The War on Terror, or the War on Drugs: Choose One

Given my responses to comments in my previous post, I think its important to point out that:

(A) Since the War on Terror (more precisely, the Defense of American civil society against barbarians) is the most important issue of the day, and

(B) The War on Drugs takes time, effort, and physical resources away from (A), that therefore

(C ) The War on Drugs ought to be eliminated forthwith; decriminalize, legalize, etc.

Conservatives ought to understand that unlike fatuous claims by the Democrats that the War on Saddam detracts from the War on Terror, the Drug War honestly does nothing to track down Al Qaeda, and it does take similar resources away from terrorist hunting (same skill sets involved), and it does take prosecutorial resources away from Terror-related efforts. Furthermore, it is well documented that the War on Drugs hikes the price of illicit drugs (or, at least, keeps them higher than they would be absent an interdiction regime), and that terrorist groups get much of their funding through the smuggling of said illicit drugs (and cigarettes, too, now that the health nannies have begun their neo-prohibition efforts).

Unlike the arguments to cut and run from Iraq, immediately (and unilaterally) ceasing the Drug War wouldn't encourage any evildoers (after all, drugs aren't sentient, unlike terrorists), and would immediately free up resources to hunt the people who are actively trying to kill us rather than people who are trying to get high and/or serve the market for drug-induced highs. Conservatives should heed this truth and decide if they really mean it when they claim that the WOT is of paramount priority.

So contrary to some insinuations, the fact that the WOT is more important than the Drug War is not an argument for the Drug War, but is in fact the ultimate argument against it.

End it now!

Share this

OK, I agree that ending the

OK, I agree that ending the drug war would be a good thing, but it seems like the war on terror is an expansion of the war on drugs. Many of the patriot act provisions are also being extended to deal with so-called "narco-terrorists", and in the dozen or so times I have flown since 9-11 I see women traveling alone singled out for inspection more than anyone else (lone women are statistically more likely to be drug mules).
Also, the drug war is a cash-cow for most of Washington, and the public thinks it supports the war on drugs (for the most part, I don't think the public understands it), so there is no incentive to get rid of it.

Been a busy day at work,

Been a busy day at work, haven't had a chance to check the blogs.

Haven't read any responses from other posts yet. Sorry if I seemed to be all up in your grill, as the kids say. Thanks for clarifying your position on this issue, especially re terrorism.

Chris - That's more about

Chris - That's more about the way the GOT-US (Government of the US) is currently fighting the WOT, than the WOT as it should be fought. It happens to be pretty much true, and I think that this administration is using the WOT as an excuse to "Wrap it all up" as Rumsfeld said, to defend the State, not the people, against it's own enemies, not theirs. But still, a WOT could be fought which would not entail this.

Brian - Great point. Plus, "the Defense of American civil society against barbarians" is a much more reasonable objective than a "War on Terror" - good re-formulation, even if it won't sell to TV-heads as easily.

I have made the same

I have made the same argument against the federal government's decision to expand antitrust prosecutions post-9/11. The DOJ and FTC spend about $300 million annually on antitrust prosecutions, and at one point the DOJ had more than 70 grand juries convened to investigate criminal "price fixing". None of these cases have even a tangential relation to terrorism or any actual crimes, yet nobody thinks to question the DOJ's decision to blatantly waste its resources.

The War on Terror will merge

The War on Terror will merge with the Drug War, as the terrorists find they need the same skills and money moving power as the drug lords. And when drug kingpins start getting visits from suicide bombers, the terrorists will be taking over the drug business.

If drugs were not illegal,

If drugs were not illegal, the supply would increase and the cost of buying the drugs (risk of prosecution, attack) would go down, both of which would make the price of the drugs themselves go down.

Making them legal to sell in the US would lead them to be taken over by Multinationals, not terrorists. Sure, terrorists could still make money from drugs, but not nearly as much with all the risk premiums and artificial scarcities removed.

Which would, as a salutary effect, eliminate a great deal of neighborhood drug violence (since it wouldn't be worth fighting over, and who can compete with Eckerd for your doob/heroine/crack?)