The war on drugs worked - For the wrong people


The war on drugs has long been seen as a failure. The goal was to stop the rise of drugs by targeting potential users at a young age. While it had potential, they fumbled at every level, most embarrassingly the First Lady's catchphrase “just say no”, which criminally oversimplifies the problem, treating drug abuse as a simple moral failing.

But despite that, I believe the war on drugs worked… but not for whom you think. This is a story about a failing of government policy, corporate greed, and the middlemen of murder.

Failing of Government Policy

The war on drugs is unique for one main reason: it puts the responsibility on the users and, by extension, the blame. This would be like if the war on terror was targeted at trade centres that should say no to planes. Not only that, but their focus on cannabis, a drug we now know is not nearly as harmful as was claimed, was still placed on par with crack cocaine and carried with it the same prison sentence.

The war on drugs was extremely helpful for many: the government could shift responsibility and blame, the police could get more funding to wage war on drugs and target minorities by disproportionately arresting them for drug possession, and drug companies, who did not just fuel but create the opioid epidemic, were able to make millions while blaming those who made them rich for drug abuse… we will be focusing on those companies.

The war on drugs, which predominantly took place in the 70s and 80s (before drugs like OxyContin and fentanyl hit the market), focused almost entirely on illicit drugs that are made and sold by dealers, like crack cocaine, while the opioid crisis (with a practical monopoly on drugs) slowly boiled the frog going into the late 1990s, by which time the war on drugs had lost what little credibility it had. This allowed opioid companies (like Purdue Pharma owned by the Sacklers) to avoid being vilified while still allowing them to blame the users.

Corporate Greed

Opioids are painkillers, highly effective, highly addictive painkillers. They have their place as medicine, but the opioid crisis details an epidemic that is still going on to this day. It follows Purdue Pharma viciously pursuing profit through extreme over-prescription. This over-prescription was purposeful and targeted, as they pushed OxyContin through the drug approval process, gave kickbacks to doctors, and spread wilful misinformation like claiming that only 1% would become addicted. The Sackler family and Purdue were extremely active in promoting OxyContin, with one family member at one point asking to ride along with a lobbyist who was going to visit multiple doctors.

The Sacklers (owners of Purdue Pharma) have long dodged any blame by taking advantage of the Carter and Reagan rhetoric of the war on drugs by blaming those who took advantage of the prescription. This could be done because they could hide behind the legitimate uses of the drugs. These uses, while real, are limited, but Purdue Pharma (and doctors) would prescribe these drugs for anything that responded "ow ow ow" when pressed on. They could get people hooked for seemingly legitimate reasons while blaming the individual if they got hooked.

The Middlemen of Murder

There are many reasons to murder. Some do it by accident, some do it for revenge, and some do it for personal gain, as simply a means to an end.

What might people gain? Let's say I wanted money, lots of it, and I know whom to get it from, but I’ve never been one to get my hands dirty. Obviously, this is hypothetical and should not be taken literally. Luckily my friend Dave is a freelance assassin, has no such problems, and is friends with Elon Musk, my target.

Elon Musk should have just listened to D.A.R.E: Dave’s an Assassin Run Elon!

Elon Musk should have been better at defending himself; he should not have been friends with Dave. When Dave came at him with a knife, he should have just said no. But since he didn't, I got the money. This would never hold up in court.

Assassins are the middlemen of murder, the almost bureaucratic means to your end, the point of whom is to distance yourself from the sticky end and leave it to the professionals, all in pursuit of deniability. But never does anyone think throughout the transaction that I am not killing Elon Musk—the courts won't believe that, and I won't believe that. Things have changed. Purdue Pharma not only has your money, but they can claim and believe they have no blood on their hands.

Since 2018, over 640 thousand overdose deaths occurred in the US (NPR, Brain Mann, September 2024). That makes opioids the most deadly drug in practice.

