CONSERVATIVES SHOULDN'T SUPPORT DRUG WAR

Thank goodness for Paul Craig Roberts. Whenever conservatives retreat from
their enthusiasm for reining in the abuses of the state, he doesn't
hesitate to call them on it. A former economic adviser to President Reagan,
he is among the most unapologetic free-marketers in the American punditry.

On one issue, unfortunately, too many conservatives have not been
listening. In fact, since Sept. 11, conservative rhetoric on the drug war
has only become more preposterous.

"Think about it," Roberts urges. "In the name of what other cause would
conservatives support unconstitutional property confiscations,
unconstitutional searches and Orwellian Big Brother invasions of privacy?"

Now just for the record, I regret that drug use so pervades our society.
But, quite frankly, what does that matter? I'm no fan of cigarette smoking
either, but I would never seek to impose that view on the populace.
Anti-drug paranoia has given the state an excuse, time and time again, to
overstep its bounds.

Journalist Robert Novak believes that our efforts against terrorism
strengthen the case for such governmental overreachings. That our war on
terror is not "linked inextricably to the war on drugs" is, in his view,
"an unfortunate failure, making it more difficult to defeat either scourge."

The Office of National Drug Control Policy has been running some new
"public service announcements" blaming drug users for subsidizing
terrorism. We should not, of course, condone the physically and
psychologically destructive use of mind-altering substances; to disapprove
of a behavior does not, or should not, imply an intention to proscribe it.
But the idiocy of drug abuse notwithstanding, does it make one bit of sense
to run television advertisements decrying the terrorist profit from the
drug trade? I'm certain that if a television commercial urges one to drop
his drug addiction, the addiction wins out ten times out of ten.

Many terrorist entities do indeed gain financial support from the illicit
drug trade. Opium, for example, proved a lucrative cash crop for the
Taliban. This nexus of terrorism and illegal drugs, however, lends not a
scrap of good sense to the criminalizing of such substances and, if
anything, strengthens the case against it.

Terrorist groups and terrorist harbors can only profit from the drug trade
because it is illegal. If our national leaders learned to view the drug
problem with a modicum of common sense they would understand that
legitimate drug purveyors would be much better suited to control an
industry that, at present, provides financial support to terrorists who
thrive on criminal enterprises. Terrorists couldn't very well benefit from
a legal industry subject to government regulations, could they?

Drug warriors will, of course, condemn this position as "giving up." It may
break the terrorism-drug trade connection, but what of the domestic threat
it poses?

Our nation has, however, done a great deal more damage in its efforts
against drugs than in allowing them to proliferate. The government can
invest a great deal in law enforcement and forced treatment, but the social
and financial burdens that result from these policies indicate that they
aren't worth it.

Anti-legalization conservatives like former drug czar William J. Bennett
point contentedly to the statistics showing that when the drug war was
executed most strenuously, during the Reagan administration, cases of drug
abuse fell notably. They fail, however, to take into account the carnage
wrought when the drug trade becomes such a dangerous undertaking. During
prohibition, after all, the buying and selling of alcohol wasn't such a
safe business either.

Drug warriors dismiss this historical analogy without any substantive
refutation. "Many Americans who buy dope," writes commentator Bill
O'Reilly, "say that they have the right to do that because alcohol is
legal. If booze can be served, then society is hypocritical for outlawing
drugs."

To which I say, damn straight. O'Reilly proceeds to argue against
legalization on the vacuous basis that most Americans are against it. He
would do well to rethink his position. Not only is the drug war an
unworkable mess, it is of no benefit to him professionally: The less a
society uses controlled substances, the more intelligent it is, thus
producing fewer people who would watch O'Reilly's idiotic,
self-aggrandizing program on Fox News Channel.

As recent events have proven, America has plenty to worry about. We would
be better off acknowledging that, by paying so much attention to
drug-related activities, we waste precious time and effort.