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

Are State Courts More Protective of Transgender People than Federal Courts?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that state laws prohibiting trans women and girls from participating on female sports teams do not violate the Equal Protection Clause — the seventh Supreme Court ruling curbing the rights of trans people in just the past 14 months. Since May 2025, the Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to ban trans people from serving in the military, upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for trans minors, given anti-LGBTQ+ parents a veto over LGBTQ+-inclusive content in their children’s classrooms, endorsed Trump’s policy requiring trans people to list their sex assigned at birth on their passports, reinstated an injunction against policies barring schools from outing trans students to their parents against students’ wishes, and determined that Colorado’s ban on anti-LGBTQ+ conversion therapy must be subjected to strict scrutiny, a form of judicial review that almost no law survives.

However, there may be some cause for optimism. In an article published in The Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, I conducted a comprehensive survey of state court cases that impacted the rights and lives of trans people between 2022 and 2024. The survey showed state courts have an essential role to play in protecting trans people in an increasingly hostile political environment. Amongst some ominous signs for trans rights, there were important signals of hope in the survey.

Keep ReadingShow less
A gavel.

The rule of law, American democracy, constitutional rights, and judicial independence.

Getty Images, David Talukdar

In Texas, People Don’t Kill People, Guns Kill People

It has been said that a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Apparently, that’s not the case in very red Collin County, Texas, where a self-described recovering alcoholic fatally shot his daughter in the chest, only to be let off the hook by a sympathetic grand jury. As a retired justice of the New York State Supreme Court, the case intrigued me and I tried to understand why the prosecutor, upon failing to obtain an indictment, did not try again.

In January 2025, the victim and her boyfriend traveled from England to visit her father at his home in Collin County where the shooting occurred. Although evidence presented to a grand jury cannot be disclosed, it is reasonably assumed that the grand jury was provided with the statement made by the father to the police at the scene immediately following the shooting. In that statement, the father related how he had taken his daughter, at her request, to see his gun, and that when he brought her to his bedroom and removed the gun from a cabinet in which he kept it, “it went off.” He could not recall if his finger had been on the trigger.

Keep ReadingShow less
Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix

This month, the Supreme Court will rule on Trump v. Barbara, the case that could upend birthright citizenship as we have known it for over a century.

But the current debate over birthright citizenship overlooks the fact that legal citizenship — by birthright or naturalization — has never fully protected marginalized Americans. People of color, women, LGBTQ, and lower-income Americans have long been CINOs: Citizens in Name Only. Throughout our 250-year history, they have lacked full social citizenship - access to social/welfare entitlements, political citizenship – access to voting rights, and cultural citizenship – recognition as members of the American family. So, while a court ruling can determine who gets a U.S. birth certificate, it cannot guarantee societal inclusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
How State Courts Can Help Deflect the Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Multiracial Democracy

Black and white illustration of voters

State Court Report

How State Courts Can Help Deflect the Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Multiracial Democracy

With its April ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court delivered yet another blow to the Voting Rights Act, specifically Section 2, which governs race in redistricting. The decision was sad and utterly predictable, but still nothing short of astonishing. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court’s conservative supermajority, stealthily setting aside 40 years of legal precedent under Section 2 largely on the belief that racism is a thing of the past and extreme partisan gerrymandering is, in effect, a fundamental right of state lawmakers. Callais had a tortured path to the Court, a feature of the case that has undoubtedly been eclipsed by the lawless nature of the ruling itself, all of which reveals that the Supreme Court represents the gravest threat to multiracial democracy in the United States. (I argued as much in a law review article, predicting the outcome and analyzing the ways a Court gone rogue might get to that ruling.)

What’s more? In recent years, the Court has played fast and loose with a “principle” purportedly meant to limit chaos around elections, known as Purcell. But instead of limiting chaos, the Court’s Purcell jurisprudence will hasten and aggrandize the already-problematic impact of the Callais ruling. As the nation’s redistricting wars inevitably continue — in this election season, the 2028 presidential campaign, and even the next decade — state courts can help stave off democratic erosion by resisting the urge to invoke Purcell.

Keep ReadingShow less