What international war on drugs?
By Ben-Peter Terpstra
web posted April 13, 2009
Here's Brian Doherty's poetic question:
The United Nations is currently celebrating the 100th anniversary of the "international war on drugs." Yes, it was in 1909 that 13 countries joined together in the "International Opium Commission" to halt the Chinese opium trade. And how did that go?
Here's Doherty's unpoetic answer:
Strangely, after a century's worth of attempts to forcefully stamp out two perfectly legitimate and useful human urges—to make a decent living, and to pleasurably alter our consciousness—drug warriors are no closer to victory. The chief of the UN's Office on Drugs and Crime, Antonio Maria Costa, even confesses to feeling "somewhat frustrated" that his impossible job is so darn impossible.
While some sophisticates decry wars against drugs, I'm not sure if they know what a real war looks like. In any case, and according to many user-first libertarians, we've lost the war against rape. So no jails, right? No laws, right? Let's appease rapists, brothels, pushers, and sellers?
Well, that's one example of defeatism. I prefer to see drugs as individuals. Heroin must not be sold at McDonald's for a number of obvious reasons (although it certainly isn't the most addictive drug). And, why can't we see that the UN's "war on drugs" is, for the most part, an eternal conference on drugs, or a fake, pretend war?
Clearly, you're not ready to call the war on drugs a failure if...you think international bureaucrats are our best soldiers. No. Our best soldiers are soldiers. You're not ready to call the war on drugs a failure if... you think that we've been trying to "forcefully stamp out" drugs for a century. Ha, ha. That's a joke. We haven't. And, most certainly, you're an idiot if you look to the UN's example.
I'm with Ann Coulter:
Until going through several weeks of negotiations with the Connecticut Libertarian Party over their pro-drug legalization stance, my position on drugs was to refuse to discuss drug legalization until I don't have to pay for the food, housing, transportation, and medical care of people who want to shoot up heroin all day.
Real wars against "drugs" can work, and that's why I'm for the war against heroin (and more dangerous mind altering drugs), and against the war on alcohol, for instance. Remember Wilson's Democrats? They fought a great war against beer bottles, but it was the wrong war.
Somehow, adults-only libertarians always fail to appreciate the full benefits of private schools (which are better at teaching children about the dangers of harmful drugs), private hospitals (which are better at turning away drug-taking bums), private jails (which are better at keeping private property destroyers away from private properties on the cheap), and electric fences (which are very entertaining). Instead, they're fixated on treating drug addicts like delicate petals. Truly, if adults-only libertarians were serious about civil rights, I'd be rich and safe.
Obviously, red-meat libertarians rightly reject criminal-first libertarians preaching against the costly "war on drugs" and their penchant for surrendering to screwball socialistic governments and their favourite export industry (drugs and runners to harm democracies). Are these people on crack too? Or are they closet socialists, receiving cheques in the mail, from George Soros, the former Nazi collaborator? It makes one wonder: Stupid or cunning? Fools or tools?
The criminal-first libertarian is a type familiar to small business owners: the person who is willing to sacrifice private properties and therefore family lives for the state's idea of civil rights. He (or she) too says little to nothing about the culture of censorship surrounding politically incorrect doctors, and academics when they out the dangers of club drugs, or the medicinal benefits of time-honoured wines.
My war on drugs actually involves allowing private businesses to build the Great Wall of Mexico, and the Great Wall of Canada - or treating the United States like a private property. It involves privatising all hospitals, schools, and jails. Moreover, it doesn't mean treating your average drug addict like a victim, or an emotional sister who just needs an ear. It involves real sentences for real criminals who sell brain-destroying substances to young souls.
Are you an "appeaser," someone who says yes to everything pot-friendly, left-wing academics preach? Or are you a "warrior," someone who believes that a real war actually means (at the very least) building a barrier between your house and Mexico?
Granted, Doherty's irretrievably stupid idea of "two perfectly legitimate and useful human urges" is supported by socialists, but not history. For how can one "make a decent living" when a mad drug addict is literally smashing your parents' business, after altering his conscience in the name of "pleasure"? And, where were these criminal-first libertarians when a crazy user tried to car jack me? My guess: Drew Carey's chichi hideaway for cocktails. 
Ben-Peter Terpstra is an Australian satirist. His works have been posted on numerous websites from American Thinker (California) to Quadrant (Sydney, Australia). His commentary has been linked to such popular sites as Ann Coulter, World Net Daily, and Big Hollywood.