TexasCHLforum.com

The circumstances of this tragedy are of relatively minor importance compared to the broad societal issue at hand: we send cops with guns drawn in the dead of night to citizens' homes to confiscate contraband. Breonna Taylor, the Tuttles, and innumerable other people have been and will continue to be killed in these enforcement efforts. What is the good obtained as a society or secured for individuals that makes such a death toll worthwhile?

Are we trying to prevent addiction? Well, the War on Drugs failed at that: The people who want to do illegal drugs obtain and do them. The people who want to do drugs but are dissuaded by the laws against illegal drugs obtain legal drugs (fentanyl, Norco, benzodiazepines, oxycodone/contin, ethanol, and nicotine) and do those. The people who want to be addicted to a chemical are actively addicted to a chemical.

Are we trying to prevent the blight of drug houses? Well, the War on Drugs failed at that: drug houses and their societal blight are possible only because of the War on Drugs. Cocaine and heroin are cheap to grow, manufacture and transport. They are profitable only due to the massive risk premium which is the exclusive result of the War on Drugs. Cocaine would sell for no more than coffee without that risk premium. The line of cars outside of the local Starbuck's can be annoying, but it's not the same thing. You cannot sell enough coffee to make rent on your meth/coke/heroin den.

Are we trying to prevent the rise of criminal cartels whose violence and influence have overtaken many Central and South American countries and whose influence is spreading here? Well, the War on Drugs CAUSED that. Folger's doesn't have a crew of brutal enforcers who pay off politicians or kill the truck drivers from Maxwell House. Black Rifle Coffee roasts some excellent beans and they appear to LOVE firearms, but apart from horrifying Democrats with their M61 Vulcan-equipped Prius, don't hassle anyone. Meanwhile, the cartels in countries that have essentially banned firearms have near monopolies on violence and reign as a collection of warlords. They don't have some Dune-like monopoly on a valuable and exceptionally rare luxury item; they are willing to grow and smuggle a cheap agricultural product that we make expensive with a risk premium. Cocaine and heroin are not more addictive or difficult to produce than cigarettes, but they are FAR more expensive.

In the grand, multi-billion dollar drug economy, there is exactly one group of people who is irreplaceable. The Sinaloa cartel could vanish tomorrow and another would take its place. Colombia could eradicate coca production and another nation state would take up the mantle. Texas could close its entire border and the narco subs would pick up the slack. But if the DEA ,state and local law enforcement stopped locking up a (mostly minority) fraction of dealers, mules and users, then the price of drugs would plummet and the entire operation would end.

The only groups who benefit from the War on Drugs are the cartels, local law enforcement through highly questionable seizures and the prison-industrial complex. The stated benefits of the War on Drugs are, in fact, pathetic efforts to address the problems created BY the War on Drugs.

So in the moment were the cops shooting back, who was right, et c. is a much smaller issue than the fact that law enforcement is routinely tasked with acting as a massive price support for some of the most violent, ruthless and evil groups on the planet. There shouldn't have been any reason to care if those folks were making an extra $100 a month selling cocaine (which is a very generous estimate of their proceeds were the cops not adding the giant risk premium to drug sales).