The War on Drugs is UnWinnable

The war on drugs has been an on going campaign of prohibition by the US with the help of domestic and foreign military forces to stop and reduce the illegal drug trade. This initiative includes a set of drug policies of the US to stop the import, manufacture, sale, and use of illegal drugs. President Dwight D. Eisenhower began the war on narcotic addiction at the local, national, and international level with the establishment of an Interdepartmental Committee on Narcotics on November 27, 1954, which was responsible for coordinating executive branch anti-drug efforts. The phrase "War on Drugs" first came into common use after President Richard Nixon used it at a press conference on June 17, 1971, during which he described illegal drugs as "public enemy number one in the United States."




There are those that believe there are ways to win the war without legalizing drugs. One of the ways is to send people convicted of drug use or possession to drug rehab instead of prison. That way, they would get help for their addiction and would pay for their stay there. After that, would be released from rehab once their doctor says they are ready for release. This way it could collapse the Narcotics Market, because Drug Dealers would have less customers to sell their dope to. Another way to is educate the youth, who are highly susceptible to buy and use drugs, about the harms of using drugs. American schools are a huge outlet for the sale of drugs. By educating them, there is hope that they will use and demand less drugs, which will in the long run hurt the drug trade. Ann Coulter in her book, "How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)" stated that "Prohibition resulted in startling reductions in alcohol consumption (over 50 percent)." Prohibition of alcohol was effective and it can do the same thing for drugs, and so drugs should not be legalized.



I firmly believe that the war can be won if drugs were legalized. The war on drugs has failed. The drugs keep getting trafficked into the US and more lives are being lost because of the high demand. Mexico, the epicenter of it all, is suffering great violence from this. Mexico's drug gangs are more powerful than the government itself.  According to the article "Briefing: The gang war that's ravaging Mexico", the drug cartels are getting a staggering income from the drug smuggling, from $8 billion to $23 Billion a year. The gangs can afford to buy powerful weapons and don't have a problem killing police, journalists, and politicians. The cartels are responsible for the deaths of more than 5000 lives in the past year alone. According to Norm Stamper, a former police chief of Seattle, “We’ve spent a trillion dollars prosecuting the war on drugs... What do we have to show for it? Drugs are more readily available, at lower prices and higher levels of potency. It’s a dismal failure.” What Norm Stamper said is true and that is why drugs should be legalized. With the legalization of drugs, the cartels will lose power because there is no one that is demanding drugs from them. These cartels have power based on that they are the only ones producing the drugs. If legalized, the US can have different companies produce them and regulate the sale of the drugs. This will create a lot more jobs and the US can tax the drugs, just like alcohol and tobacco, and that produces a source of revenue. The cartels would then lose all income, thus losing power, and finally bringing the war on drugs to an end.


 FACTS
* The drug cartels are getting a staggering income from the drug smuggling, from $8 billion to $23 Billion a year
* The cartels are responsible for the deaths of more than 5000 lives in the past year alone
* The phrase "War on Drugs" first came into common use after President Richard Nixon used it at a press conference on June 17, 1971, during which he described illegal drugs as "public enemy number one in the United States."

The War In Afghanistan Must Not Be Continued

The war in Afghanistan has been going on for 10 years now. It started on October 7, 2001 with the forces of the US, UK, AU, and the Northern Alliance launching "Operation Enduring Freedom." The major factor that brought about the invasion were the September 11 attacks on the US. The goals of the war were to dismantle Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, remove the Taliban from power, and to create a democratic state. As of now, the US continues to fight against the Taliban and the war has spread into tribal regions of Pakistan.

