Tag: the war on (some) drugs

The Return of Drug War Imperialism

The Trump administration is escalating U.S. drug wars in Latin America as a cover for imperialism.

While the administration directs a military buildup in the Caribbean, killing people who it claims are drug smugglers, it is preparing to intervene in Latin American countries for the purpose of opening their markets to U.S. businesses. The administration’s priority is gaining access to Latin American resources, a main focus of its foreign policy, just as the highest-level officials have indicated.

“Increasingly, on geopolitical issue after geopolitical issue, it is access to raw material and industrial capacity that is at the core both of the decisions that we’re making and the areas that we’re prioritizing,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in June.

Drug War Imperialism

One of the major contributions of the United States to imperial history is drug war imperialism. Developed as part of the so-called “war on drugs,” which the Nixon administration began in the 1970s and the Reagan administration expanded in the 1980s, drug war imperialism has been one of the primary means by which the United States has intervened in Latin America.

During the late 1980s, the United States set the standard for drug war imperialism in Panama. After discrediting Manuel Noriega with drug charges, officials in Washington organized a military intervention to remove the Panamanian ruler from power.

Under the direction of the George H. W. Bush administration, the U.S. military invaded Panama, captured Noriega, and brought him to the United States, where he was tried, convicted, and imprisoned on drug charges. U.S. officials framed the operation as part of the war on drugs, but their primary concern was bringing to power a friendly government that acted on behalf of U.S. interests. U.S. officials valued Panama for its location and for the Panama Canal, a critical node for U.S. trade.

In the following decades, the United States exercised other forms of drug war imperialism in Latin America. In 2000, the administration of Bill Clinton implemented Plan Colombia, a program of U.S. military support for the Colombian government. U.S. officials framed Plan Colombia as a counter-narcotics program, but their objective was to empower the Colombian military in its war against leftist revolutionaries, especially the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

In 2007, the administration of George W. Bush pushed forward a similar program in Mexico. With the Mérida Initiative, the Bush administration empowered the Mexican government to intensify its war against drug cartels. U.S. officials saw the program as way to forge closer relations with the Mexican military and confront the country’s drug traffickers, who were making it difficult for U.S. businesses to operate in the country.

Multiple administrations faced strong criticisms over the programs, especially as drug-related violence increased in Colombia and Mexico. A Colombian truth commission estimated that 450,000 people were killed in Colombia from 1985 to 2018, with 80 percent of the deaths being civilians. There have been hundreds of thousands of drug-related deaths in Mexico, with the numbers still increasing by tens of thousands every year.

Although most U.S. officials insisted that criminal organizations in Latin America bore primary responsibility for drug-related violence, some began to question the U.S. approach. They wondered whether U.S.-backed drug wars were ignoring root causes of the drug problem, such as the U.S. demand for drugs.

“As Americans we should be ashamed of ourselves that we have done almost nothing to get our arms around drug demand,” Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly said in 2017. “And we point fingers at people to the south and tell them they need to do more about drug production and drug trafficking.”

In recent years, some critics have even cast the drug wars as a failure. Decades of U.S.-backed military operations, they have noted, have brought terrible violence to Latin America while failing to stop the flow of drugs to the United States.

“Drugs have kept flowing, and Americans and Latin Americans have kept dying,” Shannon O’Neil, who chaired a congressionally-mandated drug policy commission, told Congress in 2020. “Something is not working.”

Keep reading

Marijuana Industry Group Pushes Congress For Tax Relief—And To Apply The Fix Retroactively For Past Payments

A leading marijuana industry association has released a report calling on Congress to treat cannabis businesses like other lawful industries by allowing them to take federal tax deductions—and also to apply that policy retroactively to provide relief for past payments.

The report from the National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA) and a coalition of stakeholders states that “no industry understands the pain of taxes as acutely as the state-regulated cannabis industry which currently pays draconian tax rates as a result of the unforeseen consequences of” an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) code known as 280E.

