Tag: the war on (some) drugs

With Venezuela, Trump poised to make mistake of epic proportions

After another week of extra-judicial strikes on vessels in the Caribbean and Pacific, the U.S. is now reportedly preparing to hit military targets in Venezuela.

International condemnation of the strikes has been widespread. For example, Jean-Noël Barrot, French Minister of Foreign Affairs and Europe, accused the U.S. of ignoring international and maritime law in an interview on Thursday.

But the neoconservative lobby inside the Trump administration is unmoved.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the lead proponent of regime change in Venezuela, has pushed for these actions — allegedly as part of an effort to get tough on drug cartels, framing the Latin American nation through a “narco-terrorism” lens.

Washington’s “narco-terrorism” frame has pedigree; the DOJ indicted Maduro on narco-terrorism charges in 2020, but today’s drug threat picture looks different from that narrative.

Strategically, the label misaligns ends and means: it invites military solutions to problems that the DEA and Coast Guard still characterize primarily as law-enforcement interdiction.

It also simplifies a complex geopolitical picture, all the while increasing the risk of entangling the U.S. in an open-ended conflict in the Western Hemisphere.

The DEA’s 2024–2025 threat assessments identify fentanyl as the top U.S. drug danger, synthesized mainly in Mexico with precursors from China. Meanwhile, UNODC data show record coca cultivation and cocaine output centered in Colombia, with Venezuela functioning primarily as a transit route.

Yet, Washington’s “counternarcotics” rhetoric has already translated into military escalation, and with it come significant diplomatic, economic, and political risks.

Escalation might threaten U.S. energy interests, particularly Chevron’s limited license to import Venezuelan crude, a lifeline for U.S. Gulf Coast refineries that remain reliant on the country’s uniquely heavy oil.

Escalation could also bolster Maduro rather than undermine him. For a leader whose “anti-imperialist rhetoric” enhances domestic legitimacy, U.S. aggression is politically beneficial.

Caracas has already surged troops and naval deployments along key coastal routes and encouraged auxiliary mobilization, explicitly linking the moves to U.S. buildups in the Caribbean.

Keep reading

Report: Trump Weighs Options for Launching a War With Venezuela

The Trump administration has developed a series of options for launching attacks on Venezuela, The New York Times reported on Tuesday, as the US continues its military buildup in the region.

The report said that one option would involve bombing Venezuelan military facilities with the goal of collapsing military support for Maduro in hopes that it would get the Venezuelan leader to flee. But critics of the approach argue that it would likely have the opposite effect, rallying the military around its embattled leader.

The second option would be to send special operations forces, such as Navy SEALs or the Army’s Delta Force, into Venezuela to kill or capture Maduro. Such an operation would put the US troops involved in the attack at serious risk since Maduro has the support of his military and a civilian militia that the Venezuelan government says has millions of members.

The third option would involve sending a much larger force into Venezuela to capture airfields and some of Venezuela’s infrastructure and oil fields. The Washington Examiner has reported that US military planners believe the forces in the region are now sufficient to seize and hold key strategic facilities such as ports and airfields on Venezuelan territory.

The Times report said that President Trump is reluctant to back an operation that would put US troops at risk or come with the chance of failure, and for that reason, other plans are being developed that would involve naval drones and long-range weapons. A decision isn’t expected until the aircraft carrier USS Gerald Ford, which just left the Mediterranean, arrives near Venezuela.

If Trump orders an attack on Venezuela, it would almost certainly lead to a full-blown war or a quick decapitation of the government, which would likely plunge the country into chaos. The Times report cited Trump aides who said far more planning has gone into striking at the Maduro government than on what it would take to govern Venezuela should the operation succeed.

Trump aides said that the president has expressed reservations about attacking Venezuela and that he’s asking what the US could get out of it, with a focus on Venezuela’s vast oil resources. The push to launch a war in Venezuela is being led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who also serves as Trump’s national security advisor, and Stephen Miller, the president’s chief domestic policy advisor.

Keep reading

Alcohol Industry Groups Push Congress To Ban Intoxicating Hemp Products—At Least Until Federal Regulations Are Enacted

A coalition of major alcohol industry associations is throwing its weight behind a push to get Congress to ban intoxicating hemp products—at least on a temporary basis before the federal government creates a “robust regulatory framework” for the marketplace.

As lawmakers work to finalize appropriations legislation, they’ve felt pressure on both sides of the hemp debate, with some interests endorsing controversial proposals to outright prohibit intoxicating cannabinoids and others that have called for a comprehensive regulatory approach that could prevent significant economic fallout for the hemp industry.

A new letter from the American Distilled Spirits Alliance (ADSA), Beer Institute (BI), Distilled Spirits Council of the U.S. (DISCUS), Wine America and Wine Institute seems to promote a middle-ground solution—but one the begins with a ban on hemp THC products as championed by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD).

The letter, sent to congressional leaders on Tuesday, states that the alcohol associations are aligned with a group of 39 state and territory attorneys general who recently urged federal legislators to enact a ban on the hemp items.

“Our respective organizations produce virtually all the beer, distilled spirits, and wine available in every state and congressional district across the country, representing some of the world’s most valuable consumer brands,” the letter says.

“Unfortunately, the ambiguous language contained in the 2018 Farm Bill has been manipulated and exploited by certain actors, fueling the rapid growth of a largely unregulated market that is knowingly and willfully ignoring the [Food and Drug Administration, or FDA] position that the addition of intoxicating cannabinoids (like delta-8 THC and delta-9 THC) to food is illegal,” it says.

“The rhetoric surrounding this issue is unfortunate,” the coalition said, adding that “certain entities, including some within the beverage alcohol space, claim that any effort to rein in the sale of highly intoxicating hemp THC products is tantamount to ‘prohibition’ or a ‘ban’ that will adversely impact industrial hemp farmers or even products that contain non-intoxicating cannabidiol (CBD).”

Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America (WSWA), a key player in the space, is among those alcohol interests that have pushed back against the proposed prohibition. WSWA also added a company that makes THC-infused drinks to its membership roster for the first time in September.

Keep reading

The Administration Just Admitted War Powers Don’t Cover Trump’s Caribbean Murder Spree

“A top Justice Department lawyer,” the Washington Post reports, “has told lawmakers that the Trump administration can continue its lethal strikes against alleged drug traffickers in Latin America — and is not bound by a decades-old law requiring Congress to give approval for ongoing hostilities.”

That law is the War Powers Resolution, which requires the president to inform Congress within 48 hours of commencing military hostilities, and to cease those operations within 60 days unless Congress authorizes their continuation.

The first admitted US military strike on a boat in the Caribbean occurred on September 4; under the War Powers Resolution those strikes (which have killed dozens) would necessarily end on November 4 unless Congress says “sure, keep on going.”

But it’s more complicated than that, and not just because White House Office of Legal Counsel chief T. Elliot Gaiser claims the War Powers Resolution only applies when US troops are “in harm’s way,” and that the drone strikes  in question pose no such danger.

The big issue with the War Powers Resolution is that it’s unconstitutional. Not for the reason most administrations claim — that it limits an imagined presidential power to wage war at will and on whim — but in the other direction.

The US Constitution assigns the power to declare war exclusively to Congress. Not after the president has done whatever he wants for 60 days, but from the very beginning. Aside from immediate defense against direct attack, a president waging war prior to or outside of a congressional declaration is an impeachable “high crime.”

Some argue that the passage of time and advancement of technology imply a necessary expansion of presidential war powers: He must be able to act in the moment and not wait around on a dawdling Congress. It’s actually the other way around.

In 1941, it took 29 hours and 30 minutes from the first explosions at Pearl Harbor for Congress to declare war on Japan. That was before members of Congress could hop on planes to return to Washington — or, for that matter, boot up their laptops for Zoom meetings.

Since Congress has used remote and proxy technology before (during COVID), the infrastructure is already there for Congress to act quickly if its members believe a war is called for. Absent something on the level of a nuclear holocaust, the president could receive full war authority within single-digit hours.

But let’s take Gaiser at his word for a moment: If the drone strike campaign in the Caribbean isn’t war, what is it?

Keep reading

Report: US Preparing Mexico Mission Against Cartels That Would Include Troops and Drone Strikes

The Trump administration has begun developing detailed plans to send US troops and intelligence officers into Mexico to target cartels in operations that would include drone strikes, NBC News reported on Monday, citing current and former US officials.

The report said that US military personnel have already begun training for the potential mission, though a deployment is not imminent. Many of the troops would come from Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) and would operate under the authority of US intelligence agencies, with involvement from CIA officers.

Unlike the current US bombing campaign against alleged drug boats in the waters of Latin America, which the Trump administration is conducting without legal authority, the idea of the campaign in Mexico would be to keep it secret and not publicize attacks.

The NBC report said the administration wanted to operate in coordination with the Mexican government but was also considering conducting the campaign without Mexico’s approval, which would mark a significant violation of the country’s sovereignty. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has increased law enforcement cooperation with the US and has allowed the CIA to ramp up surveillance flights along the border, but she has repeatedly ruled out US military intervention in her country.

“The United States is not going to come to Mexico with the military,” Sheinbaum said in August. “We cooperate, we collaborate, but there is not going to be an invasion. That is ruled out, absolutely ruled out.”

The Mexican leader has also condemned US strikes on boats in the region, saying she “doesn’t agree” with the policy. The US recently bombed several alleged drug vessels in the Eastern Pacific, and in one case, the Mexican Navy had to rescue a survivor.

The Trump administration has not provided any evidence to back up its claims that the boats it has been targeting were carrying drugs and has admitted to Congress that it doesn’t know the identities of the people it has killed. Since the bombing campaign began on September 2, the US military has extra-judicially executed 64 people at sea.

The strikes on boats and the push toward regime change in Venezuela have come under increasing scrutiny from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress due to the lack of transparency and lack of legal authority.

Keep reading

Asian nation introduces lifetime smoking ban for Gen Z and beyond

The Republic of Maldives has banned smoking for individuals born on or after January 1, 2007, becoming the second country in the world after New Zealand to implement a generational prohibition on tobacco. 

According to Maldives Health Statistics, tobacco consumption and exposure to secondhand smoke are among the leading causes of illness and death nationwide. This prompted President Mohamed Muizzu to launch an anti-smoking campaign last year, banning vapes and e-cigarettes while doubling import duties and taxes on cigarettes.

The new ban, affecting Generation Z first, was ratified as an amendment to the Tobacco Control Act in May and came into force on Saturday. It also reportedly applies to visitors to the island nation known for its luxury tourism.

Anyone born after January 1, 2007 is now prohibited from purchasing, selling, or using tobacco products in the Maldives. The restriction covers all forms of tobacco, and retailers must verify buyers’ ages. 

Keep reading

US Bombs 16th Alleged Drug Boat in Latin America

The US has bombed another alleged drug-running boat in the waters of Latin America, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said on Saturday.

Hegseth said the vessel was targeted in the Caribbean and, as usual, he provided no evidence to back up his claims about what the boat was carrying. He said the bombing killed three “narco-terrorists,” a term the Trump administration is using to justify extra-judicial executions at sea for an alleged crime that doesn’t receive the death penalty in the US.

The attack brings the total number of boats the US has bombed since September 2 to 16, and the total number of people killed in the campaign to 64, according to numbers released by the Trump administration. Nine boats have been hit in the Caribbean, and seven were targeted in the Eastern Pacific.

While the Trump administration has claimed the boats that have been targeted were attempting to bring drugs to the US, a US official has told Drop Site News that many of the vessels that have been struck “do not even have the requisite gasoline or motor capacity to reach US waters.”

Trump officials have also framed the bombing campaign as a response to fentanyl-related deaths in the US, but the US official speaking to Drop Site also noted that little to no of the fentanyl in the US comes from Venezuela, where most of the boats targeted in the Caribbean have come from.

Keep reading

The Coming War with Venezuela

The Miami Herald reports that the president has decided to order attacks inside Venezuela:

The Trump Administration has made the decision to attack military installations inside Venezuela and the strikes could come at any moment, sources with knowledge of the situation told the Miami Herald, as the U.S. prepares to initiate the next stage of its campaign against the Soles drug cartel.

An attack on Venezuela is completely unjustified and illegal. The president has no authority to start a war with Venezuela. An American attack will be a flagrant violation of the U.N. Charter and international law. The U.S. will be committing criminal aggression against a neighbor on the dubious pretext of combating drug trafficking, but we all know the real goal is to attempt forcible regime change.

No one can be surprised by this news. We know that the administration has been preparing for an attack for months. There were already signs of a new illegal war on the horizon in August when the president ordered the military to use force against cartels. The subsequent military buildup in the Caribbean and the ensuing murder spree at sea confirmed that the U.S. was getting ready to strike. The deployment of the USS Gerald Ford to the region was further confirmation that they intended to escalate with attacks inside other countries.

