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.
With regard to the War on Terror, who asks to be a victim of terror? How is it wrong to launch all our resources available into fighting fanatics hell-bent on exterminating us? Whose freedoms is the War on Terror limiting? Those same fanatics?
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are anaethema to all Islamofascist terrorists. The War on Terror strives to protect these three things that Americans (and other members of the Western free world) should take for granted.
The only way possible to compare the War on Drugs to the War on Terror is to stipulate – correctly – that the former drains resources from the latter. I wish President Bush would see the light, tell John Walters to piss off, slash the DEA and commit their budget toward Homeland Security. We can’t have it both ways. Not only is the War on Drugs irrelevant and immoral, but it cannot exist in tandem with the War on Terror. Eventually, we will have to choose which means more to us.
Actually, perhaps we can compare the two after all: The War on Drugs is a protracted, long-term struggle against freedom of choice and the marketplace. The War on Terror is a protracted, long-term struggle against insane fanatics who want to destroy our freedom and our marketplaces for good. No contest really.Powered by Sidelines