Pubdate: Sunday, Nov 3, 2001
Source: Houston Chronicle
(TX)
Author: Neal Pierce
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/1115732---------------------------------------
Can't win war on terror fighting a war on drugs
By
NEAL PIERCE
If we expect to win the war on terrorism, we have to call off
the war on
drugs. There are three reasons:
· We can't afford
both.
· The drug war feeds terrorist networks and diverts law enforcement
from
focusing on immense new perils.
· The drug war was failing
anyway. If we want to reduce drug dependency and
the crime associated with
it, then intensive treatment programs will be far
more
effective.
Sadly, official Washington isn't admitting any of these
truths. House
Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., has gone so far as to declare
that "by going
after the illegal drug trade, we reduce the ability of
terrorists to launch
attacks against the United States."
First flaw in
the argument: If our primary goal is Osama bin Laden and his
Middle
East-based network, choking off drug demand here (even if we could)
wouldn't
help much. Virtually all the heroin flowing out of Afghanistan goes
to
Europe, not the United States.
But there's a larger flaw: What makes
America's drug market so lucrative to
suppliers in Latin America and
elsewhere is our efforts to keep it illegal.
Black markets always generate
huge profits and networks of brutal,
underground operators. Ties to
terrorists are inevitable.
"We have spent a half-trillion dollars on the
drug war since 1990 and we are
less safe and less healthy than ever," says
Kevin Zeese, president of Common
Sense for Drug Policy and long-term opponent
of the prevailing national
policy.
Zeese, like most reformers, favors
a legally controlled market that would
focus on treatment and remove the
hyperprofits of today's illegal trade.
He charges the drug war actually
"blinded our government to terrorism,"
citing reports in Boston news media
that FBI agents in the '90s actually
apprehended Raed Hijazi, an admitted
al-Qaida member. Hijazi, according to
the reports, provided the agents with
information on the Boston area
terrorist cell later involved with the Sept.
11 hijackings. But the FBI was
reportedly interested only in information
Hijazi had on heroin trafficking.
Such incidents suggest that even if our
federal, state and local governments
found enough cash to fight a
simultaneous war on drugs and war on terrorism,
split agendas could mean that
we end up losing both struggles.
In a contorted way, one can argue
America could "afford" to lose the war on
drugs. Through the 1990s, times
were good, government budgets sufficiently
elastic, and the criminal justice
system was kept busy. City neighborhoods
may have been devastated, but there
was little political outcry because the
millions who got incarcerated tended
to be politically less potent -- the
poor and minorities.
But
terrorism is different. It's not some social choice (alcohol is OK,
marijuana
or crack get you prison, etc.). Rather, terrorism is a grim,
undeniable
force. Fed by global poverty and religious extremism, it could
well be the
most frightening, multifaceted threat to the lives, homes,
cities and
livelihoods of Americans since the Civil War.
The harsh fact --
especially for state and local governments -- is that
resources are finite.
Every cop who isn't chasing a kid selling cocaine on a
city street is a cop
who could be guarding a subway station, a stadium or
public plaza. Every
detective not tied up in drug cases can be checking
leads on potential
assaults on city water reservoirs or local power
stations.
"Every
dollar spent intercepting cocaine, heroin or marijuana," suggests
Zeese, "is
a dollar that could be spent intercepting bombs."
Or take the federal
Drug Enforcement Administration. Every DEA agent who
isn't involved in a
futile effort to stop an easily replaceable drug
shipment from entering the
United States can be investigating terrorist
cells or working to prevent
bioterrorism or nuclear terrorism. Yes, nuclear
terrorism, which almost
surely will be tried against us in the coming years.
It is time to get
serious, and deal with dire threats first. Instinctively,
some federal
agencies are shifting already. The FBI has changed its focus to
terrorism.
The Coast Guard has reportedly switched close to three-fourths of
its
personnel and boats from drug interdiction to antiterrorist patrols.
Sharp
moves in priority are also reported at the Customs Service, Public
Health
Service and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
But until we flip
our drug policy, putting prevention and treatment first,
and stop pursuing
the millions of drug users in our own population, we'll
have neither the
resources nor the focus to pursue the very real terrorist
threat that we
face.
-------------------------------------------------
Peirce is a
syndicated columnist who specializes in city and state affairs.
(
npeirce@citistates.com)