Global government’s drug war

By Joel Miller

When most people think of banning drugs, their minds turn mainly to America’s war on dope. But beyond the U.S., drug-war pushers have long looked to global government as a way of squashing drugs. The unhappy side effect: an expansion of nosey, officious, international control over American states and other nations.

As Harry G. Levine points out in an article for the Fall 2002 Independent Review, the League of Nations’ founding document mentioned drug control as a major concern for globalists back in 1919. Ditto for the United Nations 29 years later. Beyond that, most every government on earth has established some sort of drug control, be it mellow (the Netherlands) or severe (the U.S.). As global government has grown, the efforts to link these laws into a web of international control have been like steroid shots for Leviathan.

“Drug prohibition has been part of what I think it is appropriate to call the 20th century’s ‘romance with the state,'” says Levine. It’s not hard to see why.

Drug prohibition grants the state increased military and police powers. It has allowed individual governments greater strength within their own borders over their populaces, and it has also beefed up the strength of other nations, such as the U.S., outside their borders in something akin to “pharmaceutical colonialism,” whereby they set policies for other nations because of a drug problem at home they continually fail to fix.

The danger here is what the founders would have considered a thousand times more perilous than King George’s meddling from across the pond. They recognized that the most effective, responsible and liberty-securing government was both small and local.

By refusing to deal with drugs on that level, however, drug warriors have produced a system roughly opposite of what the founders envisioned as good government: huge, far-off and as a result, ineffective, irresponsible and liberty-squashing.

Nations aplenty gather for U.N. confabs to come up with global drug strategies: Italy, the UK, Mexico, Russia, China – among many more. Together they meet with the U.S. and hash out anti-narcotics policy. China, remember, executes drug dealers. Russia beats drug users silly. Most if not all of the contributing nations are statist to the core and care little for American standards of political freedom.

Why the heavy international involvement? “In short, we are dealing with a global threat; a phenomenon of multinational criminality. And since it is a global problem, it demands a global response,” Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo explained at a 1998 meeting, and don’t you just trust him?

Zedillo said a primary concern should be demand reduction. Leaving interdiction aside (mainly, stopping drugs from coming across the borders), demand reduction deals with education and treatment efforts within a nation’s boundaries. So what we have here is international policy-making that affects you and your children in your living room. That means you have no control over it. No say. No voice.

For a bunch of pols who yammer incessantly about the importance of democracy in the world, globalists consistently kick the concept of political representation in the privies with this kind of meddling.

Instead of a locally elected councilman, state assemblyman or congressman, you get nudniks like French President Jacques Chirac and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. The prospects are scary, the day-to-day reality already so.

Said Chirac in 1998, in a pretty believable impersonation of Gen. Patton:

    The spread of this scourge is alarming. An awakening to this fact is vital. An all-out offensive must be waged. International action is making strides, but the curse has progressed even faster. … The time has come, in the face of this worldwide menace, to demonstrate our countries’ determination. In every corner of the globe, it must be realized that the United Nations is battle-ready to fight against drugs.

A battle-ready U.N. with guys like Chirac, Annan and China’s Dung Dynasty at the helm does not bode well for liberty. In fact, it’s downright scandalous that the U.S. – supposedly a beacon of liberty – would have anything to do with making policy with these clowns.

But chum up to them we do and pose for photo-ops afterward with big, stupid grins. And all the international anti-drug treaties signed, mind you, take precedence over the U.S. Constitution – which means that these liberty loathers are making law for all Americans in the name of stopping what some Americans want to stick in their bodies.

Drug use around the globe shows no sign of letting-up. Nor should we expect it to, really; psychoactives have been used by mankind since Noah imbibed in his tent. But what we can expect and should demand is flexible policy that is closer to the people governed by it – policy that helps promote freedom, not squash it.

That means, drug policy cannot be made at the international level, not even the national level. It has to be made state by state, neighborhood by neighborhood.


American Christians are often told booze is bad – but is it? “God Gave Wine” by Kenneth Gentry argues from Scripture that alcohol is a blessing from God and should be enjoyed. Get your copy today at