THE WHITE HOUSE IS SPENDING TO MISLEAD US ON DRUGS, TERRORISM

The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy wants you to believe
that domestic drug consumption supports international terrorism. This is
only somewhat true and in a very circuitous way.

However, the context of the delivery of this message makes it hypocritical.
At the most superficial level, the Superbowl advertisements' argument that
the underworld network in place to support the drug trade can easily be
utilized by other malignant elements suggests a solution the White House
Office is expressly against. Their allegations, while true, ignore the fact
that the easiest method to eliminate the black-market infrastructure of the
drug trade is to take the drug trade off the black market.

In the same way prohibition of alcohol created large extra-legal
organizations to support its trade, so too does the prohibition of drugs.
If in fact the real moral impetus behind objections to drug use is
objection to support for terrorists, perhaps a call for partial
legalization is past due.

One caveat to their argument: it only applies to terrorists directly if you
are buying black tar opium while in Macedonia, Greece, Romania, Serbia,
Albania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Spain and perhaps Italy. There is only a very
remote possibility U.S. drugs come from the opposite side of the globe.

In addition, the argument could be made that a debt of gratitude is owed to
all those Swiss junkies. If a family living in northern Afghanistan begins
to starve because they can't afford food, it becomes more likely that they
will turn to the local Madrasa for food or shelter, and as a result, be
subject to terrorist brainwashing. This is not funded by the fat drug lords
of Afghanistan, but by Wahabbi Saudi Arabian oil. The income from the trade
of opium may be the only thing that kept some Afghanis off the crack of
Islamic Extremism. So, if you really want to fight terrorism, don't quit
your drug habit, buy a smaller car.

You should also criticize the Bush administration. Recently, Hamid Karzai
visited Washington to raise funds for his new coalition Afghani government.
You may recognize him as the guy in the funny hat who sat next to Laura
Bush during the State of the Union Address. He was successful in
accumulating $50 million in U.S. financial aid.

In contrast, the new budget proposed by the Bush White House calls for a $2
billion increase in U.S. border control next year. That's 40 times our
budget for nation building in Afghanistan. The proposed increases in the
defense budget simply as a result of Sept. 11 are over 400 times our aid to
Afghanistan. The total proposed defense budget for fiscal 2002: $379
billion is 7,500 times our proposed aid to Afghanistan. Clearly an ad
campaign that emphasizes combating the roots of terrorism by abstaining
from drugs, which will cost $152 million over the next three years, is
disingenuous at least.

How could such ignorance of the situation occur in our top government law
enforcement officials, who are ensconced in the war on terrorism even now?
Shouldn't they realize building a more stable Third World is more effective
at combating terrorism than throwing millions at an ad campaign meant to
indirectly affect a minor segment of the terrorist threat.

Well, I am sure they do. You see, this was not in fact a part of a united
front against terror, but like so much of the war on drugs, this was simply
a marketing strategy. No Washington bureaucrat had a hand in the design of
this misleading hypocrisy. This was the brainchild of a Madison Avenue
marketing firm. Using focus groups and elite international talent this
commercial was as contrived and artificial as any Super Bowl halftime show.

Dan Wolf, Treasurer

Students for Sensible Drug Policy

Athens