\n

You mean you think Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was unprovoked?!!!

The Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea were some of the main reasons given by pro-war commentators starting in 2014 for arming Ukraine and further expanding NATO.   Russia violated Ukraine’s territorial integrity, they said, so it must be stopped.

But the invasion and March 18 annexation occurred in the aftermath of the February 2014 Maidan Revolution, which even the New York Times has called a U.S.-backed coup. Some commentators (e.g., John Pilger) call it a U.S.-led coup.

See Joe Lauria’s Evidence of US-Backed Coup in Kiev.

These facts  certainly call into question the ferocious response of the U.S., which, after all, invaded and occupied Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, and other countries — and instigated regime changes in dozens of countries — all in the name of supporting “democracy” and “freedom fighters.”

Crimea is ethnically and culturally tied to Russia, and citizens there want close ties with Russia. Far right militias such as Right Sector were violently supporting the revolution, and after the coup they became active near Russia. Indeed, the U.S. Senate and House later passed an amendment that explicitly banned funding Nazi groups in Ukraine, but the amendment was stripped and those militias were later incorporated into the Ukrainian army.   A similar amendment was signed into law in 2018; see Congress bans arms to Ukraine militia linked to neo-Nazis.  It’s not clear, however, to what extent that ban has been effective at keeping arms out of the hands of far right groups, especially given the lax oversight of military aid to Ukraine.

See here for dozens of articles in mainstream media documenting Nazi groups in Ukraine.

Prior to the 2014 coup, NATO had expanded aggressively into Eastern Europe, and there was talk of Ukraine joining NATO.  So it is not a surprise that Russia, knowing the history of U.S. regime change operations, would feel threatened by the prospect of an(other) armed, anti-Russian, U.S. client state along its borders.

After the coup, France and Germany helped negotiate the Minsk Agreements, which “sought to end the Donbas war fought between armed Russian separatist groups and Armed Forces of Ukraine, with Russian regular forces playing a central part.” (ibid). Russian-aligned provinces would be given limited independence in exchange for security guarantees. But the agreements were never implemented. Reuters reported recently:

In an interview published in Germany’s Zeit magazine on Wednesday, former German chancellor Angela Merkel said that the Minsk agreements had been an attempt to “give Ukraine time” to build up its defences.

In other words, the intention all along was to prepare for war.

As senior U.S. diplomats including George Kennan, Jack Matlock, and WIll Burns said, aggressive NATO expansion was unnecessary and destabilizing. Russia has legitimate security concerns (LA Times), and it’s no surprise they don’t want NATO expanding right up to its borders.

How would the U.S. react if Russia or China set up armed, anti-U.S. client states in Cuba or Mexico?  The U.S. doesn’t even allow vaguely socialist governments in South America.

The RAND Corporation study Overextending and Unbalancing Russia includes the paragraph:

Providing lethal aid to Ukraine would exploit Russia’s greatest point of external vulnerability. But any increase in U.S. military arms and advice to Ukraine would need to be carefully calibrated to increase the costs to Russia of sustaining its existing commitment without provoking a much wider conflict in which Russia, by reason of proximity, would have significant advantages.

The highlighted words indicate that the authors were quite aware that U.S. provocations would cause Russia to respond militarily.

Diplomats David H. Rundell and Michael Gfoeller wrote in Newsweek:

Some have presented this conflict as a morality play, between good and evil, but the reality is more complex. Ukraine is no flourishing democracy. It is an impoverished, corrupt, one-party state with extensive censorship, where opposition newspapers and political parties have been shut down. Before the war, far right Ukrainian nationalist groups like the Azov Brigade were soundly condemned by the U.S. Congress. Kiev’s determined campaign against the Russian language is analogous to the Canadian government trying to ban French in Quebec. Ukrainian shells have killed hundreds of civilians in the Donbas and there are emerging reports of Ukrainian war crimes. The truly moral course of action would be to end this war with negotiations rather than prolong the suffering of the Ukrainian people in a conflict they are unlikely to win without risking American lives.

You mean you REALLY believe the war in Ukraine was "unprovoked"?
You mean you REALLY believe the war in Ukraine was “unprovoked”?

Psst! Wanna buy a bridge?

Wanna buy a bridge?
Wanna buy a bridge?

For documentation of the claims see Playing Russian Roulette in Ukraine With Rep. Adam Smith, or the detailed How the U.S. provoked Russia in Ukraine: A Compendium.

When I share content that exposes U.S. culpability in the crisis in Ukraine, some people attack me, saying that I am parroting Putin’s propaganda, etc. It’s going to take a while before Americans realize they’ve been duped, just like they were duped about Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. To be clear, Putin’s invasion was criminal (as were the many U.S. wars and proxy wars after WWII). But that doesn’t at all imply that the U.S. is innocent in Ukraine.

My friend Rebekkah Alpisa wrote on facebook (and gave me permission to quote her):

Questioning Vietnam made you a pinko commie. Questioning Iraq made you a pinko commie anti-American. Questioning Afghanistan made you a pinko commie un-American traitor. Now questioning Ukraine makes you a Russian bot. It’s all propaganda for the masses.

