Pubdate: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 Source: National Post (Canada) Copyright: 2001 Southam Inc. Contact: http://www.nationalpost.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/286 Author: Jonathan Kay Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?203 (Terrorism) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Cannabis) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mjcn.htm (Cannabis - Canada) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/campaign.htm (ONDCP Media Campaign) TERROR OR DRUGS? WE CAN'T WAGE WAR ON BOTH Buried in the back pages of Thursday's newspapers, behind tales of anthrax in the United States and woe in Afghanistan, was news that Britain may soon decriminalize marijuana. Under a proposal offered by David Blunkett, the country's Home Secretary, the drug would remain a controlled substance, but police would no longer arrest people who smoke or possess it. It is only a matter of time before Canada follows Mr. Blunkett's lead. Marijuana is not addictive and there does not exist a single documented instance of a death resulting from overdose. Yet 100 Canadians a day are arrested on simple marijuana possession charges -- an absurd waste of police resources. Once marijuana is decriminalized, perhaps Ottawa will take a serious look at its policies on harder drugs. Outright legalization may not be appropriate in all cases, but a rethinking of our criminal law certainly is. Even as our policies stand, however, Canada's Justice Department is miles ahead of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, whose campaign proceeds, despite endless failures, according to a military model. Every year, more than 600,000 Americans are arrested for simple marijuana possession. Under U.S. federal law, pot is classified as a "Schedule One" drug -- just like heroin and LSD. In 2000, the war on drugs cost the United States $35-billion -- more than three times what the federal government spent on programs to combat terrorism. War has always been a poor metaphor where the fight against drugs is concerned. For one thing, it invites lawmakers to pour billions into SWAT teams and prisons -- despite the fact drug treatment has been proven to be many times more cost-effective than enforcement and interdiction in reducing usage. Secondly, it dilutes the meaning of "war" by turning the word into a political abstraction. How foolish does all the chest-thumping about the "war on drugs" sound now that the United States has suffered massive casualties in a real war against a real military enemy? But the war on drugs is like a real war in at least one respect: It attracts an army of eager profiteers. Many of them are the terrorists and insurgents we are now watching on CNN. It is easy to whip uneducated teenagers into a righteous frenzy with fiery Marxist or Islamist rhetoric, but to keep them armed and fed you need cash. Afghanistan and Colombia, the world's leading producers of, respectively, heroin and cocaine, provide excellent examples. Both the Taliban regime and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia would have been extinguished long ago if it were not for the revenues they have raised by taxing local drug farmers. Western abolitionism means criminals have a monopoly on the distribution of drugs, so profit margins in the industry are enormous. According to the United Nations, South Asian heroin producers sell their crop for about $150 per kilogram. The local wholesale price is about $5,000. Much of the difference goes into the coffers of terrorist protection rackets. Though the Taliban's mullahs decided, somewhat mysteriously, to outlaw the opium trade recently, Osama bin Laden himself is reputed to have accumulated millions by collaborating with drug runners. Mohamed Atta and his crew spent about US$500,000 on the Sept. 11 attack. Chances are a lot of that money originated with Western heroin addicts. In Colombia, the situation is similar: U.S. Blackhawk helicopters and military advisors have been sent to fight a FARC force that is financed by U.S. cokeheads. In other words, the U.S. war on drugs is not only unwinnable in its own right, the campaign is also undermining a war against terrorism that we can win. Privately, many politicians in Washington admit the drug war is a miserable failure. Drugs are in such abundant supply that retail prices have actually dropped since George Bush Sr. announced his all-out war on drugs 12 years ago. According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy's own numbers, the price of cocaine has decreased, in real terms, by 25% since 1989; the price of heroin by 67%. Few politicians are willing to admit defeat publicly for fear of appearing "weak on drugs." But the battle against terrorism perhaps supplies them with a unique opportunity finally to speak their mind without suffering political damage. What is worse -- to be "weak on drugs" or to be "weak on terror"? Will U.S. politicians take advantage of this opportunity? Probably not. During a briefing last Monday, General Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked about the U.S. fight against terrorism. "It includes almost every agency and department in this government," he said. "We're all interconnected in ways that we probably haven't been. The closest analogy would be the drug war." The "closest analogy" he can think of is a war that costs the United States tens of billions of dollars annually, has proceeded fruitlessly for decades and has yielded nothing except overstuffed prisons? Please, Gen. Myers, say it isn't so. - --- MAP posted-by: Beth