WHITE HOUSE OFFICE DISHES OUT MILLIONS TO LINK DRUGS TO TERRORISM

Ho-hum, another beer and buffalo-wing bloated Super Bowl Sunday has come
and gone.

For those of you who, like myself, didn't really have a dog in the fight,
the game was probably more about the spectacle than it was who won and lost.

Super Bowl Sunday has grown into more than just professional football's
championship game. It has become a uniquely American holiday. Not only do
we pay homage to the titans on the field, we also give center stage to the
advertisers who promote all of our oh-so-precious consumer goods.

This year's Super Bowl commercials were generally forgettable. Seeing
Britney Spears in a gratuitous outfit, strutting around like a Bourbon
Street prostitute isn't exactly a rare phenomenon these days. Most Super
Bowl commercials simply passed without comment, with two notable exceptions.

The White House Office of Drug Control Policy shelled out close to $3
million to run two ads which suggested that drug users might be funding
international terrorists. The warning, while hardly disingenuous, doesn't
come without a wealth of irony.

In May of 2001, that same White House Office approved a $43 million aid
package for the then Afghanistan-ruling Taliban. The Taliban's pledge to
eradicate opium production paved the way for the grant, and indeed some $10
million was specifically earmarked by the White House to assist with that
purpose.

In the annals of national spending, one would struggle to find a more
puzzling expenditure. In the months that followed, the Taliban initiated a
terrorist war against the United States, and world heroin supplies actually
increased.

Providing state sponsors of terrorism with an all-expense-paid poppy
harvest can hardly be deemed fiscally responsible, but such is the legacy
of White House drug policy.

Of course, foresight has never been a strong suit of the Office of Drug
Control Policy. Nor can it be said that the Office has its proverbial
finger on the pulse of the drug culture. In addition to stories linking
drug use with terrorism, the Office's official Web site also contains a
list of street terms for various drugs.

For example, marijuana, or cannabis, has some 500 pseudonyms, covering
nearly every root stem known to the English language. (Included in this
list was the term "carmabis," suggesting that this author might possibly
have descended from medieval Irish-Catholic dope pushers.)

According to the Office, many everyday kitchen items can be used to refer
to marijuana, including 'chocolate,' and 'butter.'

When using such terms, however, one would be wise to know their audience.
In certain circles, chocolate can mean anything from opium to amphetamines.
Butter, on the other hand, is more straightforward. It's slang for only one
other drug: crack.

Which is to say, next time your mother asks you to run next door for a
stick of butter, or the next time your little sister asks you for
chocolate, you might want to consider reporting them to the authorities, at
least if you really care about them.

It's not surprising that the White House Office on Drug Control Policy
would purchase advertising space during the Super Bowl. Nor is it shocking,
given the current political climate, that they would choose to link drugs
with terrorism.

My only complaint would be that they fail to tell us all the ways in which
we might be unwittingly assisting our enemies. In light of the White
House's $43 million grant to the Taliban, if buying illegal drugs helps
finance terrorists, perhaps paying federal income taxes has the same effect.

Leo is a third year law student from Sharpsburg, N.C. He can be reached at
Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory.