The 2004 Congressional Research Service report to congress, “Illicit Drugs and the Terrorist Threat: Causal Links and Implications for Domestic Drug Control Policy” summarized the threat posed by the black market creating ‘illicit’ status of drugs. “The international traffic in illicit drugs contributes to terrorist risk through at least five mechanisms: supplying cash, creating chaos and instability, supporting corruption, providing “cover” and sustaining common infrastructures for illicit activity, and competing for law enforcement and intelligence attention. Of these, cash and chaos are likely to be the two most important.”

Irrationally, that same report then concluded, “American drug policy is not, and should not be, driven entirely, or even
primarily, by the need to reduce the contribution of drug abuse to our vulnerability to terrorist action. There are too many other goals to be served by the drug abuse control effort.”

Well funded stateless terrorism is simply accepted collateral damage of the durg war.

My essay, Plan Colombia: Informed Myopia has more information on these issues.

Anti Narcotics laws are a giant welfare program conceived originally as an excuse to keep anti-alcohol agents on the payroll after prohibition was repealed.

Every socially negative aspect of the drug trade can be traced to either a puritanical desire to prevent productive people from tuning out, or the violence encouraged by outlawing an industry.

In order to keep the welfare checks coming the DEA and the various other groups of dead-beats need to persuade the populace that the War on Some Drugs is a good idea. Thus, they emphasize and try to escalate the violence, in order to keep the general population in a state of fear.

By arresting this one man, the DEA agent ensured that he would not have to do an honest day’s work in his entire life, and could continue mooching off of the productive classes of society.

Agreed. Anne Applebaum has a sensible proposal, but Hey! When has good sense come into play in the War on Drugs?