They Still Just Don't Get It

Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law enforcement, David Johnson, briefed the media on a new report in which the Deep Thinkers of Foggy Bottom came to the (totally unshocking) conclusion that the international drug trade particularly those portions involving Afghanistan or Mexico "threaten American national security." The tone of Mr Johnson's remarks had the glib somberness of a well practiced funeral director.

Let's get a grip here.

The opium and morphine base production in Afghanistan does represent a direct threat to US personnel in that particular geographic expression by providing the finances necessary for the Taliban to keep on keeping on. Less money from the drug trade would automatically and instantly translate into a lessened Taliban military capability.

The same can not and should not be said regarding Mexico. The Geek has become quite annoyed by the Cassandra claims that Mexico is a "failing state" caught in the throes of an emergent insurgency powered by "drug lords." The immediate, direct implication of these dire predictions of impending dissolution to the south are not only overdrawn by a couple of orders of magnitude, they injure relations with Mexico by offending the very real sensitivities of a government and elite facing very real problems.

The Geek lives close enough to the border to almost hear the gunfire in Cuidad Juarez. Not surprisingly he keeps a close eye on matters down there.

Violence, particularly in and around Juarez is higher this year than last. Life in Juraez is more at risk than in Baghdad--or even Kabul. That does not mean Mexico is imploding, or, if it does do so some day, that it will be at the hands of drug cartels.

Mexican involvement in meeting the desires of American consumers for mind and mood altering drugs is not a national security threat. Get a grip on that. It may be a major problem for the Mexican government, but it is not a looming threat to our security. Any threats come instead from underlying, systemic problems in the Mexican economy and society. These will continue whether or not the drug thugs keep on pumping lead into each other--and any interfering cop.

Mr Johnson also excoriated countries which are not collaborating with the US in its oft-declared "war on drugs." He took particular note of Venezuela as a major non-participant in the American moral crusade against the individual's right to alter his own state of mind and mood without a physician's authorization. Golly, gee, Mr Johnson, who would have thunk?

Hugo Chavez and his neo-Castroite regime are both unpleasant and potentially threatening to American strategic interests and even (because of the Iranian and Hezbollah connections) our national security. Hugo's annoying attitude and the actions it drives are not connected directly and materially to his lack of support for our anti-drug crusade.

To define or defend American national security interests in terms of what country does or does not soldier faithfully in the "war on drugs" first declared forty years ago by Richard Nixon is simply to show a disconnect between a moral and political stance on one hand and the realities of national security and strategic interests on the other. Mr Johnson and any other worthies in the State Department who actually think that drugs qua drugs are a threat to our national security anywhere except Afghanistan are simply out to lunch.

Anyway there is a rapid, sovereign means to protect our national security against the threat allegedly posed by illegal drugs. Legalise them.

Declare the truth. Declare that the "war on drugs" has been well and truly lost. Drugs of all sorts are more plentiful and at a lower cost in constant dollars today than they were when King Richard announced the Grand Crusade Against Getting High.

It is time for the State Department Deep Thinkers (and, of course, their colleagues in other departments) to recall a little bit of American history. Back before the combination of racism, xenophobia, junk science, fear mongering and rank ambition propelled the Harrison Act and its expansion back in the distant days of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, drugs were widely available, and rather commonly used. At the time as well as in retrospective analysis of the (admittedly sketchy) data, there were no crime waves predicated on drugs. There were any number of very successful professional and business people who had cocaine and morphine habits which extended for decades.

We have ample laws covering "natural" crimes to protect society against offenders who might also be drug users. We have more than enough information to counsel against use while acknowledging the short- and long-term use of many, if not most, currently illegal drugs carries no profound ill-effects. (Recently the British publication New Scientist had a fine piece comparing the impact of Ecstasy with peanuts--peanuts came out in second place particularly for acute reactions.)

The time has come to drop the cant about "sending the wrong message to our children" or the bogus scare numbers concerning the terrible effects of drugs on the artifact of self-interest called "lost productivity."

The war on drugs is ongoing but long lost.

Have the guts to admit it.

Mr Johnson, if you are right, if the international drug trade is threatening our national security, your oath to uphold and defend the Constitution requires you to state the truth--legalising drugs protects the US.