were allowed to sell the assets they seized and keep the money. Tens of thousands of people had their property seized for the most trivial drug-law infractions. On the highways, police use "drug courier profiles" to stop and search motorists and confiscate their vehicles if any drugs are found. At airports, travelers' cash is seized when it tests positive for traces of cocaine.

In Maryland, Pamela Snow had her business and home confiscated when one of her kids received a United Parcel Service package that contained marijuana. Part of the official "justification" for the forfeiture was the Grateful Dead poster in her son's bedroom-supposed evidence that the house was a "narcotics-related" meeting place.
In Washington, DC, Marsha Simmons repeatedly called police to have them remove her crack-selling grandchildren from in front of her house-only to have the police respond by seizing her home because her grandchildren had sold crack on the property.
In Denver, Colorado, 13 SWAT team members stormed the upstairs apartment of Ismael Mena looking for drugs. After breaking open the front door, the SWAT team found the door to Mena's room latched, and kicked it in. Police say they found him armed with a .22 revolver, standing on his bed. Officers claim they screamed "Police!" and "Drop the gun!" repeatedly. Mena started to put the gun down, asking, "Policia?" But police say when they then moved to disarm him, he again raised the gun. Officers opened fire. Mena, a father of nine, was hit by eight bullets and killed instantly. No drugs were found. The next day, SWAT team officers learned they had raided the wrong residence-they should have gone next door.
In Pennsylvania, a 21-year-old man with no prior offenses, was shot to death in his house by a squad of masked police dressed in ninja-style uniforms. They didn't even knock before tossing a smoke grenade through a window, setting fire to the house. The unarmed John Hirko, suspected of dealing small amounts of marijuana and cocaine, was found face down on his stairway, shot in the back while fleeing the fire.

Commerce Clause

The widening interpretation of the Commerce Clause has made way for many laws which contradict the original intended meaning of the Constitution. With the Courts so-called doctrine of "New Federalism," defined by Gonzales v. Raich (2005), the Court upheld a Federal law regarding marijuana, finding that although the marijuana in question had been grown and consumed within a single state, and had never entered Interstate Commerce, Congress could nonetheless regulate a non-economic good, which is intrastate, if it does so as part of a complete scheme of legislation designed to regulate Interstate Commerce.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas stated in his dissent to Gonzales v. Raich (2005),

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything – and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

The so-called "War on Drugs" is not a war on drugs, but really a war on people who use drugs. It's really about who controls the flow of drugs and who profits from their use. It is really only an excuse for sustaining a military and cororate presence across the planet where governments and their crony corporations both control and profit from the manufacture, sale, and use of "controlled substances."