On Eric Olsen's recent entry, "The Song, Not the Singer: Bush on the War", Jim Carruthers left the following comment:
"The answer is that you shouldn't have begun the 'job' in Iraq, and the 'war on terrorism' is as valid as the 'war on drugs' (as this week's testimony by Ashcroft reveals)."
I seriously don't see how one can compare the War on Drugs to the War on Terror. That's like apples and oranges.
I believe that the War on Drugs violates the two tenets of personal responsibility and freedom, which, as a conservative, I hold dear. Marijuana should be as legal as alcohol and tobacco are, and other, harder drugs should be made legally available through health clinics/hospitals to those with addictions (as long as they agree to detox programs). If we legalized marijuana alone, that would take a huge chunk of police time, prisoners and money out of the formula. The War on Drugs can't work because it doesn't place trust in people to make the right decisions (instead, it forces it), and limits freedom in the process.
Besides, as a capitalist, it drives me crazy to think of all the free enterprise money that could be made if we legalized cannabis.
Then, of course, there's the point that if alcohol and tobacco - perhaps the two unhealthiest substances in existence - are legal, it makes no sense to keep marijuana illegal.
I have been to Amsterdam and I have seen first-hand how decriminalizing marijuana and making it available in small amounts in coffeeshops works to free up resources to fight harder, much more lethal drugs. (Of course, again, why should the potential of death deter us from legalizing hard drugs when alcohol and tobacco kill plenty of people by themselves?)
The War on Drugs makes no sense, is hypocritical in light of the legality of alcohol and tobacco, limits freedom of choice, is economically unviable, ties up too many resources and is a disgrace. There, I've said it.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Hal Pawluk
"I seriously don't see how one can compare the War on Drugs to the War on Terror."
Neither are state-based, and thus are not susceptible to a military solution in the way a "real" war with another country is.
It's a good analogy, as analogies go.
Afghanistan was probably "the exception that proves the rule" since the Taliban government gave safe haven and support to Al Qaeda.
Saudi Arabia follows the rule, even though many individual Saudis support radical Islamists.
2 - Jim Carruthers
uhm, thank you I think? One of the points I was making was that your prisons are already full, and you can't stuff them further with terror (unless "OZ" comes back for another season).
I think we need a moratorium on the whole "War On ..." unless it is the comic strip.
3 - Mark Edward Manning
No problem, Jim. If ever you need someone to shout down the War on Drugs, you can rely on me. Unfortunately, when it comes to almost every other conceivable subject matter, I think we'd end up killing each other.
4 - Eric Olsen
I also deplore the war on drugs, which is really America's war on itself, and as we learned in Vietnam, when we fight ourselves we can only lose. I also support MEM's other tenets regarding marijuana in particular: no different from alcohol and tobacco, should be treated very similarly.
In the case of drugs, the war analogy doesn't hold, in the war on terror the analogy to war isn't an analogy at all: it's a stark reality. There is an enemy, it is very real, and it is a war that must be fought and won on many fronts, including militarily.
5 - Hal Pawluk
"...in the war on terror the analogy to war isn't an analogy at all ..."
Sure it is.
This is certainly a major fight but it's not "war" as "war" is generally understood. Conventional warfare - mass bombings and invasions of countries - isn't going to work against the radical Islamists.
If there is to be any hope of success to the extent that some success is possible, we need to appreciate the real nature of the battle. Yes, guns and bombs will very likely be needed, but these zealots are interleaved within the populations of countries, including this one - so who are you going to invade? Fire-power is going to be less important than brain power and an international initiative in every country in the world.
We should also realize that this "war" will never end - look at Israel and the Palestinians, Spain and the Basques, Ireland and their occupiers ... societies have long, long memories. And they seem to never forgive.
6 - Eric Olsen
Hal, I don't disagree with anything you said, but it is still a war. And rather than invading, a huge part of our task is to avoid invasion.
7 - Natalie Davis
And yet that is what those you support do: invade and occupy. And, like the other terrorists, they maim and murder. It's indecent, to say the very least.
8 - boomcrashbaby
Fire-power is going to be less important than brain power
Yet so many people still think the man for the job is the man who on last Tuesday began his press conference by saying at the beginning of his commentary:
"This has been tough weeks in that country."
9 - Eric Olsen
Unfortunately, his family couldn't afford speech therapy when he was a lad.
Natalie, We all have better things to do than police the world, but we won the toss and can't get anyone else to take over. Until human nature changes, force is the only defense against force, and offensive force is the best way to stop terror.
10 - boomcrashbaby
The Bushs couldn't afford speech therapy? What college did they send him to again? Community college?
oh, this are troubled times for we nations.
11 - JR
The Bushs couldn't afford speech therapy?
They couldn't get working class people to pay for it.
12 - Mark Edward Manning
Hal has good points - yes, acrimony between certain societies never seems to end - but you can do your best to prevent violence from occurring. When it does occur, as the latest flare-ups in Iraq demonstrate, you might just have to fight fire with fire and then go back to the debating table.
Natalie, it's obvious the Islamofascists want to invade and control us. If you like being a member of the free world, this is no time to sit back and embrace moral relativism.
Boomcrashbaby, Bush went to a school called Yale. Ever heard of it? You cannot force your kid, no matter what your power or influence, to graduate from an Ivy League university if the kid in question is truly a dumb-ass. I agree with Eric and others that Bush has a very real speech impediment, yet that does not make him dumb.
13 - Tom Johnson
Speech therapy would do him no good. He speaks perfectly well. What he is is not a good public speaker - lots of people have that problem. I have that problem. No speech therapist would solve that problem. I think it's sad and shocking how quickly people are to assume that just because he stumbles and is visibly uncomfortable with public speaking he is somehow actually stupid. You don't have to like him, but at least give the guy some credit. Nasty as politicians can be, they don't get where they are by being stupid.
14 - Mark Saleski
You cannot force your kid, no matter what your power or influence, to graduate from an Ivy League university if the kid in question is truly a dumb-ass.
no but you CAN get him IN if he's a dumb-ass...it's called the legacy system.
15 - JR
Nasty as politicians can be, they don't get where they are by being stupid.
No, they get where they are by having connections and money. Bush just happens to be stupid and well-connected.
16 - boomcrashbaby
Bush went to a school called Yale. Ever heard of it?
Yes, I've heard of it and I know he went there. My comment was sarcastic.
You cannot force your kid, no matter what your power or influence, to graduate from an Ivy League university if the kid in question is truly a dumb-ass.
Oh, yes you can. You can also get him out of military service. Large numbers of football players graduate with very limited ability to read. Why would that be? MONEY.
17 - Eric Olsen
The "not being able to afford speech therapy" thing was a joke. But Tom is right that it really isn't his speech, it's his ability to speak extemporaneously. He is just fine when he works from a prepared text.
Regarding his intelligence: he is not an intellectual, he is not an academic, he is not especially curious as far as I can tell, and in the past he was a party boy, which took up a lot of his time and attention. But he is not stupid.
18 - boomcrashbaby
The "not being able to afford speech therapy" thing was a joke
I know. That's why I responded to it in kind.
But he is not stupid.
For all my jokes about his speech, I am sure he is an intellectual being. However, even intellectual beings make errors in judgement and this lock-step mentality that his way to combat terrorism is the best way is really no laughing matter.
19 - boomcrashbaby
Bush has created far more terrorists than there were before we invaded Iraq. While Al Queda might be crumbling right now, it is not being wiped clean. And what good does it do to eradicate the termite colony infesting your house, when in the process you create several more colonies?
20 - Joe
I haven't seen the Jihadi census that supports that oft made contention, but you have to allow that he's certainly responsible for killing more terrorists as well.
21 - Natalie Davis
Precisely; Bush is a terrorist. He is what he claims to hate.
"Until human nature changes, force is the only defense against force, and offensive force is the best way to stop terror."
'Offensive force,' aka terrorism
"Natalie, it's obvious the Islamofascists want to invade and control us."
The old childhood truism remains the same: Two wrongs don't make a right. If "they" are wrong when they maim and murder, so are "you." I trust your enemies see their aims as being as noble as you see yours and those of your, um, "leader."
"If you like being a member of the free world..."
As a matter of fact, this second-class-under-law human born in America (I refuse to insult myself by using the odious word 'citizen') doesn't like being part of what you call the 'free world.' This world, your world, disgusts me to the core (as does the world of the Islamofascists [aka Bush's enemies and fellow terrorists]); I am trapped here until my last breath comes. The plan is to expatriate when possible, but no place is perfect and few places are untainted by what taints your country.
22 - boomcrashbaby
but you have to allow that he's certainly responsible for killing more terrorists as well.
He may be killing terrorists, but not at the rate he's creating them, as recent events all over the middle east attest to.
23 - Eric Olsen
I would not call all the Sunnis caught up in this mob violence in Fallujah and elsewhere "terrorists" in the same sense, although they are currently behaving like it. They are just stupid fucks who don't know any better and are going to end up dead as a result.
24 - Joe
Again, I'd have to see the aforementioned Jihadi census to buy that argument.
25 - JR
They are just stupid fucks who don't know any better and are going to end up dead as a result.
Sometimes I think that describes all of us.
But yeah, a lot of these Iraqis don't seem to have put much thought into their actions. And that is quite different than, say, Mohammed Atta.