That code precludes even state-licensed marijuana businesses from taking federal deductions for their expenses because cannabis remains a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

“This provision is a punitive poison pill that threatens every business in these state-regulated markets, but poses a particular threat to small businesses that have responded to the will of voters,” the report says. “Picture the medical dispensary serving veterans with an alternative to deadly opioids or providing comfort to cancer patients in your community: those businesses cannot survive without action to repeal §280E and, crucially, retroactive relief.”

NCIA says the costs of the IRS policy for the cannabis sector are “staggering,” with marijuana businesses paying an effective tax rate of more than 70 percent. That rate “is economically prohibitive, unsustainable, and counter-intuitive,” it says.

“In the cruelest of ironies, the failure to include retroactive relief for state-regulated cannabis businesses will fall primarily on two groups: small cannabis businesses located in early legalization states and equity-owned businesses provided state-licensing priority specifically because of injuries suffered as a result of cannabis prohibition.”

Notably, NCIA stressed that tax relief for the marijuana industry should be applied retroactively. Without that stipulation, the association said “taxes will continue to result in the closure and consolidation of many state-regulated small businesses.”

“Beyond having negative economic impacts, inaction will also harm public health by forcing consumers back to the untaxed, untested, and unregulated illicit market,” it said.

Keep reading

Lawmakers Debate Whether Marijuana Legalization Helps Or Hurts Organized Crime At Hearing On Chinese-Linked Illicit Grows

A GOP-led House committee held a hearing on Thursday focused on Chinese criminal organizations behind large-scale illicit marijuana grows, taking testimony from a group of law enforcement officials and a researcher who each attempted to link the issue to state-level legalization.

But one Democratic lawmaker took the opportunity to make the case for cannabis rescheduling and broader federal reform to mitigate the issue.

The House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, & Accountability hearing was titled “Invasion of the Homeland: How China is Using Illegal Marijuana to Build a Criminal Network Across America.”

While there was some talk among experts and lawmakers about differentiating state-sanctioned cannabis cultivation from the illicit market, the conversation largely skewed prohibitionist. Witnesses included a former Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent, top Oklahoma law enforcement official and a researcher with the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank.

The subcommittee chairman, Rep. Josh Brecheen (R-OK) said in his opening remarks that “we’ve enabled these foreign organizations with potential links to the [Chinese Community Party, or CCP] to build up a sophisticated network throughout the United States, which facilitates a wide range of other criminal activity and presents a national security threat.”

“This is a convergence of organized crime, human drug trafficking, public health risks—all operating at scale and sophistication crossing the state national lines beyond the normal capabilities of state and local law enforcement to combat,” he said. “These agencies need the help of federal law enforcement to unravel these criminal networks.”

Rep. Troy Carter (D-LA), however, spoke about the collateral consequences of prohibition, saying the “federal government’s decision to criminalize marijuana has been nothing short of disastrous for our communities, for our economy and for justice in America.”

“The failed war against cannabis has especially devastated Black and brown communities. Arrest and incarceration rates for marijuana offenses have been wildly disproportionate,” he said. “Today, with most Americans supporting legalization, it is past time that we acknowledge the truth: Marijuana prohibition has failed.”

“If we want to dismantle foreign criminal networks and protect American communities, then we need to strengthen, not weaken, regulated markets,” Carter said.

Keep reading

President Trump Rebukes Colombia Over Drug Trafficking Cooperation

The United States has placed Colombia on its list of countries that “fail to co-operate” in fighting drug trafficking — the first time since 1997 — blaming President Gustavo Petro’s government for record cocaine output, according to the Financial Times.

In a statement to Congress, Donald Trump said Colombia’s “coca cultivation and cocaine production have reached record highs” and that the government “failed to meet even its own vastly reduced coca eradication goals.” He argued Bogotá had undermined “years of mutually beneficial co-operation between our two countries against narco-terrorists.”

