PROHIBITION HELPS TERRORISTS

A recent letter writer used the truly illogical argument that terrorism can
be eliminated by "ratcheting up" the war on drugs.

It is prohibition that finances terrorism -- not drugs. It should be noted
that terrorists are not opening liquor stores, pharmacies or corner
groceries to finance terrorism. A rational analysis shows that drugs were
not funding terrorism before Prohibition, and that today legal drugs do not
finance terrorism.

Until voters can learn to apply logic to their arguments and laws, we may
see more incidents such as 9-11 because prohibition is a license for
terrorists to print money.

Furthermore, the United States now spends $40 billion a year to intercept
at maximum 5 percent of illegal drugs. Also frightening is the fact that
the U.S. imprisons 700 citizens per 100,000, compared with 50 in most of
Europe and 115 in Canada, mostly for drug crimes. How much more money and
time should be wasted on this crusade when there are real enemies in our midst.

Until now, people who did not use drugs could ignore the war being waged by
the government against 10 percent of the population, because they do not
use drugs.

But now that terrorism is in the spotlight, it is apparent that everyone
can be a victim of prohibition.

Voters should ask politicians this question: "Do you support drug
prohibition because it finances criminals at home or because it finances
terrorists abroad?"

CHUCK BEYER, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada