DRUG WAR FIGHTS COMMON SENSE

We've all seen taxpayer-funded television commercials or magazine ads
declaring that drug users fund terrorism. One print ad that caught my
attention appeared recently on the back cover of National Review, a
conservative magazine that questions the "war on drugs."

At first, I thought that the ad might have been a parody: "If you don't
want something to be true, does that make it PROPAGANDA?" It then declared
that "if people stopped buying drugs, there wouldn't be a drug market. No
drug market, no drug dealers. No drug dealers, no drug violence, corruption
and misery." It seemed like the ad was making fun of the simplistic
reasoning behind the government's campaign. Nobody believes that the drug
market can ever be eliminated; drugs are already illegal, and their use is
rampant. But after a little research I was able to conclude that the ad was
actually paid for by the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

In true propaganda fashion, the ad ignored the central fact that the only
reason drugs are linked to "violence, corruption and misery" is because of
the war on drugs. The government has made producing and trafficking drugs
illegal, and those activities are therefore part of the criminal world.

When the government makes something illegal, it does not eliminate it;
rather, the government only transfers production and transportation of it
from legal companies and individuals to illegal ones--that lesson was
learned during Prohibition in the 1920s. When alcohol became contraband and
law-abiding citizens could no longer transport or sell it, organized crime
stepped up and provided the supply to meet the demand. Gang wars erupted
and crime bosses grew in power.

A similar increase in "violence, corruption and misery" has accompanied the
intensification of the federal government's efforts to eradicate drug use.
Street gangs serve as shopkeepers in the black market for drugs. Because
the price of drugs is inflated, due to the increased costs of importing
them, addicts must rob innocent people to fund their habit. Those who
commit no other crime than buying and using drugs are jailed as criminals
instead of being treated medically as addicts.

These are just a few ways by which the drug war creates "violence,
corruption and misery" within the United States.

The drug war also funds violence abroad, as the federal government admits,
by funneling hundreds of millions of dollars annually into terrorist
groups' coffers. South American narco-terrorists earn over $600 million
each year from the illegal drug trade. And before U.S. forces overthrew the
Taliban in Operation Enduring Freedom, the regime profited over $40 million
annually from the drug trade. Terrorists will continue to profit from drugs
as long as there is a black market for them.

That drug market can never be eliminated. No matter how many millions the
government spends on ineffective DARE programs and commercials, it cannot
eliminate the demand for drugs. Likewise, no matter how many billions the
government spends on interdiction programs, it cannot eliminate the supply.
If the government decriminalized drugs, criminals would no longer be in the
business of producing, transporting and selling them. No criminal market,
no criminal dealers. No criminal dealers, no drug violence, corruption and
misery.

That reasoning may be just as simplistic as the advertisements. But instead
of using propaganda, the federal government should allow an open discussion
of the war on drugs. If the federal government truly cares about
drug-related violence, it should re-examine its policies and acknowledge
that current drug policy funds terrorists and has caused an epidemic of
drug-related crime.

As the ad said, "It may not be what you want to hear. But that doesn't make
it any less true."

Nathan C. Masters is a third-year political science major and editor in
chief of Irvine Review.