Prompted by “2015 nearing the end”: http://www.drugwarrant.com/2015/12/2015-nearing-the-end
My comment there ‘ripples’ here…
“4. Black Lives Matter’s policing critique implicates the drug war.”
I watch the local and national/global mainstream news (ABC), and during that too-often torturous experience to tune in with mainstream media reporting (so I can write about it online usually to help combat their obscenely nationally destructive bias), I can say that all reports involving the Black Lives Matter’s protest never (or at least never prominently enough) mention the war on some drugs.
The mainstream media still essentially exercises extreme bias in supporting Certain Drug Prohibition, because they have an obvious (albeit journalistically unethically undisclosed) conflict of interest with our government (especially law enforcement).
That conflict arises from the refusal by the mainstream media to decouple tragic reporting from the people’s right to know.
That right isn’t always ‘dessert’ news (as always presented against the critical need for ‘vegetable’ news), but mainstream news outlets always go for way too much ‘sugar’, ‘salt’, and ‘fat’ to compete for advertising revenue (public safety be way too often damned).
Information about the tragedies consuming the overwhelming majority of news reporting don’t just fall off of trees and land in the newsroom.
Journalists need access (industry term) to the freshest information sources involving tragic events, and those sources are usually logically our government (the “greater” the tragedy, the higher up the government hierarchy a journalist must climb to secure that access).
We clearly have effectively state-run media in the land of the free press — all with minimal challenge against the mass devastatingly serious corruption favored by our governing oligarchy (obviously spanning the public and private sectors) and the manipulated masses (manipulated usually by the mainstream media).
The movement to end Certain Drug Prohibition strengthened, because the Internet allows us to powerfully communicate online to undermine that hideously corrupt system selfishly upholding the blatantly rogue oligarchy against public safety and constitutional wisdom.
Preventing the abuse of law itself was the entire point of our nation, but that point was instantly submerged by pre-American conservatism across the political spectrum to reject unalienable rights and constitutional limits of government power (to prevent law abuse) to instead allow the sadly traditional idea that allowing our oligarchy to judicially define risk (and therefore liberty, so inevitably infringing upon that key right) is somehow less risky (despite ample amounts of history and current events clearly demonstrating the contrary — e.g. police corruption).
That risk (i.e. blatantly illegal liberty) definition grows unabated, and the result (among many thousands of highly questionable regulations in terms of net-resulting tragedy, including unintended consequences) is mass rights infringement literally corroding our national integrity as national infighting complexly agitates in the sick competition to (perhaps selfishly) legally define risk.
Critically note that most obscene national tragedy never makes the mainstream news.
Factually speaking, regulation is a euphemism for prohibition. Each regulation includes a ban, and those bans fail for the same reason the prohibition mindset always ultimately fails — it’s outright abusive thuggery (too often reinforced by reason abuse) that costs way too much to implement and can never be guaranteed to significantly limit abuse (murderers still murder, regulators are too often bribed or incompetent, regulations are watered-down to pointlessness by the corrupt, regulations place crushing burdens on legit small businesses and innocent people, etc.)
Scientific constitutionalism to end wildly subjectively defined law (partially by eliminating vague judicial constructs — e.g. the Commerce Clause — the true judicial source of the evil that is Certain Drug Prohibition) is logically the only answer.
A scientific constitutionalist is one strictly applying the scientific method to form more precise and concise language constructs (increasing the number of — and leveraging the power of — certainties), so intrinsically improving education, law, and ultimately health with a fairness (so justice) that can only come from conclusive objectivity (not elitism).