THE PUNK ROCK EDITORIAL

by anonymous writer
Taken from the Epitaph Weekly Newsletter, week of December 3, 2002

The issue of terrorism has been one we have spent many times discussing in class. Whether or not drugs and the distribution of them assists terrorism is another topic we have addressed at some length. However, the way I see it, we could have an entire class dedicated to this topic. The American criminalization of drugs, especially marijuana, and the commercials they put out linking them directly to terrorism, are perfect examples of propaganda used by our current administration.

Through our dealing with it and debate over it, the specific commercial that comes to mind is the one that shows young kids smoking marijuana, and asks the question "If you buy pot, are you contributing to terrorism all over the world?" First off, I find it both appalling and disgraceful that the American government would sponsor a commercial which basically accuses many of its citizens of treason in a sense. The way the ad comes across is that if you do drugs, including some recreational use of marijuana, then you are aiding the cause of the most dangerous enemy we as Americans now face in this new century: terrorism.

Now I said in my opening statement that I saw this commercial as a form of propaganda used by the Bush administration. Anyone who can see through the double meaning of this ad should be able to see it just the same way. It's no secret that since the 80's the American government has in reality wasted billions of dollars on the "War on Drugs." That crusade continues today as strongly as ever. Knowing that fact, one must realize that every American was affected in some way by the events of 9/11. Since this is true, the Bush administration has in my eyes unfairly painted a picture which says those that use drugs in some way contributed to what for most of us was the worst and most tragic day in this country's great history.

George Bush Jr. was quoted as saying this on December 14, 2001; "It's important for Americans to know that trafficking of drugs finances the world of terror, sustaining terrorists; if you quit drugs, you join the fight against terrorism" (Appel & Olds, 1). I think the president's message was clear in this statement. It goes right along with his decree that "either you're with us or you're against us." For those of us who don't quit drugs, are we then also in essence quitting the fight against terrorism? Absolutely not!! Leave it to our ultra-intelligent president to make such a discriminating and illogical statement. This is coming from a man whose father helped Osama Bin Laden buy his first oil refinery. This is coming from a man whose father's regime as vice-president for Reagan and then president himself saw our government arm both Bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein. Aren't these the two men we as Americans fear most in the war against terrorism? It would be interesting to survey the American public and see how many of them knew Bin Laden was trained by the CIA, and that we gave him weapons and men during Afghanistan's war with Russia. Or the fact that we did basically the same for Hussein in the 80's, arming him with massive weapons and training his men for their war against Iran. But this was ok at the time it happened; because of course it served America's "best interests."

This much is clear: by 2000, 76.3 million Americans had tried marijuana during their life (Appel & Olds, 1). Let's just say for the sake of argument that 10% of these people, 7.63 million, smoke marijuana on a regular basis (2-3 times a week). Are all of these people bad Americans who are undermining the fight against terrorism? Many groups whose solution to every problem this country faces is simply blowing them up have members who smoke pot. Members of Congress smoke pot. What Bush fails to realize, not surprisingly, is that left-wing, anti-war citizens are not the only ones smoking marijuana, or for that matter taking any kind of drug at all. I think that these ads angered more people then any of us realized. I'm sure people don't appreciate being told they're "on the other side" by an administration that is run by a man who was once a cocaine addict. Anyone see the contradictions here? I sure do, and I think many other people my age see them as well. We are the ones being targeted in these commercials. Young adults from the ages of 16-25 take more drugs then any other age group, and not coincidentally are also the age group most upset with and critical of the current administration. A majority of people my age simply don't like the way this government is run, and for that reason we have had our pride as Americans questioned and attacked by a propaganda-style campaign that has absolutely no factual backing to it at all.

Have drugs made money for terrorists? The answer to this is an emphatic yes, a fact that no one can deny. Yet where have Bin Laden and his followers made their money? They haven't done it by smuggling marijuana, or LSD, or cocaine, but becoming a big player in the heroin industry. Again, this is another fact very few Americans would know. So why then does the commercial in question show pictures of kids smoking pot, and not injecting a needle into their veins? I don't have an answer to that, other then showing someone smoke pot in there thinking encompasses all drug users. Marijuana is always labeled as the "gateway" drug, one that leads to people experimenting with more potent and possibly dangerous narcotics. Whether or not that is true is an entirely different argument for another time and paper, but the truth remains that showing a kid smoking pot is the easiest way to try and reach out to the biggest audience possible. How many parents know their kids have smoked pot? How many then, after viewing that commercial, had their minds changed on the issue because of false advertising by our own government? One would be too many.

Another issue that arises when we discuss terrorism and drugs hand-in-hand is the fact that the new laws loosening the restrictions on wire-taps, email checks, etc. could justifiably (at least from the government's standpoint) be used against drug traffickers. Let me make it clear that am I in no way promoting the usage and selling of drugs. However, they by no means should be treated as terrorists unless there is a direct connection between the two. Just because an individual sells drugs, this does not make him a terrorist, something I see the government trying to automatically link together. "Equating drug trafficking and use to terrorism will conveniently allow the government to extend the drastically expanded police and prosecutional powers of the war on terrorism into the war on drugs. The domestic tools of the war on terrorism will be applied to major drug traffickers, fortified by the claim that the illegal drug trade funds terrorists. The traffickers will soon become terrorists in public perception. Drug use does not constitute terrorism, nor really have anything to do with it. Our neighbors, associates, friends, and relatives and their lives and liberties will be directly impacted by the abridgement of rights pursued in the name of anti-terrorism" (Appel & Olds, 1). Both of these authors echo what I have been saying throughout this paper. It is unfair and un-American to classify citizens by a vice that many fall victim to and to then burden them with supporting terrorism as a result of that vice. It simply isn't true and isn't right. In conclusion, this debate is a heated one for each side and it will continue to be argued for as long as the war on terrorism exists. As much as I am a ferocious opponent of the war on drugs, with my alternative being legalization of at least some or all narcotics, I want to reiterate that I am not promoting the usage or selling of drugs in any way. I've seen friends and family members ruined because of drug problems, yet that doesn't mean that I should support a campaign based on lies and assumptions. The way the United States government is trying to ultra-criminalize the use/selling of drugs by connecting them directly with terrorism is shameful and extremely disheartening. The government always preaches how 9/11 brought all Americans together and that the true character of our people shone bright throughout the aftermath of the attacks. Why then are they alienating so many with these campaigns, especially an age group you would think they would want to appeal to. Many people my age can weed through the Bush administration's red tape and see these ads for what they really are; a propagandist ploy to create and us vs. them mentality. I and others like me are in the minority by feeling that not everything has to be solved through violence or war. These are attitudes and feelings that our government would rather not have to deal with or listen to. Why not then (since so many of the kids who feel like this might smoke pot) don't we associate drug use with terrorism so we are viewed as traitors and therefore have our ideas or opinions ignored and dismissed? It's a tactic that scares me, not so much because of the initial reaction it might cause, but because of the long-term effects it might have. Let's hope that one day smoking pot in your dorm room isn't considered an act of terrorism.