I’m still shaking my head over the Vietnam boondoggle, the Korean boondoggle, the CIA’s terrorism in South America, the Bay of Pigs, the Iraq boondoggle, the Iran boondoggle, the Afghanistan boondoggle … the list is endless.

You mean you REALLY believe it when the government tells you the war in Ukraine was 'unprovoked'?

 

Calling the war in Ukraine “unprovoked” is as much a lie as ….

Calling the war in Ukraine “unprovoked” is as much a lie as saying Sadaam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was behind 9/11.

Calling the war in Ukraine “unprovoked” is as much a lie as General Westmoreland’s claims that the war in Vietnam was going well.

Calling the war in Ukraine “unprovoked” is as much a lie as public reports about progress during the war in Afghanistan.

Calling the war in Ukraine “unprovoked” is as much a lie as the F-35 fighter jet.

Calling the war in Ukraine “unprovoked” is as much a lie as …. [you fill in the blank].

As Noam Chomsky said, it’s “glaringly obvious” that the war in Ukraine was provoked, by aggressive NATO expansion and by meddling in Ukrainian politics. That meddling included aiding the 2014 revolution that overthrew Ukraine’s then pro-Russian government; see this New York Times opinion piece by Christopher Caldwall:  The War in Ukraine May Be Impossible to Stop. And the U.S. Deserves Much of the Blame.

Glaringly obvious to U.S. general
It’s glaringly obvious that the U.S. provoked the war in Ukraine

The Pentagon’s own think tank, The RAND Corporation, published a study in 2019 Overextending and Unbalancing Russia that recommended arming Ukraine and provoking a war. It explicitly warned “any increase in U.S. military arms and advice to Ukraine would need to be carefully calibrated to increase the costs to Russia of sustaining its existing commitment without provoking a much wider conflict in which Russia, by reason of proximity, would have significant advantages.”

Likewise, senior U.S. diplomats warned that NATO expansion would lead to war and that it was unnecessary.

Still, neither Chomsky nor I say that President Putin’s war was justified. On the contrary, it was criminal.  As Thomas Friedman says in the New York Times, This Is Putin’s War. But America and NATO Aren’t Innocent Bystanders.

U.S. demonization of Putin and its eagerness to escalate the conflict are immoral and dangerous, given U.S. provocations and its own history of unjustified and disastrous war-mongering in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, South America, and elsewhere.  Would the U.S. allow Russia or China to set up client states along U.S. borders? The U.S. has about military 800 bases in over 70 countries. Since just 9/11, U.S. wars have killed over 900,000 people and cost over $8 trillion, according to Brown University’s Costs of War project.

As David Swanson says, War is a Lie, and governments (almost) always lie about war.

I sense that parody might be more effective than self-righteous anger at changing minds.  Laugh at the war-mongers and those who believe the lies.  A five minute comedy sketch on late night television probably has one hundred times the direct influence than a dozen articles in Truthout, Common Dreams, and Popular Resistance.  (But those articles do plant seeds.)

It was Rep. Adam Smith (no relation), Chair of the House Armed Services Committee, who told me that the military-industrial complex is like a self-licking ice cream cone. He said that he was warned about the self-licking ice cream cone by an older colleague when he first became a member of the Committee.  But now Rep. Smith is generally pro-war: he strongly supports arming Ukraine and preparing to confront China on Taiwan.

Self-licking ice-cream cone: the military-industrial complex
Self-licking ice-cream cone: the military-industrial complex

Concise summary of the self-licking ice cream cone

The U.S. aggressively expanded NATO, knowing that Russia would respond by invading Ukraine. That’s what the Pentagon’s own think tank, The Rand Corporation, told it, and it’s what many senior U.S. diplomats warned about.

As even Thomas Friedman said, in the New York Times, the U.S. is not innocent in the Ukraine crisis. 

The military-industrial complex is a self-licking ice cream cone that creates and provokes its own enemies to justify its existence.

 

Self-licking ice-cream cone: the military-industrial complex
Self-licking ice-cream cone: the military-industrial complex

More AI-generated images about Donald Trump

As a follow-up to AI-generated images making fun of Donald Trump, here are some more images about Donald Trump, generated with help from the AI image-generation program http://midjourney.com.

Donald Trump giving birth to a demon:

Trump giving birth to a demon
Trump giving birth to a demon
Trump giving birth to a demon


Donald Trump in a high chair:
Trump in high chair

Trump in high chair

Trump in high chair


Donald Trump as Jabba the Hut:
Trump as Jabba the Hutt


Donald Trump in a diaper:

Trump in diaper


Donald Trump with long nose:
Trump with long nose


Donald Trump in jail:
Trump in jail


Donald Trump and Nancy Pelosi kissing:

Trump and Nancy Pelosi kissing


Donald Trump kissing Kim-Jong-Un:

Trump and Kim-Jong Un kissing


Donald Trump kissing Jair Bolsonaro:

Trump and Jair Bolsonaro kissing

Republican states have higher rates of teen births, gun deaths, suicides, poverty, crime, and divorce; and they die younger and are less educated

Using data from reliable public sources listed below, I plotted charts showing the relation between the percent of voters that voted for Donald Trump in 2020 in each state and various per capita rates:  gun deaths, poverty, teen births, suicide, crime, divorce, several sexually transmitted diseases, longevity, and education.

The results show that states that voted for Trump have (with one exception) higher rates for those indications of crime, social ill, and poor health.   Trump-voting states are particularly worse off for teen births, gun deaths, suicide, and divorce. They also have significantly lower rates of educational attainment and lower life expectancy.

Hint: In each scatter chart below, the X axis (horizontal) shows for each state the percent of voters who supported Donald Trump in 2020.  The Y axis (vertical) shows the crime, poverty, or other rate. Notice that for all but the final three charts, the scatter charts show a positive correlation: a line sloping up to the right; that indicates that the higher the support for Trump, the higher the rate of teen births, etc.

Three exceptions to the positive correlation rule are the final three charts, for syphilis, life expectancy (longevity) and education level. Trump supporters tend to have a slightly lower rate of syphilis (p = -0.1).  And in states that voted for Trump, people tend to die younger and be less educated, so the line slopes downward for those charts as well.

The Pearson correlations between Trump support and the measured value are:

Teen birth 0.7
Gun deaths 0.6
Suicides 0.6
Divorce 0.6
Poverty 0.4
Gonorrhea 0.3
Violent crime 0.3
Non-violent crime 0.2
Chlamydia 0.2
Crime (all types) 0.2
Syphilis -0.1
Life expectancy -0.6
Education level -0.7

A Pearson correlation of 1.0 would mean that the two values are perfectly linearly correlated. A correlation of 0.7 or -0.7 is strong.

Trump support versus Teen Births


Trump support versus Suicide rate


Trump support versus Gun Deaths rate


Trump support versus Divorce

Note: divorce data is unavailable for states CA, HI, IN, NM, and NM.


Trump support versus Poverty rate


The correlation between Trump support and crime is weaker:

Trump support versus Crime rate

I note that NM, CO, WA, and OR have high crime rates but tend Democratic.

It’s useful to show data separately for non-violent and violent crime.

Violent crime is low in NM, CO, WA, and OR:

Trump support versus violent crime

But non-violent crime (e.g., property crime) is high in NM, CO, WA, and OR:

Trump support versus non-violent crime

Note, too, that the absolute rate of violent crime is much lower than the rate of non-violent crime.


The correlation between Trump support and rates of sexually transmitted diseases is not strong but is still present:
Trump support versus Gonorrhea rate

Trump support versus Chlamydia rate

For syphilis, there’s a slight negative correlation (-0.1), meaning that Trump supporters are slightly less likely to get that diseases.

Trump support versus Syphillis rate

I notice that Wyoming and to a lesser extent West Virginia are outliers: on several measures they do well, despite their high rate of support for Donald Trump. But Wyoming has a very high suicide rate.


Life expectancy (longevity) is lower in states which voted for Trump, so the data points slope downwards to the right.

Trump support versus life expectancy

Likewise, people tend to be less educated in states that voted for Trump. This is one of the strongest (negative) correlations.

Most & Least Educated States in America (2022)

Sources

Cook Political Report’s 2020 National Popular Vote Tracker

World Population Review’s 2020 Crime Rates by State

CDC’s Firearm Mortality by State

CDC’s Teen Birth by State

CDC’s 2020 STD Surveillance Report

CDC’s Suicide Mortality by State

USDA’s Economic Research Service’s Poverty by State (2020)

CDC’s Divorce Rates by State: 2019 – 2020

CDC’s Life Expectancy at Birth by State

WalletHub’s Most & Least Educated States in America

 

Something liberals and conservatives can agree on

Liberals tend to dislike suburban sprawl and over-dependence on cars.

Conservatives tend to dislike regulations and lack of freedom.

Here’s a policy change that should satisfy both liberals’ desire for more walkable, self-sufficient neighborhoods and conservatives’ desire for more freedom.

The proposal  is to loosen zoning regulations so as to allow homeowners to open small mom-and-pop stores, eating spots, and production facilities in residential neighborhoods.  Such home businesses could be inside homes, in garages, or in  other attached structures.  We’ll refer to all such businesses as home stores (retail) or home businesses (including mail-order and wholesale). Another name for them is ACUs (Accessory Commercial Units).

In many countries of the world, people shop locally, by walking or biking to nearby shops.  Such a lifestyle cuts down on car use and provides livelihoods to locals, independent of national retail chains.

If I want to sell things from my home, why on earth should the government tell me I can’t, provided I sell safe products and don’t defraud my customers?

City ordinances often include requirements for parking near stores. Such requirements should be lessened or eliminated for residential home stores. Down with government regulation!

In fact, to avoid damaging the character of neighborhoods, and to discourage driving, the construction of extra parking lots should be discouraged rather than required.  In the words of Joni Mitchell, we don’t want to “pave paradise, put up a parking lot.”