I bring this up not to be petty or bitter towards the Sackler family (though I very much am), but to show the true dichotomy between those who got years in prison for cannabis possession at the height of the war on drugs. While they served their time, the Sackler family was planning; Purdue was planning. Purdue Pharma then took advantage of the very same lies that put those people in prison. And while people are still going to prison for drug use, the Sackler family is still roaming free, and Elon Musk still lives in fear. But instead of going to prison, Purdue settles cases with their immense wealth gained from addiction. This year (2025), Purdue agreed to a $7.4 billion settlement, forcing the Sackler family to step down and barring the company from selling opioids in the U.S. This is a win, but not enough. It's probably all we will get. Purdue was able to pay 7.4 billion to kill over 640 thousand without one person going to prison. This is the real lasting impact of the DARE programme—profit, murder, and victim-blaming. It's disgusting and so frustratingly predictable.

What to do from here? We need to resist drug miseducation, as this allows companies like Purdue to abuse myths to blame the individual for what was the company's fault and the company's responsibility. It allows them to spread lies like “1% will get addicted” (as they did with OxyContin). If you need help remembering this, then there's a helpful acronym: D.A.R.E: Drug Abuse Resistance Education

So stop vilifying drug users and follow the money because usually, at the end, you'll find a very, very rich man.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Cultural Marxism, Post-Cold War Propaganda (non-fiction article)

Image
Marxism is primarily a criticism of capitalism. Marxism has been used as a core building block of many far-left ideologies and economic systems, such as communism or anarchism. It describes an opinion that capitalism is inherently built on the exploitation of the proletariat (what we would now call the working class).   Cultural Marxism is a term used disparagingly by many on the far right towards those on the left, left-wing policies, or things that they feel are radical that they credit to the left. The term Cultural Marxism comes from the belief that the left is part of a conspiracy to overthrow the West and all the traditional values they claim come with it, emphasising Christian values in particular.    Did Karl Marx oppose Christianity? Yes, in his piece “Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right,” he critiques religion for its “illusory happiness of the people” and compares it to chains with imaginary flowers growing on them.   The USSR, probably the most well-k...
Read more

Political Division, Social Media, and Homer Simpson (non-fiction article)

Image
Political Division, Social Media, and Homer Simpson Why the Simpsons can't work in live action Social media is an entertainment product designed to showcase your personality, ideas, and emotions to the world. The thing about entertainment is that characters almost turn into caricatures of themselves, exaggerating their most interesting and prominent features to be larger than life because, well… that's the most fun to watch. Homer Simpson is famous for his round build and “DOH,” but is there much else there? In Episode 3, Season 1, Homer, after failing to provide for his family, writes a note, ties himself to a boulder, and makes the solemn walk to the bridge. I don't have to tell you his plan. This, thankfully, all ends with a bittersweet hug as the family intervenes. It is a beautifully meta-modern and nuanced episode. The Simpsons, once a critique and caricature of the American dream in the lower middle class and its desperation for more, is now a caricature of itself. I...
Read more

It’s the trans way or the highway (satire)

Image
This is a satire of the media's sensational nature victimisation and demonisation of vulnerable groups. Trigger warning for self-immolation, murder, suicide, transphobia and assault The following is a transcript from the latest broadcast of Sincerely Insincere , showing a conversation between longtime host Simon Kain and newcomer—but already accused of multiple counts of sexual assault—Simon Miller. Simon: Good evening, and welcome to Sincerely Insincere . I’m Simon Kain. Simon: And I’m Simon Miller. Simon: Imagine your son coming home from school and telling you that they’re actually no longer your son, but non-binary, and that you should no longer call them “Timmy,” their given Christian name, but “Crow.” Simon: Well, that’s exactly the world you’ll be living in if Quaker Oats, the parent company of Cap’n Crunch , gets its way. Simon: In another shameless attempt at indoctrination, Cap’n Crunch has rebranded their mascot as a gender-neutral, androgynous, non-binary thing. Simon:...
Read more