Pubdate: Fri, 06 Dec 2002
Source: Massachusetts Daily Collegian (MA Edu)
Copyright: 2002 Daily Collegian
Contact: 413-545-1592
Website: http://www.DailyCollegian.com
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1401
Note: Publication of University of Massachusetts
Author: Eduardo Bustamante, Collegian Columnist

THE TRUTH BEHIND ANTI-DRUG COMMERCIALS

There is no denying it; if you purchase drugs nowadays, you support 
terrorism. As recent advertisements have taught us, 12 of the world's 28 
known terror organizations are involved in the drug trade. And all are 
linked in mutually beneficial relationships with drug cartels. That means 
that any terrorist group can make a few hundred million dollars a year 
selling mind-altering substances to the United States.

In the year 2000 alone, Americans bought roughly $10.5 billion worth of 
marijuana. In 2000, Afghanistan was responsible for more than 70 percent of 
the world's opium trade. Those who don't want people using drugs are very 
clever. They are well aware that nobody agrees with terrorism, and take 
advantage of its link with prohibited substances to get people to stop.

So who are these people who don't want others to alter their consciousness? 
Well, some of them are wonderful, caring parents, and others have made a 
living selling nicotine to kids. I was introduced to this fact by Bill 
Maher, when he said, "'The Partnership for a Drug Free America' - Ha, make 
me laugh and gag with that title. Please, they are a lobbying arm for the 
tobacco and alcohol industries. They don't want to see a drug free America. 
They want to see an America free of the drugs that are their competition."

What I find funny about these anti-drug commercials is that we know who 
armed, funded and trained the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Sadaam Hussein. And 
they are not potheads, or maybe they are; I don't know.

It was the CIA and when I say "armed, funded, and trained," I mean it 
literally. The CIA put guns in the hands of terrorists and taught them how 
to shoot. This is not to be mistaken for the fact that the United States 
prohibited drugs, which made it possible for these groups to get very rich 
and fund their terrorist activities - although they did that as well.

What's equally ironic is that, unwittingly, the Partnership for a Drug Free 
America is making the most convincing argument against drug prohibition 
I've ever heard with their commercials. Drug use benefiting terrorism has 
nothing to do with drugs or drug users. What terrorists really benefit from 
is prohibition.

Whatever we prohibit, terrorists will profit from. If tomorrow we decided 
to prohibit Nutri-Grain bars, it wouldn't take long for nefarious groups to 
make huge profits selling Nutri-Grain bars at inflated prices to those 
people that still wanted their delicious oats and grains. At which point, 
Balance Bars, the competition of Nutri-Grain, would put out ads saying, 
"Nutri-Grain eaters may think they aren't harming anyone, but every time 
they sink their teeth into a chewy Nutri-Grain morsel, they hand money to 
terrorists so they can kill children."

This is the same logic that defeated the prohibition of alcohol. The 
government saw that the unnecessary power and independence given to 
mobsters like Al Capone - along with the decrease in government 
credibility, the increase in corruption, law enforcement spending, 
incarceration, and crime rates caused by prohibition - wasn't worth the 
ability to say that the United States sent a strong message that alcohol 
was not "OK."

Anti-drug commercials have opened my eyes to new possibilities. That the 
worst thing we can do is to adopt a prohibitive stance towards a natural 
demand. That the legalization of mind-altering substances would strengthen 
our nation and cripple terror groups. That prohibition and peace are 
mutually exclusive propositions.

I'm sure that this isn't what the anti-drug advertisers had in mind, but I 
have only them to thank for my new anti-prohibition stance.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Tom