So I read a post by a popular blog, Iâll keep nameless today about the War on Drugs. They followed the logic that the word âwarâ is misused and that, in turn, meant there is no war on drugs. My aim is to counter that point, because I have good and fair reason to disagree. For one letâs start with the fact that the base of the argument is solely built on semantics, the âdictionary definitionâ. I mean its not like there arenât tons of prejudice white people in this country and on this website that use dictionary definition to justify saying black people are more âracistâ and using the dictionary definition to back their claims to excuse their own racism.
Moving on, warfare is more than just armed conflict. That is an over simplification of something that causes the loss of lives of millions at times, changes the worldâs geography, changes the way societies function. War, as an expert on the subject, Mao Zedong once said âPolitics is war without bloodshed and war is politics with bloodshedâ. To say such were just about arms, is almost as if to say a battle is lost with inferior ammunition or weaponry. The Vietcong defeated the U.S. in war because they knew we were focused on them being inferior in combat, while they saw we were vulnerable in the support of our citizens. Once that weakness was exploited the âWarâ was over. They won a war through politics, not armed combat.
Now letâs take a second to speak about what the war on drugs is based on. The war on drugs as was offered...was war on âpoor peopleâ, really its more like a war on people of color  and is commonly said âa war on black peopleâ. It started with the legacy Richard Nixon left and the laws set in place by Ronald Wilson  Reagan. For those who donât know Reagan needed to fund a war back in 1979, he created loans that he dealt out to specific people, leaving out many people of color, so that they could afford to live in the new housing projects. Those that got the short straw were forced to stay in the ghettos, where crack-cocaine was being pumped into the streets by the CIA.Â
During the 1980âs when the crack epidemic started, the Black Panther Party who had been champions for black people during that era, were disbanded. In place were many street gangs full of misguided youths who couldâve followed in their footsteps to a better tomorrow for their people. When crack hit the streets the 80âs became an era full of major competition between black people. Guns were easy to aquire. Now crime in places like South Central Los Angeles, Baltimore, New York and Chicago were getting worse. The main people paying were black men and women among other people of color.
War is not just about armed conflict, its psychological as well. People are now being led to feel hatred for their own people based on the condition the people living in those ghettos were left in. Black on black crime is constantly blamed as an excuse for police brutality. Not just that the war drugs was psychological, but many black people were being gunned down by police officers. Hell, to this very day, crime is not the same as it was in the 80's it was quite possibly worse back then but in the pursuit of war on drugs police have gunned down black men and even children in cold blood.Â
Ask the parents of seven year old Aiyana Jones, who was murdered = on a drug raid, if the War on drugs isnât armed warfare. Ask any member of any street gang or drug organization if theyâre armed and have ever been âat warâ with one another. When you stop arguing semantics and look at it for what it is. Itâs a war, and really that is a great understatement. Itâs genocide. For the ones they canât lock up for dealing drugs they want dead, and there are plenty of laws in place to ensure police officers and those with the power of white privilege get off scot-free. Innocent people murdered because black skin looks like a weapon.
In closing I understand the argument being made wasnât to challenge the idea that the legal system in the country is disparging to minorities, or that the war on drugs isnt a great injustice but it was implied in the statements made within that calling it war was exaggerating that maybe it wasnât even serious enough to call a war, that statement is false. It certainly is that serious and thinking it isnât part of what gets a lot of young men, women, and innocent children killed. Â