Colombia, the world’s top cocaine producer, had 253,000 hectares of coca under cultivation in 2023, yielding more than 2,600 tonnes, according to UN figures.

Petro, a former guerrilla who has floated legalising cocaine, denounced the US move: “Decades of our police, soldiers and civilians [dying] . . . in order to stop drugs reaching North American society,” he said, insisting “Everything we do really isn’t about the Colombian people — even if they get affected. It’s about stopping North American society from smearing its noses.”

The Financial Times writes that while criticising Petro’s approach, Trump praised Colombia’s security forces, who he said “continue to show skill and courage in confronting terrorist and criminal groups.” Washington also issued a waiver allowing continued programs that “advance US interests,” potentially preserving military co-operation.

The move reflects rising tensions. For years, Colombia was Washington’s closest anti-narcotics ally, receiving more than $10bn in US military aid under Plan Colombia (2000–2016). But Petro has shifted focus from eradication campaigns to intercepting drug shipments at sea, while violence and production have grown under his “Total Peace” policy.

Keep reading

FDA Warns Companies Against False and Misleading Drug Ads

Federal regulators sent dozens of letters to companies in September warning them that their advertisements for drugs are misleading and could lead to repercussions unless fixed.

The Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 16 released 65 letters it sent on Sept. 9 to companies, including Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk. President Donald Trump signed a memorandum that day directing officials to enforce existing rules surrounding direct-to-consumer advertising for drugs.

In letters to Eli Lilly, FDA officials said that advertisements for weight loss products, including one that originally appeared in a special held by Oprah Winfrey, did not present people with accurate information about possible side effects.

The ad that aired during the Oprah special “creates a misleading impression regarding the safety of Zepbound and Mounjaro, which are drugs with multiple serious, potentially life threatening risks,” officials with the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research said in one of the letters. They said that people who seek medical treatment for obesity or Type 2 diabetes “should receive truthful and non-misleading information.”

An Eli Lilly spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email: “FDA’s correspondence to Lilly addresses three interviews conducted by independent media outlets. These interviews were not advertisements, and Lilly had no editorial control over them.

“We remain committed to providing patients with accurate, reliable information that empowers them to make informed healthcare decisions in partnership with their physicians.”

Keep reading

Legalizing Medical Marijuana Is Linked To Reduced Use Of Tobacco And Amphetamines, New International Study Shows

There’s a “strong negative association” between tobacco use and legal medical marijuana sales, according to a new international study—indicating a “strong potential substitution effect” where people choose to use cannabis where it is allowed instead of smoking cigarettes.

The study, based on data from 20 countries, also found that amphetamine use is “negatively associated” with medical cannabis sales, “suggesting substitution dynamics.”

The researchers additionally concluded that a “well-regulated [medical cannabis, or MC] market can generate sustained economic benefits, emphasizing the need for comprehensive legal frameworks that address licensing, production standards, and access pathways,” adding that “removing barriers to access and enhancing consumer education will support the development of a responsible and sustainable market.”

The analysis also showed “a sustained growth trajectory” in medical cannabis sales after legalization, finding that the policy change is “associated with an average annual increase of 26.06 tons of MC sales in legalizing countries.” After excluding the U.S., which the researchers called “a major outlier in market size,” there was “a slightly lower average effect of 20.05,” which “still supports the persistent market expansion.”

The authors, based in Germany and Lebanon, cautioned that “given the ecological nature of the design, these results should be interpreted as population-level associations rather than individual-level causal effect.”

“Nonetheless, they highlight the potential economic relevance of cannabis legalization in expanding regulated markets and reshaping consumer behavior,” the paper says. “The study contributes to debates on legalization, public health, and economic policy by providing empirical evidence on the associations between legal reforms and market dynamics.”

The study comes amid new research indicating that marijuana use is linked to lower alcohol intake and diminished cravings in heavy drinkers, according to a new federally funded scientific paper.

