Opposing racism is righteously pressing.
Opposing a (if not the) major leverage that powerfully serves racism (and distrust against the police btw), however, is sadly basically absent, at least within my fair experience.
The American civil rights movement ended in 1968.
Only a few years later in 1971, a war was formally declared by president Richard Nixon.
“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” – John Ehrlichman (counsel and Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under President Richard Nixon)
That still-existing (actually perpetual) war still factually disproportionately targets people with a dark skin tone.
That war is the sole reason for police militarization, because that war implicitly provides criminal gangs of all sizes a uniquely enormous profit margin that allows those criminals to wield military grade weaponry upon our public streets.
Defund the police, in any sensible way, cannot be about terminating the police force. We need the rule of law, and we need law enforcement to deal with threats against public safety, for as long as those threats exist.
Defund the police is actually about defunding thuggery within law enforcement to instead fund civility.
When we think of thuggery, we typically think of criminal gang members.
So when we think of opposing thuggery, we generally think of supporting law enforcement.
So even the idea of opposing thuggery within law enforcement can be awkward for some people.
Thugs oppose civility by their very nature.
They rule by fear, because they can never rule by respect — the latter being the form of rule in effect demanded by civility.
There are governmental (including judicial) thugs, economic thugs, religious thugs, and even academic thugs.
When dealing with the abuse of power, we are dealing with thuggery.
Obviously, thugs must be stopped, in order for racism (and injustice overall) to be stopped.
No justice, no peace.
Thugs naturally oppose peace.
No peace, no justice.
Thuggery must be exposed within law enforcement and elsewhere, and responsibly removed for civility.
The only group of people capable of defeating thuggery are those whom are responsibly tough.
Responsibly tough people, who generally operate within law enforcement and the military, genuinely care about civility. That is partially because civility is needed for technology to thrive, and that includes the technology that better equips people to improve their odds of coming home safely (not achieving that safety is a major concern in law enforcement and the military, of course).
Thugs are usually unintelligent, but they sometimes are relatively smart enough to disguise their thuggery as civilized, so they become harder to identify and remove from power (often deceptively justifying their power grab to “protect the children”).
The aforementioned war is the War on Drugs (in case that fails to go without saying), but in practice, it should be called the War for Thugs.
Alcohol Prohibition within the United States includes two federal constitutional amendments. One started that prohibition, and the other ended it for all of the same reasons that the War on Drugs should sensibly not even exist.
Alcohol is undeniably a drug, scientifically speaking.
Yet the War on Drugs does not have a similar federal constitutional amendment.
Because establishing a federal constitutional amendment is nearly impossible, and the public would sensibly never support a new drug prohibition after rightfully ending Alcohol Prohibition, thugs at the highest level of the judicial branch of our United States government several decades ago instead flagrantly broke the law.
Our judicial branch has no power to (re)define law. They only have the power to interpret it.
To avoid a federal constitutional amendment similar to the one needed for Alcohol Prohibition, those judicial thugs illegally redefined the Commerce Clause (i.e. “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”) to allow Congress to regulate any activity having a substantial effect on commerce.
The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to prevent state favoritism from negatively affecting national economic interests. It was never intended to allow our government (even with public support) to engage in mass rights infringement whenever possible.
They changed ‘regulate commerce’ to ‘regulate any activity having a substantial effect on commerce’, which according to the English language, is clearly a redefining of law, so not just an interpretation of it.
If holding a certain plant in your American hand has a substantial effect on commerce (which it clearly does, according to our governing public servants), then so too does anything else. Breathing undeniably has a substantial effect on commerce, so for the sake of consistency, which is obviously needed for fairness and therefore justice, Congress must have the authority to regulate breathing in the land of the free.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, in his dissent involving a medical cannabis case, rightfully effectively stated the same conclusion:
“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.”
That statement in the public record is at least arguably the worst accusation that a Supreme Court Justice can possibly level against our federal government, yet the mainstream media could not (and still cannot) find anything newsworthy about that fact, for some clearly unethical reason, even over a decade later.
So the clear fact is our judicial branch at the highest level severely broke the law several decades ago, and there still is no effective justice in reply to that revoltingly thuggish move.
As the illegal redefining of the Commerce Clause is well-entrenched today, the relevant legal ramifications are also well-entrenched and spreading like a late-stage cancer being horribly ignored.
That redefining apparently came from Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal (see the relevant Wikipedia entry for details).
Both major political parties play a powerfully corruptly strong role in launching and sustaining the War on (some unethically politicized) Drugs.
Certain drug “illegality” began well-before Nixon formally declared the War on Drugs.