City planners often speak of mixed-used development and transit-oriented development. Such development is appropriate near transit hubs, such as the new light rail stops coming to the eastside of Seattle in the next couple years.  But such new development doesn’t fix the problems of existing relatively low-density sprawl in residential neighborhoods.  Home businesses partially fix the problems without substantially changing the nature of the neighborhoods.

Changing zoning laws to increase density in residential neighborhoods might be desirable as well. But that’s a separate, probably more contentious proposal. For example, homeowners could be allowed to turn attached structures  (e.g., Attached Dwelling Units) into apartments or granny flats, or to divide their properties into two units and sell or rent them.

By the way, this entire discussion makes it clear that conservatives’ opposition to regulation is selective, as it should be. Likewise, progressives oppose some regulations.  For example, conservatives often approve of zoning regulations that prevent construction of apartments or other high-density housing in suburban neighborhoods. They want to “preserve the character of the neighborhood.” Many homeowners associations have further restrictions. Liberals sometimes complain that such regulations increase sprawl and have a discriminatory effect on racial and economic minorities.

Conservative support for home stores is expressed in American Conservative’s Small Retail Can Make Neighborhoods Walkable.

For sure, home businesses are not a panacea, and it would take some time for their benefits to become visible.  But they are in the direction that society needs to move: towards more walkable, self-sufficient neighborhoods.

Possible problems.

For home stores to work well, it’s likely that housing density would need to be relatively high.  In low-density neighborhoods with huge lots, it’s unlikely that there would be enough customers within walking or biking distance to make home stores economically viable. If people need to rely on cars, then parking would be an issue. Likewise, neighborhoods with steep hills would likely not work.

Many Seattle residential areas are high density, with lots of apartments and small yards; such neighborhoods are good candidates for home stores.  Examples of Bellevue neighborhoods where home businesses would be feasible are Eastgate, Crossroads, and Newport Hills.

Another potential problem is: Can home stores compete with big box stores such as Walmart and Target, and with Amazon? Those stores have economies of scale and sell a wide variety of items. Of course, the economies of scale of the national chains come at a high cost:  ugly, soulless strip malls and shopping areas, as well as heavy traffic and loss of local control.  If society is going to successfully address the costs of transportation (pollution, carbon, traffic congestion, stress, and ugliness), incentives will need to change to make home businesses more economically viable. This will take time, and some people will resist the changes.

And for home stores selling groceries, what health regulations will apply? Will there be inspections?  Likewise, can homes open small eating spots and restaurants? Again, how can sanitary laws be enforced?  See below for more discussion of King County’s health regulations.

If the home shops do cash-based transactions, would that make it too easy for merchants to hide earnings and avoid taxes?  (I thank Jaye Sermeno for pointing out this pitfall with home stores.)  Perhaps cash-based transactions could be outlawed, though many people would oppose that. Or perhaps home-based businesses could be exempt from taxation for in-person purchases, up to a limit.

And how about delivery of goods?  Will truck traffic disturb neighborhoods? Can Amazon or FedEx do fulfillment of supplies for home stores?  Conversely, can local producers ship goods from home-based shops and sell them by mail-order, instead of by in-person retail?

Bellevue and King County’s regulations about home businesses

I emailed Bellevue City to ask about home businesses and related regulations. A Senior Planner from the Development Services Department of the Code and Policy Division responded:

Thank you for your message. Although they are not called Accessory Commercial Units (ACUs), the City does allow for commercial activity within residences under the home occupation regulations in Land Use Code chapter 20.30N. Certain requirements apply to home occupations, such as a maximum of 25% of the floor area dedicated to the commercial activity. Additional requirements and restrictions can be found in the Land Use Code (linked above) and at the Home Occupations webpage.

Additionally, because of your interest in potential code or policy changes, I wanted to point you to some information on the Comprehensive Plan update going on right now. This is a major update to the City’s guiding policy document, which will inform City decisions, including new codes and guidelines, in the coming decades. You can find information on this webpage on the update process, as well as ways to stay informed and involved as it moves along.

So, Bellevue already allows the use of homes for some private businesses. In order to realize the potential of ACUs, Bellevue’s regulations about home businesses would need to be loosened. The current rules specify that

  • The business does not involve automobile-related services, warehousing of more than 1,000 cubic feet of materials or external storage of goods.
  • The business is conducted wholly within a structure and utilizes no more than 25 percent of the gross floor area of the structure in which it is located.
  • No more than one person who is not a resident of the dwelling is participating in the business at the dwelling.
  • There is no exterior display; no exterior alteration of the property, including expansion of parking; no exterior sign other than business signage on the applicant’s vehicle; no exterior storage of materials; no other exterior indication of the business.
  • There is no structural alteration to the interior or exterior of the structure which changes its residential character.
  • There is no use of electrical or mechanical equipment which would change the fire rating of the structure or which would create visible or audible interference in radio or television receivers or which would cause fluctuations in line voltage outside the dwelling.
  • There is no noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odor, heat or glare produced by the business which would exceed that normally associated with a dwelling.
  • In addition to parking required for the residents, there are no more than two vehicles parked on or in the vicinity of the property as a result of the business at any one time.
  • There are no more than six client visits per day, and there is not more than one client on the premises at any one time. One client does include a family arriving in a single vehicle.
  • There are no more than two deliveries per week either to or from the residence by a private delivery service and no other use of a commercial vehicle other than that normally used by the applicant or an employee.

