[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 9]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 12073]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              DRUG POLICY

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. RON PAUL

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 27, 2002

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I highly recommend the attached article 
``Unintended Consequences'' by Thomas G. Donlan, from Barron's 
magazine, to my colleagues. This article provides an excellent 
explanation of the way current federal drug policy actually encourages 
international terrorist organizations, such as Al Queda, to use the 
drug trade to finance their activities. Far from being an argument to 
enhance the war on drugs, the reliance of terrorist organizations upon 
the drug trade is actually one more reason to reconsider current drug 
policy. Terrorist organizations are drawn to the drug trade because 
federal policy still enables drug dealers to reap huge profits from 
dealing illicit substances. As Mr. Donlan points out, pursuing a more 
rational drug policy would remove the exorbitant profits from the drug 
trade and thus remove the incentive for terrorists to produce and sell 
drugs.
  In conclusion, I once again recommend Mr. Donlan's article to my 
colleagues. I hope the author's explanation of how the war on drugs is 
inadvertently strengthening terrorist organizations will lead them to 
embrace a more humane, constitutional and rational approach to dealing 
with the legitimate problems associated with drug abuse.

                     [From Barron's, June 24, 2002]

                        Unintended Consequences

                         (By Thomas G. Donlan)

       It's harvest time in Afghanistan. While the delegates to 
     its grand council, the loya jurga, met under the great tent 
     in Kabul and grudgingly acknowledged Hamid Karza as the 
     president of a ``transitional government,'' the impoverished 
     farmers of Afghanistan reaped the rewards of their best cash 
     crop, the despised opium poppy.
       A few months ago, newspaper correspondents reported that 
     the American proconsuls in Afghanistan had abandoned their 
     hopes of reducing the opium harvest. They had considered 
     buying the crop or paying farmers to destroy their poppies, 
     but concluded that in the lawless Afghan hinterland they 
     would simply be paying a bonus for non-delivery.
       Karzai's previous ``interim administration'' had banned 
     opium production, but its writ did not run many miles beyond 
     the city of Kabul. Warlords and provincial governors did as 
     they pleased, and they were pleased to tax the opium trade 
     and indeed participate in it as traders and transporters and 
     protectors.
       That's what the Taliban did for most of the years that the 
     mullahs ruled and protected the al Qaeda terrorist network. 
     In 2000, Afghanistan accounted for 71% of the world's opium 
     supply. (Opium in turn is the building block for heroin, 
     which most drug-fighters believe takes the greatest human 
     toll and provides the greatest profit in the whole illicit 
     industry.)
       In 2001, the Taliban decreed an end to opium cultivation, 
     not so much to carry favor with the West but to maintain the 
     price: A bumper crop provided enough for two years of 
     commerce. Indeed, the Taliban and al Qaeda may have earned 
     more from their stockpiles in 2001 than they did from high 
     production in 2000.
       ``As ye sow, so shall ye reap.'' The Biblical passage is an 
     apt reminder that America's undercover agents nurtured 
     Islamic fundamentalism to strengthen Afghan resistance to the 
     Soviet Union. We reaped chaos in Afghanistan and a corps of 
     well-trained fanatics bent on our destruction. America has 
     also sown a war on drugs, and those same fanatics have 
     harvested the profits.
       This was not what we intended. Nor did we intend to let 
     huge profits earned by terrorists and common criminals be 
     used to corrupt police in every country where the trade 
     reaches, including our own. Nor did we intend to put hundreds 
     of thousands of Americans in prison for their participation 
     in the drug trade. Nor did we intend to create periodic drug 
     scarcities that turn addicts to crime to pay for their 
     habits.
       But all those things are unintended consequences of the war 
     on drugs. Drug use is eventually a self-punishing mistake; 
     the drug war turns out to be the same.
       Now the war on drugs and the war on terrorism are beginning 
     to look like two currents in a single river. Nearly half of 
     the international terrorist groups on the State Department's 
     list are involved in drug trafficking, either to raise money 
     for their political aims or because successful drug commerce 
     requires a ruthlessness indistinguishable from terrorism.
       The currents don't always run together: The FBI and other 
     federal law enforcement agencies acknowledge that the extra 
     resources they are devoting to the detection and apprehension 
     of terrorists are not new resources; the money agents and 
     equipment come to the war on terror at the expense of the war 
     on drugs.
       In the domestic war on drugs, officials are trying to make 
     the two currents serve their purposes. The government runs TV 
     ads portraying young Americans confessing, ``I killed 
     grandmas. I killed daughters. I killed firemen. I killed 
     policemen,'' and then warning the viewers, ``Where do 
     terrorists get their money? If you buy drugs, some of it may 
     come from you.''
       Bummer.
       Like they wanted to do that? The buyers of drugs would be 
     perfectly happy to buy them in a clean, well-lit store at 
     reasonable prices, with the profits heavily taxed to support 
     schools, medical benefits, or any other legitimate function 
     of government--even police. That's how they buy cigarettes 
     and liquor, neither of which finances international 
     terrorists. (In a current prosecution, smuggling cigarettes 
     from low-tax North Carolina to high-tax Michigan allegedly 
     raised $1,500 for an alleged affiliate of Hamas. But big 
     violence needs bigger sums from more lucrative sources.)
       It was bad when drug laws gave the Mafia an opportunity to 
     do big business. It was worse when the laws encouraged 
     Colombian and Mexican drug cartels to obtain aircraft and 
     heavy weapons. Now that the drug laws provide profits to 
     people who want to kill Americans wholesale instead of 
     retail, it's time to change the laws.
       Using drugs is stupid enough; making the users finance 
     international terrorists is even more foolish.

     

                          ____________________