Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Killing Suspected Traffickers Won’t Win the War on Drugs

Opinion

Killing Suspected Traffickers Won’t Win the War on Drugs

Killing suspected drug traffickers without trial undermines due process, human rights, and democracy. The war on drugs cannot be won through extrajudicial force.

Getty Images, SimpleImages

Life can only be taken in defense of life. That principle is as old as civilization itself, and it remains the bedrock of justice today. To kill another human being is justifiable only in imminent self‑defense or to protect the lives of innocent people. Yet the United States has recently crossed a troubling line: authorizing lethal strikes against suspected drug traffickers in international waters. Dozens have been killed without trial, without legal counsel, and without certainty of guilt.

This is not justice. It is punishment without due process, death without defense or judicial review. It is, in plain terms, an extrajudicial killing. And it is appalling.


Killing people for transporting drugs to those who willingly buy them does not dismantle the networks that profit from addiction. It does not reduce demand. It does not heal communities. What it does is erode America’s moral authority and undermine the very values of fairness and dignity that our laws are meant to protect.

The Failure of Punitive Force

The “war on drugs” has long relied on punitive measures — arrests, incarceration, interdiction, and now lethal strikes. Yet decades of evidence show that these tactics fail to reduce supply or demand. Drug networks adapt, new traffickers emerge, and communities remain trapped in cycles of addiction and violence. What changes is the body count, not the underlying crisis.

By authorizing killings at sea, the United States risks normalizing extrajudicial force as a tool of policy. That precedent is dangerous. If one nation claims the right to kill suspects without trial in international waters, others may follow suit. The rule of law erodes, replaced by the rule of force and impunity.

Evidence From Abroad

There is another path. Portugal, by decriminalizing drug possession in 2001 and investing in treatment, saw overdose deaths and HIV infections plummet. Incarceration rates dropped, while voluntary treatment engagement rose.

Switzerland, by embracing harm‑reduction and heroin‑assisted therapy, reduced violence, stabilized communities, and improved health outcomes. These nations chose to value life over lethal force, dignity over deterrence.

Their success shows that evidence‑based policy can save lives while upholding human rights and democratic legitimacy.

A Call for Civic Integrity

The principle of civic integrity demands a different path. Laws should protect choice, not prescribe identity. Policies should safeguard life, not take it without cause. Respect for tradition and security can be encouraged through dialogue, education, and voluntary practice. But respect imposed by mandate — or enforced by missile — is not respect at all. It is coercion masquerading as respect. And coercion breeds division rather than unity.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and expression. These rights are not abstract ideals; they are practical safeguards against the misuse of power. When institutions dictate identity or authorize killings without trial, they undermine the very freedoms they are meant to protect. When they safeguard choice and dignity, they strengthen trust and legitimacy.

The Path Forward

The lesson is clear: the war on drugs cannot be won with missiles and gunfire. It can only be won by affirming the sanctity of life, by treating addiction as a health issue, and by dismantling the financial networks that exploit human suffering. America must choose whether it will be a nation that protects life or one that takes it without cause.

The Fulcrum exists to elevate voices committed to strengthening democracy. That work begins with restoring faith in our institutions, our commitments, and our word. Life is sacred. And if democracy is to endure, our policies must reflect that truth.


Bruce Lowe is a homeowner advocate and community leader in Lubbock, Texas. He writes about civic integrity, public health, and principled reform. His book, "Honesty and Integrity: The Pillars of a Meaningful Life", explores how ethical leadership can strengthen families, uplift communities, and create a better life for all.


Read More

Where Do Territorial Courts Fall in Our Constitutional Framework?

Black and white sketch of a courtroom in session.

illustration provided

Where Do Territorial Courts Fall in Our Constitutional Framework?

The Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook have understandably been read as cases about presidential control over executive officers. But they may have implications for a different and largely overlooked question lurking in a pending Supreme Court case: Who may exercise the judicial power of the United States in the territories?

This question made a cameo appearance in the Slaughter case. The majority noted in a footnote that “a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia” exercises “the judicial power of the District, just as territorial judges exercise the judicial power of their respective territories” — not the executive power. Therefore, the court went on, “the fact that Congress may prohibit the President from firing the District’s judges (who do not exercise his power) says nothing about whether Congress may prohibit the President from firing his subordinates (who do).”

Keep ReadingShow less
The Long Tradition of Lawyers Defending U.S. Democracy

women in a courtroom

Getty Images

The Long Tradition of Lawyers Defending U.S. Democracy

For centuries, lawyers have been leaders in establishing and protecting our democracy and its cornerstone, the rule of law. They have challenged tyrants, whether it be King George III in our nation’s founding or President Trump, a wannabe king, today.

Lawyers swear to do this in an oath, which is a condition of admission to the bar, to “support the Constitution of the United States.” This sworn duty continues a centuries-old tradition.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Trump Administration Is Losing Its Fight to Take Over Elections
Rawpixel/Getty

The Trump Administration Is Losing Its Fight to Take Over Elections

The Trump administration has expended significant resources trying to meddle in elections ahead of the midterms. This coordinated campaign includes attempts to limit who can vote, wrestle away states’ authority over elections, and undermine public confidence in election outcomes. So far, virtually everything the administration has tried has been blocked by courts, failed in Congress, or simply fizzled out.

Currently, the administration is 0–21 in its court cases seeking to amass state voter data. In dozens of states, election officials from both parties have refused to turn over their complete voter rolls, which contain confidential personal information, to the Justice Department. Federal courts from Arizona to Maine have thrown out the department’s lawsuits, ruling that the federal government lacks the power to force states to hand over this data on a mass scale.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Erosion of Judicial Integrity
a large white building with columns with United States Supreme Court Building in the background

The Erosion of Judicial Integrity

The partisanship of the Roberts Supreme Court Republicans violates the neutrality central to the rule of law's legitimacy. Moreover, the Founding Fathers, including James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton, viewed avaricious oligarchs and seditious demagogues as the two gravest threats to democracy. They would doubtlessly view the Roberts Republicans – with rulings institutionalizing oligarchic pay-to-play while embracing Trump’s authoritarianism - as another grave threat.

The Rule of Law Survived One Judicial Coup

Keep ReadingShow less