Homeowners need to submit a Home Occupation Permit and pay fees before being allowed to open a home business.

The regulations about “no exterior sign,” “no structural alteration,”  and the final one about limited use of delivery vehicles probably need to be eliminated or loosened.  As mentioned above, the restriction about no additional parking should probably be retained, to discourage driving.

The existing regulations already allow for some leeway and for considerations about the nature of the neighborhood, so that bigger and more impactful businesses might be allowed on less residential blocks, for example.

Building, electrical, fire and plumbing code requirements may need to be loosened as well, on the principle that the number of customers at the location at any one time is likely to be small.

King County is responsible for regulations about food establishments. The section on Catering and home-based food establishments is of particular importance. It says “It is required that a catering business be operated from an approved commissary kitchen.”  It also says that home food businesses need inspections and permits.

Food service cannot be approved in a home kitchen, unless there are two separate kitchens. A commercial kitchen must be totally separate from the kitchen used by the people who live there. An approved kitchen in a home would have to meet all of the requirements for any commercial food service. These requirements are detailed in the Food Service Plan Guide.

The latter Food Service Plan Guide is 22 pages long.  It has requirements for a handwashing sinks, a 3-compartment dishwashing sink, a dump (work) sink, and a mop sink.  Plan review fees are at least $900 for a new establishment.

How those food safety regulations should be loosened for ACU food establishments is a thorny question, since peoples’ health is at stake, but some loosening should be possible.  The situation is reminiscent of some federal regulations, which are so onerous that only large corporations can afford to follow them and to submit the required paperwork.

A friend wanted to start a home business making nut butters. He found that the regulations in Lincoln County, in east Central Washington, were more lenient than in King County, but there still was a requirement for a separate three-basin sink and a separate hand-washing sink.

Making it happen

I spoke to Bellevue City Council members Janice Zahn and Jeremy Barksdale. They suggested that any change to Bellevue laws and regulation is difficult, because of political division in the council.  In order for change to occur, there would need to be an organized public movement that the council members can rely on.

One step towards organizing such a movement is to get feedback from people, e.g., on nextdoor.com, about how much interest there is in starting home businesses.  Anyone with interest in or comments about these issues is encouraged to email me at ThinkerFeeler@gmail.com .

More resources

CNU (Congress for the New Urbanism) is promoting ACUs. Here are some resources I’ve been seeing for re-introducing retail and light commercial back into neighborhoods. Urbanist Neil Heller coined the term ACU and has become known for promoting them in Portland where he lives.

An Introduction To The ACU

Best of 2020: Legalize Accessory Commercial Units

‘Accessory Commercial Units’ for a 15-Minute City

Accessory Commercial Units: Reintroducing retail to neighborhoods

Small Retail Can Make Neighborhoods Walkable

One-Stop Shops Can Change The Game For Your City’s Small Business Growth. Op-ed: Facilitating new businesses is crucial to your city’s economic growth.

Shaking hands, blue and red
Shaking hands, blue and red

Dennis Kucinich’s cogent interview about the war in Ukraine and U.S. foreign policy

Dennis Kucinich’s extended interview with Aaron Mate’ is cogent: Dennis Kucinich: where are the pro-peace Democrats?. He speaks well. Kucinich sounds clear-headed, informed, and inspiring. He discusses what the proxy war with Russia says about the U.S. attempts to maintain a unipolar world. Here’s my summary of his interview, with quotations.

“Once the United States conjures an enemy — and I saw this first-hand in Iraq with Sadaam Hussein, in Libya with Qadaffi, in Syria with Assad, and on and on and on — when you make that enemies of the year club, all hell breaks loose and the goal is then to wipe you out. Now, the blowback, nobody thinks about. I mean you can look at the U.S. sanctions and how they have actually resulted in ” natural gas shortages in Europe and in increased inflation in the U.S.

Kucinich says not just that the U.S. aided the 2014 coup but that it orchestrated it. (There is incontrovertible evidence that the U.S. aided the coup, but I myself don’t have evidence to support the stronger claim that the U.S. orchestrated it, but it seems likely.)

He also believes the allegations that in April Boris Johnson and the U.S. (Austin?) squashed the peace deal between Ukraine and Russia.

Kucinich ridicules the oft-repeated claim that the U.S. needs to let Ukraine decide, because of the high levels of U.S. involvement both prior to the invasion and afterwards.

The war and its devastation weren’t necessary. “It could have been and should have been avoided. And it is just another sorry chapter in the failure of leadership and the failure of diplomacy, in twisted thinking that invites the virus megalomania. We need to take a totally different direction in the world. And we really need to pay attention that biblical injunction Blessed are the Peacemakers. ” The American Imperium doesn’t work anymore.

