When a liberal, a conservative, and a libertarian support a dramatic change of national thinking (a.k.a. policy) you know there’s got to be something there. Recently John Stossel wrote about the manipulation of laws spawned by the “War on Drugs” to further grow the encroachment of big government into smaller government and individuals. A decade ago Surgeon General Jocyln Elders was fired for wanting a debate regarding legalizing drugs. William F. Buckley considered the “War on Drugs” a failure and legalization needing public debate.

What is fascinating regarding the U.S. “War on Drugs” is not the moral, political, or social implications (although they are enormous) but how the war itself resulted in MORE drug abuse, more crime, more incarcerations and so forth. Would anyone take the position that after a generation of making war against people using certain drugs that the “problem” is reduced? Of course not.

What can be seen from this national drama is the direct action of a universal law. Birds of a feather flock together. Like attracts like. Like cause produces like effect. There are many ways to describe, and utilize, the fundamental Law of Attraction. Like gravity, it is there whether recognized or not, and it functions ruthlessly neutral. Interpretations of “good” or “bad” mean nothing. What is “good” attracts like and what is “bad” attracts like.

The intent of the “war on drugs” was to reduce access and availability of potentially dangerous chemicals to the populace, in particular children. Billions of dollars, thousands upon thousands of “warriors”, and countless “battles” have wrestled over the decades. The casualties are evident, from bulging prisons to dysfunctional schools, to fractured families. To continue doing the same old thing but expecting a different result is the glib definition of insanity.

By “resisting” or attacking the very thing we (as a nation) did not want, we actually created MORE OF IT. That’s what the Law of Attraction does. The national attention to the “evil” of certain drugs ensured its increase. Reflect a bit on this and you’ll find that what a person dwells on appears in their experience (for better or for worse.)

What to do?

This is a situation well known to Jesus. When he spoke of not resisting evil he provided the key to attracting what is desired rather than what is undesired. “Evil” resisted is “evil” expanded. As always, such teachings ran the gamut from the concrete to the sublime – depending to the degree those who had ears could hear.

To give attention (mental, physical, emotional) to something undesired is to attract more of what is undesired. That’s the conundrum with the Law of Attraction. It’s in action regardless of personal or national awareness, unerringly producing MORE of what is asked (given attention to.)

If ever there were a personal or national example of HOW the Law of Attraction works it is in this arena. Sadly, the example provided by the “War on Drugs” is fueled by great attention to the undesired. It creates its own self-fulfilling momentum which, over time, becomes a national (and personal) thinking habit which means it is the usual way of thinking (or regarding a situation/condition.) That’s the Law in action – making MORE of what is given attention (thinking.)

The incredible economic impetus of the “War on Drugs” is awesome. There is so much invested in the system that changing, or re-directing it, is difficult. Check out “The Peculiar Institution” (March 2, 2006) to better understand the power of such institutional investments.

The good news is that the Law of Attraction is neutral. As more folks choose to give their attention to freedom (as opposed to bondage to drugs, laws, cops and robbers, incarceration, probation and parole, and the untaxed underground economy) then freedom is enhanced. As the Law acts greater freedom attracts greater freedom and a noticeable trend reinforces itself as it begins to displace the old calcified structure.

The “War on Drugs” can be won, but not as a war. It can be achieved with personal choice and freedom. That includes freedom to make mistakes. Freedom for states to experiment with laws and regulations (or repeal of de-regulation) without the heavy foot of the federal stomping.

When the liberal, the conservative, and the libertarian agree, the answer must be yes!

(Note: website version has text links)