DRUG POLICIES CONTRADICT AIM OF U.S. CONSTITUTION

Eugene R. Dunn's letter against George Soros and anything liberal
suggests that under the current aggressive Republican World War III
strategy, those attacking our homeland are the only ones at risk of
life or liberty.

Yet news reports and studies consistently show that opium and heroin
production and trafficking from Afghanistan -- and therefore illicit
profits to the aforementioned "bad guys" -- have increased ever since.

In fact, a few months before 9/11, the current regime in Washington
provided $43 million in aid to the Afghans in exchange for a promise
from Taliban leadership to outlaw poppy production.

If increasing the cash value of resulting opium stockpiles and
flooding American streets with cheap heroin does not fall under "aid
and comfort to the enemy," then what does?

If this sounds familiar, there is an established historical precedent.
During a previous Republican administration, Congressional testimony
made it clear that: "senior U.S. policy makers were not immune to the
idea that drug money was a perfect solution to the Contras' funding
problems."

Perhaps conservatives, war hawks and drug warriors ought to read
Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, before they complain
about others providing aid and comfort to the enemy. As drug control
policies and incarceration statistics prove, we wage war on our own
citizens to protect them from marijuana!

Meanwhile, political contributions protect poisonous alcohol, tobacco
and pharmaceutical dealers and users from arrest, prosecution and
asset forfeiture, even though half a million citizens die annually
from the use of those products.

Jose Melendez

DeLand, Fla.