Speaking of the Progressive Caucus’s withdrawal of its letter calling for negotiations, Kucinich said: “What is happening with the Democratic that it tries to squeeze out people of good will, people who want to see an end to a war that has killed” so many people. “What’s wrong with a simple request” for negotiations?

In U.S. cities you can find poverty, homelessness, begging, crime, and mass shootings. Yet “We want to go around the world, telling other people how they should live, spending our money in pursuit of some kind of chimerical dream of global omnipotence. Give me a break! I mean, really. This is a ‘get real moment’ here in America. It’s a moment to start taking care of things at home.”

Mate’ asks Kucinich about Al Qaeda’s domination of the anti-Assad insurgency. Only Tulsi Gabbard and Kucinich cared about that. “There’s a black hole, and there’s a memory hole.” “Al Qadea was involved in 9/11, OK? And we blamed Iraq. Then we turned around and funded these terrorists to attack another country. There’s a dirty game being played here, by our own government, with own tax dollars.”

“We’re playing in the flash of WWIII right now, and it’s totally unnecessary.”

Senator Patrick Leahy was told by intelligence operatives that Dick Cheney’s claims about Iraq were false, so Leahy voted against the war. But he didn’t tell others til recently. Kucinich points out that because of secrecy rules, lawmakers can’t discuss what they know to be true. Kucinich said he never signed the papers Congress members are asked to sign where they promise secrecy if they go to intelligence briefings, and he never went to such briefings, because he knew that the briefings were mostly lies. Often intelligence was leaked to the NY Times and then you heard it repeated in committee, but you weren’t allowed to talk about it because you heard it in committee. The intelligence agencies handcuff members of Congress.

Mate’ points out that the antiwar movement is feeling pretty “decimated.” How can we revive the antiwar movement? Kucinich says we need to stop calling a demand for peace as “antiwar.” War expresses polarized thinking. Our goal should be unity, not in the sense that we agree on everything. But we need to respect others and create human and ecological security. (I’m not sure I understand Kucinich’s point.)

“War is ecocide… .. We are at an inflection point right now…. we have an opportunity now to create anew the world. … We are enjoined by the scriptures to make peace with our brothers and our sisters. Good time to start thinking about that.”

Stopping crime by helping SADs

You are already paying for the drug habits of people with substance abuse disorder. Why not treat addiction in a more humane way that reduces crime, defunds drug gangs, better helps the addicted people, and saves society money?

Lots of people complain about crime, especially property crime. People complain especially on websites such as nextdoor. Likewise, many newspapers and TV news shows like to run stories about crime.

Here’s a simple way to stop a lot of — maybe most — property crime, including shoplifting, and to save money spent on policing, security, and incarceration.

The solution is to make it easier for people with substance abuse disorder to get treatment, so that they don’t have to steal to support their habits.

The term ‘addict’ is considered stigmatizing towards people with substance abuse disorder.  But saying “person with substance abuse disorder” is verbose. So, I have coined the term SADs as shorthand for “Substance Abuse Disorder sufferers” and in the rest of this essay I will say “SADs” instead of “addicts” or “person with substance abuse disorder.”  Using the word “SADs” has the additional advantage of suggesting sadness.  When referring to a single person, I’ll use “SAD sufferer.”

Depending on the person, treatment may involve

  1. entering a recovery program;
  2. taking a drug like Suboxone, to deal with craving and withdrawal;
  3. taking a managed opiate such as methadone;
  4. or even — and some people will oppose this option — taking controlled, subsidized harder drugs, possibly in a safe injection site.

You may think, “OMG, why should the taxpayer subsidize SADs’ drug habit? Are you nuts? That’s just helping them to hurt themselves.”

Not at all.  The sad, harsh fact is that you are already subsidizing their drug addiction, by suffering from their thefts and by paying for police, prisons, security guards, emergency room treatment, and higher prices for goods at stores, which need to raise prices to make up for money lost due to shoplifting. (See below for some statistics on this.)

And there already are thousands of unsafe injection sites all over our communities. Why not have safe injection sites where the quality of the drugs can be monitored, overdoses prevented, and SADs can be guided towards treatment?

An added benefit is that this approach defunds drug gangs.

Furthermore, methadone clinics have been around for years, and methadone is an opiate. Likewise, the other popular drug treatment, Suboxone, contains an opiate as well: buprenorphine (the second component of Suboxone is naloxone). So your tax money already pays for opiates.  Are you outraged? Few people would propose eliminating such treatments. For many SADs they work. So, there’s not really much difference between option 3 and option 4 above.

Unless you want to throw drug SADs in jail — a very expensive option — the only alternative is treatment. And the sad fact is: rehab clinics don’t work for many  SADs.  It’s like alcoholism; some alcoholics are set in their ways and can’t be swayed. It’s a fact. Deal with it.

I contend that society as a whole will save money and improve lives if we end the failed war on drugs and help SADs recover from their addictions, or (if recovery is impossible) live safely with their addictions.

