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

A person putting on an "I Voted" sticker.

The Supreme Court’s review of Louisiana v. Callais could narrow Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and limit challenges to racially discriminatory voting maps.

Getty Images, kali9

Louisiana v. Callais: The Supreme Court’s Next Test for Voting Rights

Background and Legal Landscape

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the most powerful tools for combatting racial discrimination in voting. It prohibits any voting law, district map, or electoral process that results in a denial of the right to vote based on race. Crucially, Section 2 allows for private citizens and civil rights groups to challenge discriminatory electoral systems, a protection that has ensured fairer representation for communities of color. However, the Supreme Court is now considering whether to narrow Section 2’s reach in a high profile court case, Louisiana v. Callais. The case focuses on whether Louisiana’s congressional map—which only contains one majority Black district despite Black residents making up almost one-third of the population—violates Section 2 by diluting Black voting power. The Court’s decision to hear the case marks the latest chapter in the recent trend of judicial decisions around the scope and applications of the Voting Rights Act.

Keep Reading Show less
Beyond the Protests: How To Support Immigrant Communities Amidst ICE Raids

A small flower wall, with information and signs, sits on the left side of the specified “free speech zone,” or the grassy area outside the Broadview ICE Detention Center, where law enforcement has allowed protestors to gather. The biggest sign, surrounded by flowers, says “THE PEOPLE UNITED WILL NEVER BE DEFEATED.”

Credit: Britton Struthers-Lugo, Oct. 30, 2025

Beyond the Protests: How To Support Immigrant Communities Amidst ICE Raids

The ongoing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids have created widespread panic and confusion across Chicago. Many of the city’s immigrant communities are hurting, and if you’ve found yourself asking “how can I help?”, you’re far from the only one.

“Every single one [U.S. resident] has constitutional rights regardless of their immigration status. And the community needs to know that. And when we allow those rights to be taken away from some, we risk that they're going to take all those rights from everyone. So we all need to feel compelled and concerned when we see that these rights are being stripped away from, right now, a group of people, because it will be just a matter of time for one of us to be the next target,” said Enrique Espinoza, an immigrant attorney at Chicago Kent College of Law.

Keep Reading Show less
An abstract grid wall of shipping containers, unevenly arranged with some jutting out, all decorated in the colors and patterns of the USA flag. A prominent percentage sign overlays the grid.

The Supreme Court weighs Trump’s IEEPA tariffs, probing executive authority, rising consumer costs, manufacturing strain, and the future of U.S. trade governance.

Getty Images, J Studios

Tariffs on Trial: The Supreme Court’s Hidden Battle for Balance

On November 5, 2025, the Supreme Court convened what may be one of the most important trade cases of this generation. Justices across the ideological spectrum carefully probed whether a president may deploy sweeping import duties under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The outcome will resonate well beyond tariffs. It strikes at the heart of how America governs its commerce, regulates its markets, and wields power abroad.

President Trump’s argument rests on a dramatic claim: that persisting trade deficits, surging imports, and what he called a national security crisis tied to opioids and global supply chains justify tariffs of 10% to 50% on nearly all goods from most of the world. The statute invoked was intended for unusual and extraordinary threats—often adversarial regimes, economic warfare, or sanctions—not for broad-based economic measures against friend and foe alike. The justices registered deep doubts.

Keep Reading Show less
Voting Rights Are Back on Trial...Again

Vote here sign

Caitlin Wilson/AFP via Getty Images

Voting Rights Are Back on Trial...Again

Last month, one of the most consequential cases before the Supreme Court began. Six white Justices, two Black and one Latina took the bench for arguments in Louisiana v. Callais. Addressing a core principle of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: representation. The Court is asked to consider if prohibiting the creation of voting districts that intentionally dilute Black and Brown voting power in turn violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th and 15th Amendments.

For some, it may be difficult to believe that we’re revisiting this question in 2025. But in truth, the path to voting has been complex since the founding of this country; especially when you template race over the ballot box. America has grappled with the voting question since the end of the Civil War. Through amendments, Congress dropped the term “property” when describing millions of Black Americans now freed from their plantation; then later clarified that we were not only human beings but also Americans before realizing the right to vote could not be assumed in this country. Still, nearly a century would pass before President Lyndon B Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ensuring voting was accessible, free and fair.

Keep Reading Show less