Keep reading

Trump Admin Expands Targets Across Global Narco Networks 

President Trump’s “America First” strategy – also described as “Hemispheric Defense” and alignes with the century-long Monroe Doctrine of the early 1800s – has expanded through increased border security, elevated pressure on allies such as Canada and Mexico, punitive measures against adversaries including China, Venezuela, Colombia, and Afghanistan, and declaring fentanyl crisis as well as both a public health crisis and national security threat, while also expanding list of nations designated as major drug transit or illicit drug-producing countries. 

A White House statement to begin the week announced that the Trump administration invoked Section 706(1) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-228) to designate Afghanistan, The Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Burma, the People’s Republic of China (PRC), Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Jamaica, Laos, Mexico, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, and Venezuela as major drug transit or illicit drug-producing countries.

Trump’s new designation for the countries listed above provides the administration with additional leverage, including the ability to impose severe consequences on foreign assistance programs if those governments fail to meet counterdrug obligations.

In effect, the designation gives Trump another bold tool to bring into line countries it views as complicit in the global drug trade network with drugs that eventually end up on the streets of U.S. cities, which have fueled an overdose crisis killing more than 100,000 Americans annually.

Keep reading

Trump Has a Habit of Asserting Broad, Unreviewable Authority

In separate attacks this month, the U.S. military blew up two speedboats in the Caribbean Sea, killing 14 alleged drug smugglers. Although those men could have been intercepted and arrested, President Donald Trump said he decided summary execution was appropriate as a deterrent to drug trafficking.

To justify this unprecedented use of the U.S. military to kill criminal suspects, Trump invoked his “constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive” to protect “national security and foreign policy interests.” That assertion of sweeping presidential power fits an alarming pattern that is also apparent in Trump’s tariffs, his attempt to summarily deport suspected gang members as “alien enemies,” and his planned use of National Guard troops to fight crime in cities across the country.

Although Trump described the boat attacks as acts of “self-defense,” he did not claim the people whose deaths he ordered were engaged in literal attacks on the United States. His framing instead relied on the dubious proposition that drug smuggling is tantamount to violent aggression.

While that assumption is consistent with Trump’s often expressed desire to kill drug dealers, it is not consistent with the way drug laws are ordinarily enforced. In the absence of violent resistance, a police officer who decided to shoot a drug suspect dead rather than take him into custody would be guilty of murder.

That seems like an accurate description of the attacks that Trump ordered. Yet he maintains that his constitutional license to kill, which apparently extends to civilians he views as threats to U.S. “national security and foreign policy interests,” transforms murder into self-defense.

Trump has asserted similarly broad authority to impose stiff, ever-changing tariffs on goods imported from scores of countries. Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected that audacious power grab, saying it was inconsistent with the 1977 statute on which Trump relied.

The Federal Circuit said the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which does not mention import taxes at all and had never before been used to impose them, does not give the president “unlimited authority” to “revise the tariff schedule” approved by Congress. The appeals court added that “the Government’s understanding of the scope of authority granted by IEEPA would render it an unconstitutional delegation.”

Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) against alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua has also run into legal trouble. This month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit concluded that Trump had erroneously relied on a nonexistent “invasion or predatory incursion” to justify his use of that 1798 statute.

Trump argued that the courts had no business deciding whether he had complied with the law. “The president’s determination that the factual prerequisites of the AEA have been met is not subject to judicial review,” Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign told the 5th Circuit.

Trump took a similar position in the tariff case. As an opposing lawyer noted, it amounted to the claim that “the president can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants, so long as he declares an emergency.”

Keep reading

FDA targets Hims & Hers, posts more than 100 letters to drugmakers

The Trump administration is cracking down on pharmaceutical advertising and they are specifically targeting telehealth companies that promote unofficial versions of weight loss medications.

