Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Ill Gotten Gains

Peter Guither of Drug War Rant is discussing how drug prohibition finances Islamic Fascism. He excerpts this from the Congressional Quarterly:

Just as Capone profiteered using the illegal status of alcohol during Prohibition, Angell argues, terror groups are able to realize enormous profits because of the artificially high prices of illicit drugs today. The exhibit's DEA sponsors are "hiding the fact that it is their prohibitionist policy that has allowed terrorists to make money off drugs," he says. He says his group plans to dispatch members to the exhibit throughout its four-month run to distribute leaflets promoting a rival online exhibit created by Pete Guither, who writes the blog DrugWarRant.com.
Peter then quotes a DEA representative:
DEA spokesman David Ausiello says that, while the exhibit does make use of such specific cases [terrorist drug connections], its primary message is much broader: "We are up against a formidable enemy that is well-funded with money that comes from drugs," he says. "We have to take away their means to make money."
He then comments:
Yep. And there's one way to do that. End prohibition, and the criminals lose their source of funding. (Of course, so does the DEA.)

Thanks for helping us make our point, David.
Think of how much more secure we would be if we quit wasting so much money on this boondoggle and put all those trained agents to work tracking terrorist plots.

I have been saying this since right after 9/11. It bears repeating until our government gets wise.

Especially since I think that the fight against drugs is a fight against a phantom menace. Is Addiction Real? We have more than enough real menaces to deal with without wasting resources on phantom menaces.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

The concept that the government should stop outlawing drugs is very alluring on the surface. However, the issue of legalized gambling in the form of lotteries and, even worse, legal casinos, may shed some light on where "legalized" drug usage may lead. Is it farfetched to think of our government recognizing the potential income to be gained by taxing (and eventually promoting the use of) a wide variety of self-destructive drugs? Legalizing the use of dangerous and life-destroying drugs is tantamount to the parent of a teenager deciding that enforcing curfews, confronting anti-social behavior, limiting alcohol consumption, etc., is simply too much trouble, so just adopt a laissez-faire attitude and let the "free" teenager make his/her own choices. The results, as can be seen by the state of so many young people, are often disasterous for the individual and for society at large (how many innocents have been killed by drunk teenage drivers?). Letting the public make any and all choices with no government limits at all, although attractive from a libertarian perspective, is nothing other than an abdication of one of the primary roles good government can and should have on a society at large. Government should indeed not strive to be a nanny state, no more than parents should try to be Marine drill instructors for their teenage children. But keeping children, and the public, away from the fringes of "choice" can keep society from falling off the cliff in areas where temptation, and human weaknesses in general, can lead people down a path of no return.