Importantly note that illegally redefining the Commerce Clause also played a role in upholding civil rights, so any remedy opposing racism must include a fitting legal correction on that front to secure genuine justice.
Both major political parties firmly support that war, despite the fact that nobody can provide a single shred of concrete evidence that proves literally any public benefit from that war.
Meanwhile, there is an intimidating mountain of demonstrable costs that includes horrible and even deadly degrees of harm against countless non-rights-infringing (i.e. innocent) American lives — all solely because of what some people choose to put within their own bodies.
Brianna Taylor was brutally murdered during a no-knock drug raid, so she is horribly tragically among those innocent victims, without any reported connection to “illicit” drug intake.
Way too much harm from the War on Drugs is racially motivated, and that form of systemic racism cannot stop, until effectively a peace treaty is signed to end that heinous war that solely rewards thuggery.
No peace, no justice.
That peace treaty includes ending the demonstrably failed Controlled Substances Act, and ending our national obligation towards relevant international drug treaties, as those treaties require national constitutionality, which in our national case, does not truly exist.
Drug abuse is clearly a health (so not criminal) issue by any exercise of intelligent civility.
Thugs (i.e. prohibitionists) unethically interchange the words use and abuse to their demonizing convenience — exemplifying reason abuse, a form of abuse wielded often throughout humanity to selfishly manipulate viewpoints, and a form that is terribly destructive against our species, especially when reason abuse becomes powerfully entrenched as law abuse.
However, according to the whole truth and nothing but, drug abuse occurs in the overwhelming minority of drug intake instances.
Many, if not most, of the “illegal” drugs do not have any accompanying experimental grade science that confirms harm in casual use — at least not a level of harm beyond the standard wear-and-tear from all legal activities.
Drug abuse occurs in one of two forms; dependency, and any otherwise misfitting intake (e.g. incorrect dosage).
The latter form can relatively easily be addressed via effective education — an area where society must be strong anyway, and sensibly a part of funding civility.
According to the United States National Institute on Drug Abuse (a prohibitionist organization), the dependency rate for heroin is 23%, while tobacco is rated 32%, alcohol is 15%, and cannabis is 9%.
Due to the aforementioned unethical interchange between use and abuse, which in the following case is use and misuse, the following is a bit challenging to properly work through, but thankfully still feasible enough.
“In this report, opioid misuse includes the misuse of prescription pain relievers or the use of heroin.” – United States National Survey on Drug Use and Health (emphasis mine)
Since it is a use survey, I feel reasonably comfortable in assuming that the misuse of prescription pain relievers includes any use outside of a prescription written by a credible doctor, so not necessarily genuine examples of abuse/misuse. As it is explicitly a use survey, and the results basically paint the same point either way, I treat the results of that survey as being based upon use.
Moreover, as there is no experimental science that confirms any harm from casually using heroin one time, we will honor that scientific absence here and apply the separation between use and abuse (misuse).
Heroin use rates, according that quoted survey in years past, have been consistently around 1-2%. In conjunction with other opioids, that percentage rose to 3.7% of the total American population.
Only 23% (with apparently no reported reason to believe that any other opioid has a different dependency rate) of that merely 3.7% of the American people who use such opioids will become dependent (therefore abuse opioids), so the opioid crisis is essentially fictitious.
Basically merely 1% of the American population forms that thuggery-empowering “crisis”.
Considering what the drug called sugar (for solid example) is doing to the health of a large portion of our population (i.e. inflammation on a truly grand scale), the sugar crisis comes long before the opioid situation due to that massive reach, even despite the apparent inability to overdose on sugar. Yet there is no War on Sugar, including no stern mainstream media reporting about the dangers of abusive sugar intake (as opposed to casually styled and occasional reporting involving healthy eating by avoiding excessive sugar intake).
That is not to say that opioid dependency is not a terribly serious problem involving the relatively small group of people affected by it, as a part of the overall drug dependency that includes alcohol, caffeine, sugar, tobacco, and so on.
Drug dependency clearly needs to be properly addressed.
Note that sound reasoning equates addiction and dependency, at least for all intents and purposes here, despite the ongoing debate on this front.
I watched a well-worth watching TED Talk about addiction. The speaker therein mentioned two experiments involving rats and heroin.
The first one involved simply putting a rat in a bland box with a method for the rat to self-administer heroin. That rat then self-administered heroin until dying from an overdose — and the prohibitionist-empowering scaremongering ensued.
A later version of that experiment was also conducted. Instead of just cheaply putting the rat within a lousy box, researchers instead put that rat with other rats in a controlled-but-ideal environment for healthy rat living, along with that same heroin-intake method.
How many times did any of those rats tap into heroin?
Funding civility is about cultivating an ideal environment for humanity — the primary goal of any genuine leadership.
Society cannot do that, while funding thugs disguised as legitimate law enforcement (and so on) who leverage the War on Drugs to grossly empower themselves, while they put people in prison merely over what substance they prefer to put within their own bodies in the land of the free.
Importantly note that prisons are terribly overcrowded, as a result of that systemic thuggish imprisonment.
It us utterly corrupt to believe, within a nation obligated to uphold an unalienable right to liberty, that we cannot choose what substance to put within our own bodies — especially when there is no experimental grade (not, at best, weakly suggestive) science that proves any significant harm via that consumption, at least in certain cases.
People can celebrate alcohol all they want, but the evidence is clear. Alcohol is a terrible drug that has ruined countless lives, especially in poor communities. According to the aforementioned prohibitionist National Institute on Drug Abuse, alcohol has worse withdrawal symptoms than heroin.
There are “illegal” drugs, some of which are being used therapeutically, that provide a reasonably large and safe zone of responsible use. The psychedelic class of drugs are basically one such therapeutic grouping, and their “illegality”, while alcohol remains arbitrarily legal, is never anything shy of utterly outrageous and grossly hypocritical.
The arbitrary legality of a factually toxic substance can never be reconciled with an unalienable right to liberty, so that legality is blatantly un-American at a fundamental level. Where are the self-proclaimed American patriots in this regard, especially on the right side of the political aisle? Being “tough on crime” to “protect the children” (i.e. grossly empowering their thuggish constituents in the law enforcement, pharmaceutical, and lawful recreational drug industries).
Psychedelics can be responsibly used within poorer communities as a stress management tool to replace the hideously crude one in alcohol — allowing people to function healthily enough to actually address the horrible stressors involving poverty to rise up as a community away from that horror.
As basically already stated above, there are relatively powerful organizations who profit from the War for Thugs, and this is probably why Barrack Obama publicly stated that the War on Drugs is an “utter failure” during his presidential candidacy, but did nothing to end that war during his presidency.
Thuggery is terribly deeply entrenched in the land of the free to be whomever our governing thugs tell us we can be, and it will take nothing shy of a smartly powerful public to work against that brazen evil.
If the public does not firmly demand an end to the thuggish War on Drugs as a part of defunding the police, then ending systemic racism cannot happen.
As the mainstream media is metaphorically in bed with law enforcement, relying upon that governmental group for continuous journalistic access to “newsworthy” information regarding “significant” tragic events (a conflict of interest unethically never disclosed), they never sufficiently and fairly report the horrors from the War on Drugs that would undeniably generate the powerful public demand to immediately end that war.
The mainstream media journalistically unethically never includes the fact that big drug busts are not really big.
Our annual National Drug Threat Assessment, as authored by prohibitionists, continuously claims that only a tiny and temporary dent in “illegal” drug supply occurs.
That assessment is also effectively a written confession that states many billions of taxpayer dollars — i.e. roughly between 20 to 200 billion dollars annually, depending upon who you ask — yields no sufficiently corresponding public benefit.
Defund the police includes ending the demonstrably failed war on some drugs, and allocating those precious resources to wherever civility in effect demands to inclusively end racism.
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” – Martin Luther King Jr.
This post will repeat yearly with refinement as may be needed.
This post will repeat, until the most powerful leverage by thugs — law abuse — is properly resolved for civility, so we the people complete the original righteous goal of our revolutionary Founding Fathers who established our nation violently to oppose the abuse of law.
Sadly, our Founding Fathers put our nation at terrible risk, if not imminent danger, by hypocritically leveraging law abuse to condone inclusively racial persecution, instead of liberty and justice for all.
The military aspect of the American revolution ended over two centuries ago. However, the effort to genuinely secure an unalienable right to liberty — the critical legal cornerstone logically needed for any just rule-of-law — for all people continues.
Critically note that the only definition of liberty that makes sense (as it forms an absolute term, so forms a powerfully strong legal construct) is the condition of being free from restriction or control. Any alternative definition of liberty cannot truly be liberty.
The self-evident and unalienable right to liberty is an absolute social construct equal to harmless liberty.
Harmless liberty is needed for the flexibility required by the discipline of adaptation, which is the prime discipline required for survival and “thrival”.
Harm must be defined via experimental (e.g. not suggestive) science to lawfully oppose liberty, because otherwise, the people in power can negate the critical unalienable property of liberty simply by defining harm (and even risk) to their likely selfish preference.
I practice a think globally, act nationally focus here, but if the global public cannot achieve the healthy goal of ending thuggery of all types, then extinction sensibly draws closer, and that is in effect a war against us all — obviously including our children throughout posterity.