According to John McCain, we got this war in the bag. He stated in an interview that, "We know what it takes to succeed in Afghanistan: a resolute commitment to the principles of counterinsurgency, which turned Iraq around during the surge. I am confident that properly resourced counterinsurgency policy, adapted to the unique culture and geography of Afghanistan, can lead to success there. Our entire military chain of command supports this approach, as do our NATO allies, which they made clear at their recent defense ministerial meeting in Bratislava."  McCain also stated that "Success in Afghanistan will emerge, as it did in Iraq, when local leaders and citizens are more and more able to take responsibility for governing and securing their own sovereign country without substantial international assistance." That of course would happen with a counterinsurgency policy. The US did go ahead with the counterinsurgency policy and Obama sent in over 17,000 more troops.



Although McCain tries to prove something, the truth is that winning this war is really not that simple. Throughout  history Afghanistan has been known as the "Graveyard of Empires" for it has never successfully been dominated. What makes the US different from any super power in antiquity that tried to conquer Afghanistan in its specified time? Clearly nothing. The main advantage the Afghan's have is the terrain. Nobody knows the complicated type of earth more than the people in Afghanistan themselves. Any outsider will not be familiar with it and will be disadvantaged when trying to fight. In addition to this, the Taliban keeps growing because of the dysfunctional government in Afghanistan. Without a government in good standing, the Taliban can and will keep getting more soldiers without any problems because the government isn't doing anything about it. Simply put, even if the US wants the war to go on, the job is nowhere near over. In reference to a failed mission by the Navy SEAL Team 6, where 22 of the members were killed, Tom A. Peter from The Christian Science Monitor says that to Afghans the message in this tragedy is that "NATO-led forces have yet to reverse the Taliban's momentum." Also, the mere presence of the US is benefiting the Taliban. When the US wades into battles that kill Afghan civilians, or spends money propping up a corrupt government the people hate, it only strengthens the Islamist insurgents. It is more than obvious that this war needs to end. Obama himself has admitted that the US is not winning the war. In an interview with The New York Times Obama states, " Our troops are doing an extraordinary job in a very difficult situation... But you’ve seen conditions deteriorate over the last couple of years. The Taliban is bolder than it was. I think ... in the southern regions of the country, you’re seeing them attack in ways that we have not seen previously." Plain and simple, the US needs to stop wasting time before things get worse and end the war NOW.

* McCain's Words

FACTS
* The war started on October 7, 2001 with the forces of the US, UK, AU, and the Northern Alliance launching "Operation Enduring Freedom
* Obama sent in over 17,000 more troops in accordance to his counterinsurgency policy
* Obama admits the US isn't winning... "The Taliban is bolder than it was. I think ... in the southern regions of the country, you’re seeing them attack in ways that we have not seen previously."

Silly Corporations

The Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United vs Federal Electoral Commission that corporations were granted free speech as citizens. The Supreme Court ruled it  because of the First Amendment right of free speech, and that it recognized the corporation as a group of citizens that make one person. These corporations with millions of dollars can influence a candidate's campaign. That however, is not good because it brings an unfair advantage to the other candidates who do not have this support and will keep many citizens quiet in their choices for candidates.

Supporters of this indeed agree that corporations should be able to freely spend what ever they want on political campaigns. Mitt Romney said that " Corporations are people... everything corporations earn ultimately goes to the people... Human beings my friend". He would certainly agree so with his conservative point of view. With these corporations being to spend unlimited amounts of money, there is no end to what they can do. They want the representation and attention of the people when the candidate they supported won, definitely benefiting them. Of course, they support themselves under First amendment and agree that what they are doing is right.

In a poll done by the Washington Post, it revealed that 80% of Americans do not agree with the Supreme Court's decision. It is just not a good idea for corporations to do this. I believe that corporations should not have this right. This will only bring corruption and unfair practices among the campaigns. The argument that the political system is controlled by money seems to be more and more convincing. This decision makes it harder for the individual voices of this nation's people to be heard.


FACTS
*The Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United vs Federal Electoral Commission that corporations were granted free speech as citizens
* Mitt Romney stated that " Corporations are people... everything corporations earn ultimately goes to the people... Human beings my friend"
* A poll by the Washington Post revealed that 80% of Americans do not agree with the Supreme Court's decision.