The administration will probably restrict its intervention to a bombing campaign, but that is hardly good news. If the murder spree at sea is any indication of what to expect, attacks inside Venezuela will kill many civilians on purpose. Given Hegseth’s enthusiasm for “lethality” and war crimes, we should assume that the rules of engagement will be extremely loose. The coming war with Venezuela will likely get a lot of innocent Venezuelans killed.

The administration may hope that intervention will lead to a coup against Maduro, but that seems like a long shot. Venezuelan military leaders have had several opportunities to ditch Maduro before, and they have not done so. Maduro might try to ride out the bombing campaign. It is possible that he could even try turning the attack to his advantage if most Venezuelans respond to the attack on their country as people normally do by rallying behind their government.

Keep reading

Gov Healey’s Drug Lord Deputy Director

Democratic Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey’s deputy director, LaMar Cook, has been running a massive drug operation under her nose. Authorities seized eight kilograms of cocaine that were being delivered to a state government office building. The Massachusetts State Police seized multiple packages totaling 21 kilograms of cocaine.

Authorities arrested Cook during a traffic stop for a “controlled delivery operation” after intercepting the eight kilos of cocaine destined for the Springfield State Office Building. “As the Western Massachusetts Director for Governor Maura Healey, I serve as a key liaison between the state government and the western region of Massachusetts,” the LinkedIn bio for the suspected cocaine trafficker reads. “In this role, I effectively manage and coordinate government initiatives and policies in 4 counties.”

“The governor’s office has been made aware of the arrest of an employee, Lamar Cook. The conduct that occurred here is unacceptable and represents a major breach of the public trust,” Healey’s office said, as the governor has failed to comment on the incident at the time of this writing.

Cook was booked and received a $25,000 bond—a slap on the wrist. Trafficking 200 grams or more of cocaine results in a mandatory minimum sentence of 12 years, for the average person, with a maximum sentence of 20 years. The mandatory fine begins at $50,000 and extends to a maximum of $500,000.

The investigation is ongoing. It is absolutely abhorrent that such a blatant violation of public trust and human welfare would occur within the government. Cook obviously used his influence to expand his drug trafficking ring. Governor Healey will be under investigation to see if she knew or was involved in any form. At best, she wholly failed in her supervisory obligations.

Over 10,000 people overdosed on drugs in the state of Massachusetts from January 2020 to December 2023; cocaine was responsible for 46.1% of all overdoses. How can the current administration battle such a prevalent public health crisis when the drug lords are in neighboring offices?

Keep reading

The Trust We Lost: How the DEA Broke Medicine’s Moral Backbone

A Continuation of the Chronic Pain Series

Once upon a time, trust helped define medicine.

When reassurance from your doctor was a hand on your shoulder, not risk; when telling the truth about pain, medication, and the limits of endurance didn’t make you a suspect.

I hate typing this, but those days are gone, and in their place stands a system built on fear, suspicion, and the quiet collapse of compassion.

What you’ll be reading isn’t isolated cries from the dark; these stories are proof of what happens when bureaucracy replaces any judgment from the bedside and when the war on opioids becomes a war on the sick.

Fear Behind the Mask

Incognito, asking to remain anonymous for reasons far too common:

Isn’t that disgusting that we have to live in fear over this? Doctors are suspicious of patients, patients are suspicious of doctors, and pharmacists are suspicious of both. The people who don’t understand will throw “pharma shill” and “junkie” at us for speaking about this very real situation. I have been in this fight for about 10 years, and it keeps getting worse. I don’t know how long it’ll take, but more people need to speak up. 

Incognito’s story stretches back to a childhood illness and a body that betrayed her early, followed by a system that later betrayed her. Nothing major, just pneumonia at six weeks, rheumatic fever at 10, a herniated disc at 14, and years of sciatica after that. She did, through it all, what Americans have been taught to do: work hard, stay tough, and trust that the promise of medicine was solid.

After years of dismissals, she finally received an adhesive arachnoiditis diagnosis, finding herself in the care of one of the few specialists still willing to treat patients targeted by regulators. Even after being hounded for daring to practice compassion, she said, “God sent me an angel.”

The fear she held was vivid.

The addiction industry and the mass tort lawyers, with the help of some NGOs and others, have made torturing us their favorite gig. I was terrified of becoming addicted. I asked my husband to tell me if I showed signs… that never happened.

She did one thing wrong, something that hasn’t even been considered—not once—a crime of trust. That trust, once sacred between doctor and patient, was turned against her.

Keep reading