In other words, instead of criminalizing or legalizing drug use — both of which don’t work well — manage drug use as a medical and social problem. What I’m saying is not new.  Books such as Johann Hari’s Chasing the Scream and Gabor Maté’s In the Real of Hungry Ghosts  explore the failed war on drugs and the absurdity of criminalizing what should be considered a medical problem. See also The Drug War Drives Exploitation. We Need Drug Regulation, Not Criminalization.

What I hope is new is my way of framing the problem: You are already paying for SADs’ drug habits.  This framing may convince more people that supporting SADs via treatment and management of their addiction is better for everyone than criminalizing it.

You could say: the war on drugs causes crime.

The rest of this article explores this topic in detail and includes some stats and evidence from interviews with local police officers.

Background

To address the drug problem there are several approaches:

  1. Criminalization: the war on drugs.
  2. Complete legalization.
  3. Decriminalization but not total legalization, with treatment and management of addiction.  Drug possession would be a misdemeanor, not a crime.

The first option, the war on drugs, has been a failure,  despite decades of trying, despite tens of billions of dollars spent, and despite filling prisons with (mostly nonviolent) drug offenders. Heroin, meth, fentanyl and other hard drugs are still readily available. Likewise, alcohol Prohibition failed dismally in the 1920s. Some people want to double down on criminalizing drugs, even suggesting locking up SADs in prison or other facilities til they become sober. That would certainly be extremely costly — do you want to pay taxes for that? — and is probably a cruel violation of the SADs’ rights.

The second option, complete legalization, would risk creating more SADs. Few people and countries support that option. I certainly don’t, because hard drugs like heroin and meth are too addictive, and because SADs can become too debilitated to be productive members of society. But let’s briefly explore complete legalization. Some libertarians believe that government has no business telling people what they can and can’t do, provided the people don’t harm others in doing it. Legalizing drugs could introduce a competitive, legal market for drugs. If the price for hard drugs were as high as prices for pharmaceutical drugs, then many SADs couldn’t afford them — especially since such SADs have trouble holding down jobs — and the SADs would need to steal to pay for their hits. So, complete legalization is unlikely to help.

The third option is middle-of-the-road between strict criminalization and strict legalization.   Portugal is trying the third option. Portugal decriminalized drug use but did not make drugs legal. “Drug use became an administratively sanctionable misdemeanor, but not a crime, and was placed under the jurisdiction of the Commissions for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction.” (source) In many ways, America is trying the third option, too, since many SADs are diverted to drug treatment programs, including use of the opiate methadone. This makes sense, too, given that the U.S. already has one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world.

Some opponents of management of addiction say that it makes it too easy for people to become SADs .   But few people would choose to become SADs , and drug use would still be a misdemeanor.  Getting treatment or managed drugs would require approval of medical professionals.

The National Institute of Health found that Vancouver’s experiment with safe injection sites was a success.

King County Bar Association’s Drug Policy Project calls for “a shift from the principal reliance on criminal sanctions as a response to drug use towards greater availability of effective addiction treatment, drug education and research.” Quoting at length,

In late 2000, in response to an editorial by KCBA President Fred Noland lamenting the failure of the €œWar on Drugs,€ an outpouring of interest among lawyers, judges, public officials, scholars and concerned citizens led to a comprehensive effort to examine and reform current drug policy. Policy-oriented task forces conducted extensive research and prepared reports with recommendations for reform, resulting in the release of a major report in 2001, Is It Time to End the War on Drugs?, which found that current drug policy is fundamentally flawed and is associated with numerous negative societal consequences, including:

  • the failure to reduce problematic drug use, particularly among children;

  • dramatic increases in crime related to prohibited drugs, including economic crimes related to addiction and the fostering of efficient and violent criminal enterprises that have occupied the unregulated and immensely profitable commercial market made possible by drug prohibition;

  • skyrocketing public costs arising from both increased drug abuse and increased crime;

  • erosion of public health from the spread of disease, from the concealment and inadequate treatment of addiction and from undue restrictions on proper medical treatment of pain;

  • the abridgement of civil rights through summary forfeitures of property, invasions of privacy and violations of due process;

  • disproportionately adverse effects of drug law enforcement on the poor and persons of color;

  • and the clogging of the courts and compromises in the effective administration of justice, as well as a loss of respect for the law.

The origin of the war on drugs is apparently the desire of Richard Nixon to weaken his political opposition — African Americans and hippies — by demonizing their drug use, as described here and in the following image.

The real origin of the war on drugs: Nixon's politics

How much crime is caused by drug SADs stealing to support their habits?

Let me start with some evidence from an informal survey of local police officers.

A few months ago I  saw five policemen drinking coffee in the seating area at a store on Mercer Island, WA. I approached them and ask if they have an opinion about this question: what percent of property crime is due to SADs looking to support their habits. One policeman said, “about 90%.” The others nodded. I asked if there are any hard statistics about that. He said that hard stats are probably hard to come by, since the perpetrators often don’t tell the truth. But I could try calling King County social services. (I did that but didn’t get any hard figures.)

Later I asked a Bellevue (WA) police officer. He estimated that 40% of property crime is due to drug SADs supporting their habits.

I asked another police officer, from Bellevue, the same question, and she estimated that the answer is 75%.