More than 100 letters were posted by the Food and Drug Administration to drugmakers and online prescribing companies. Hims & Hers built a multibillion-dollar business around weight loss interventions. The letters warned the companies, including Hims & Hers, to remove “false and misleading ” promotional statements and advertising from their website.

Your claims imply that your products are the same as an FDA-approved product when they are not,” states the warning letter, dated Sept. 9.

Hims said Tuesday that it “looks forward to engaging with the FDA.”

“Our website and our customer-facing materials note that compounded treatments are not approved or evaluated by the FDA,” the company said in a statement.

Keep reading

The Strange Case of Summary Execution of Eleven Suspects in Caribbean Waters

The U.S. government has been executing suspected terrorists without indictment, much less trial, since the dawning of the Drone Age, on November 3, 2002. On that day, the George W. Bush administration used a Predator drone to dispatch six alleged terrorist suspects in a car driving down a road in Yemen, far from any battlefield. This unprecedented act of extrajudicial execution was precipitated by the attacks on U.S. soil of September 11, 2001, which set the stage for a new, sanguinary, period of military history.

Officials such as John Brennan, Barack Obama’s CIA director, and former CEO (from 2005 to 2009) of a private military contracting firm, the Analysis Corporation, assumed the lethal authority to incinerate potentially dangerous human beings, including U.S. citizens such as Anwar al-Awlaki. Officials at the helm of what became a literal killing machine adamantly insisted on the necessity of deploying deadly force wherever they ordered missile strikes. The psychological climate in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, powerfully suppressed criticism, and the new techno-killers enjoyed the benefit of the doubt on the part of both the mainstream press and most of the populace. After years of launching missiles covertly, under a pretext of State Secrets privilege, the summary execution of suspects came eventually to be openly acknowledged by President Obama and widely accepted as completely normal, a standard operating procedure, whether carried out by the Pentagon or the CIA.

Even while thus terrorizing millions of innocent people, the perpetrators of the relentless targeted killing campaigns always characterized them as antiterrorism initiatives. As the nugatory, counterproductive “Global War on Terror” dragged on, fomenting anger among locals and creating more radical jihadists than it eliminated, the so-called battlefield expanded to include countries where war was never officially waged, as it had been by President George W. Bush in Afghanistan and Iraq. The inhabitants of Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Mali, and other parts of the Middle East and Africa were also regularly terrorized by the lethal drones flying above their heads, never knowing when or where the next missile would make contact with human beings on the ground.

Each successive president insisted that the AUMFs (Authorizations for Use of Military Force) granted by Congress to George W. Bush in 2001 and 2002 sufficed to make any suspected terrorist or associate identified by U.S. government authorities fair game for summary execution. Among the “authorities” enlisted to create kill lists were privately contracted analysts with financial incentives to locate persons suspected of terrorist acts, whether past or, preposterously, potentially in the future. Despite a long list of documented incidents involving the U.S. government’s annihilation of entirely innocent persons, and often their families as well, such as the case of Zemari Ahmadi in Kabul, Afghanistan, on August 29, 2021, so-called suspects continue to be “lit up” by missile strikes, provided only that whoever happens to be the commander in chief either agrees with the lethal determination or has delegated his war-making authority to those in his employ.

Many of the missiles have been launched by remote control, from unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs), a.k.a. remotely piloted aircraft (RPAs), to eliminate persons in places where no ground troops would ever have been sent in to kill the suspects, because, among other reasons, they were not acting as armed combatants at the time of their death. The targets were not provided with the opportunity to surrender (most were not armed anyway) and in fact met their demise at the hands of the drone warriors only because of the development of the technological capacity to kill by remote control. No officials in the executive branch of the federal government ever publicly debated whether rejecting the advances made in the Magna Carta, the presumption of innocence, the very concept of due process, and the post-World War II Universal Declaration of Human Rights was a good idea. Instead, We Kill Because We Can became the U.S. government’s guiding principle throughout the Global War on Terror, as it evidently continues to be today.

Keep reading