Surprise: the drug war isn’t about drugs

Kevin Carson, senior fellow of the Center for a Stateless Society (

On the morning of 6 November, 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 criminalisation 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 legalising 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 criminalise stuff people want to buy: You create black markets with much higher prices, which organised 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 When prohibition was repealed, organised crime just shifted to fighting over other illegal markets.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 legalisation or decriminalisation 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 overthrow 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, militarised 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 ‘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.

Kevin Carson, senior fellow of the Center for a Stateless Society (

2 responses to “Surprise: the drug war isn’t about drugs”

  1. Tony B says:

    Good read, and I for the life of me can’t work out how and why the government can say oh yeah tobacco and alcohol is ok to be legal, but cannabis, lsd, MDMA, heroin (etc etc) are not OK and you cant use, buy them or sell them without fear of the law.

    Who are they to say what I can and can’t have and use myself. I personally don’t like alcohol or tobacco and dont wont to use them, but why am I not allowed to use cannabis?

    This how ‘drug war’ stinks. What a waste of money and putting people in prison for things that do not have to be illegal.

    Why do we keep on following the same failed approach? People are going to use drugs no matter what the penalties. Whilst it is illegal and so profitable there will always be god knows who making the drugs and putting god knows what in it and people buying it and being harmed, whereas if it was made in clean, pharmaceutical environments legally then it would be clean and create less harm to the users.

    What a joke the laws are.

  2. averagejoe says:

    U.S. Patent 6630507 needs to be in any legal law about pot, yet it isn’t which shows corruption in justice.
    One pot plant can grow pounds in one year, one person smoking 1/4 oz a week or 1 oz a month
    Consumes under one pound or the weight of one can of beer each year. The war on pot is about spending trillions of tax dollars against non violent tax paying pot smoking voters who really only want to grow one non toxic natural resource plant a year. Hell no we get, instead lets legally take all everyones rights away and induce fear and unstableness worldwide by embracing lies in our laws based entirely on greed for profit and fraud.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Become a supporter of The Echo

A note from the editorial team

Some of The Echo’s editorial team: journalists Paul Bibby and Aslan Shand, editor Hans Lovejoy, photographer Jeff Dawson and Mandy Nolan

The Echo has never underestimated the intelligence and passion of its readers. In a world of corporate banality and predictability, The Echo has worked hard for more than 30 years to help keep Byron and the north coast unique with quality local journalism and creative ideas. We think this area needs more voices, reasoned analysis and ideas than just those provided by News Corp, lifestyle mags, Facebook groups and corporate newsletters.

The Echo is one hundred per cent locally owned and one hundred per cent independent. As you have probably gathered from what is happening in the media industry, it is not cheap to produce a weekly newspaper and a daily online news service of any quality.

We have always relied entirely on advertising to fund our operations, but often loyal readers who value our local, independent journalism have asked how they could help ensure our survival.

Any support you can provide to The Echo will make an enormous difference. You can make a one-off contribution or a monthly one. With your help, we can continue to support a better informed local community and a healthier democracy for another 30 years.”

Echonetdaily is made possible by the support of all of our advertisers.