Yet another police officer from Bellevue estimated “over 50%”.

A different police officer, also from Bellevue, estimated that “about 70%” of property crime is caused by SADs supporting their habits

On Oct 4, 2022, I found a Bellevue police officer at Factoria Mall. His rough estimate was 2/3rd. I told him the gist of this article and he nodded in agreement and said that everyone is basically paying a tax (in the form of stolen goods and higher prices) to subsidize SADs ‘ habits. He agreed that harm reduction is better than criminalizing the problem. He said that while police officers tend to be conservative, there are also progressive officers.

On Jan 10, 2023 another Bellevue police officer estimated that a majority of petty shoplifting is due to people supporting their drug habits — excluding the organized shoplifting by criminal gangs.

Now for some harder stats.

The U.S. Department of Justice reports that “More than half (58%) of state prisoners and two-thirds (63%) of sentenced jail inmates met the criteria for drug dependence or abuse, according to data collected through the 2007 and 2008-09 National Inmate Surveys (NIS).” About 45% of sentenced and jailed state prisoners are dependent on drugs, and about 63% abuse drugs.    Rates of drug abuse in the general population are more than ten times less (under 5% of the general population).

Quoting the above report, the Prison Policy Institute’s article BJS report: Drug abuse and addiction at the root of 21% of crimes says “Almost 40% of people locked up for property crimes and 14% of those incarcerated for violent crimes reported that they had committed their most serious offense for drug-related reasons.” Also: “About 40% of the state prison population and sentenced jail population report using drugs at the time of the offense for which they were incarcerated.”

Motivations, substance use and other correlates amongst property and violent offenders who regularly inject drugs “The majority of both property (71%) and violent offenders (73%) reported being under the influence of drugs the last time they committed an offence.” And “The majority of property offenders (75%) attributed their offending to financial reasons.”

A story about management and treatment of a SAD sufferer

The son of a friend has a bad drug habit. For a while he was on methadone. But he was unable to continue it. The clinic was open only a few hours a day, and he had to walk or take his electric bike to the clinic. He often missed appointments because of health issues and general disorganization. When he missed an appointment, he was punished and was unable to get his future doses at maximum strength. Over weekends, the clinic closes, so if he  didn’t get his methadone on Friday, he’d have to wait til Monday  — which sometimes forced him to resort to using street drugs. The man reported this sad fact:  injected heroin works better than methadone (which is a liquid, taken orally) and causes a quicker response.    With all these impediments, and despite being in subsidized housing, he gave up on methadone treatment and got worse.

Methadone clinics need to follow strict federal guidelines meant to prevent drug abuse. The rules have the effect of making it hard for SADs to comply. The fear is that loose rules would allow the SADs to sell the methadone doses on the street and use it to buy their drug of choice (e.g., heroin). I hear that happens a lot.

Several times this man’s family forced him into treatment programs, and he also spent time in jail for drug-related offenses. As soon as he was released from confinement, he went right back to using drugs.  Family or society can force a SAD sufferer to enroll in a treatment program, but such programs will fail if their heart isn’t it.  People change when they’re ready to. Some never will.  Like or not, this is a fact. Just like with alcoholics.

Furthermore, drug rehabilitation facilities are often over-priced and vary in quality. Insurance coverage is uneven.

Several of this man’s buddies got into trouble with the law, too (e.g., car prowling). Several of his friends died from drug overdoses, including his girlfriend. It’s a serious problem.

The New York Times daily email to subscribers says:

Drug overdoses now kill more than 100,000 Americans a year €” more than vehicle crash and gun deaths combined….Experts have a concise, if crude, way to summarize this: If it’s easier to get high than to get treatment, people who are addicted will get high. The U.S. has effectively made it easy to get high and hard to get help.

I’ve read, though, that SADs don’t take drugs to get high. Maybe that’s why they did it at first. But once they’re addicted and acclimated to the drug, they need the drug to feel normal. Without it, they’re miserable.

The good news is that many SADs do recover as they get older.  And for those who don’t their addiction can be managed.  We need to figure out the cheapest and most humane way to do.

A big win for everyone

Drug companies such as Purdue Pharmaceutical helped provoke the addiction crisis by promoting opiate painkillers. They thereby  made billions of dollars in profit. (Later they were sued.)  Fentanyl, a synthetic opiate, is replacing heroin as the drug of choice for drug cartels, because of its potency and easy production. This suggests that if hard drugs were decriminalized they could be manufactured very cheaply. Indeed, the Guardian reports: “A 2019 DEA report estimated that each fentanyl pill costs only $1 [for drug cartels] to produce.”   If there were no risks of being arrested, it could no doubt be produced even more cheaply.

So, if government subsidized drug production, it could do so cheaply, by removing the profit motive, taking money away from drug gangs, and taking away the incentive for SADs to steal. It’s a huge win for society!

For people who are ideologically opposed to paying for SADs ‘ drugs, let me say   this: You are paying for them already. If openly paying for their treatment or their drugs (whether methadone, Suboxone, or some harder opiate) saves money overall for society, while reducing crime and overdose deaths, why not support it?