Eye On CameraWare -- community

Eyes red and blurry from the night before, he carefully measures the exact amount of black granules into the white, pressed filter. Adding just enough water, he impatiently watches as his drug fills the Pyrex container. His hands tremble in anticipation of catching a buzz. Without his Columbian miracle drug, he knows he cannot make it through the day. He even ignores the health risks associated with his habit; all he cares about is his getting high. He does not care about the lives of the simple peasants who planted it for mere pennies a day, and he shrugs off the fact that some of the people packaging it may have had evil, criminal backgrounds--maybe even murderers or terrorists! His mind never wanders into the dark, jungle warehouses where his drug of choice is stored. He never thinks about who trafficked his stimulant. He could never know how many people may have died trying to harvest it.
Sound ridiculous? Admittedly, the previous paragraph is pretty absurd, especially when you consider it is about a cup of coffee. A good writer can spin any situation to conform to his or her own personal goals. Want to frighten people into taking action for your cause? Easy! Just use powerful words, like "terrorist" and "crime" together in a sentence and you too can make an innocent situation sound like the end of the world.
During last year's Super Bowl, Americans were introduced to the $3.4 million federally funded ad campaign against drugs. The ads assert that young people using drugs fund bomb-making terrorists, intent on blowing up the world. In a perverted line of thinking, the ad puts the blame for the horrible devastation of September 11th not on the hijackers, but squarely on the shoulders of the kid down the street smoking a doobie. While we can all agree that kids should not do drugs, blaming them for terrorist activities halfway around the globe is a bit much. Many people rolled their eyes at the ad, deeming it ineffective. Most people confess that, even after watching the ad proclaiming there was a clear link between drugs and terrorism, they still could not see the connection.
On September 3, the DEA museum exhibit "Target America: Traffickers, Terrorists, and You" was unveiled. Two of America's most visible personalities of the post-September 11th world, Attorney General John Ashcroft and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, joined DEA Director Asa Hutchinson in the exhibit's ribbon cutting ceremony. Some wonderful speeches were televised, and some well-worn quotes were repeated time and time again. Ashcroft's speech was spiked with many hard-to-argue with phrases, leaving very little room, if any, for discussion. Let's look at a few of the slogans used in his speech:
"Absolute evil." Gee, that doesn't leave a whole lot of room for argument, doesn't it? Certainly nobody would choose to be on the side of "Absolute Evil"!
"Dangers of the world we live in." Yes, it is a dangerous world. It was a dangerous world long before cocaine or heroine was ever invented, and it will probably be a dangerous world long after people have found other ways to get high.
"How many more young people's lives would we have lost (if not for the war on drugs)?" This is another point that would be difficult to argue with. There is no way to ever know how many lives would have been saved if Americans had just put more money towards drug reduction.
"Children can be safer." Ah, the "child wild-card" tactic. No one ever wants children to be in danger. Using children in an emotional plea is always effective. Whenever someone brings up "if we can save the life of just one child," be suspicious.
"The link between drugs and terrorism is clear." The link may be clear to Ashcroft but it seems a bit fuzzy to the rest of us. Could it be there have been hundreds of drug dealers packing weapons of mass destruction in their back pockets arrested, and we just didn't hear about it? Well, no. Then perhaps dozens of pot-smoking hijackers wrestled to the ground seconds before they could inflict damage on an unsuspecting world? Um, no.
OK, so what makes the connection between drugs and terrorism so clear? Perhaps the administrator of the DEA can clear this up for us. In his September 3, 2002 speech, Hutchison said, "DEA's Target America is the first exhibit that makes the connection between illegal drug trafficking and terrorism, leaving no doubt that drug abuse cannot be viewed as a victimless crime. Before terrorism hit home on September 11, few Americans realized the connection, and fewer still understood that drug money has been used to fund terrorism."
Sounds like there is clear and convincing evidence! There must be countless instances where a drug dealer was discovered to be a terrorist as well, right? Actually, read this excerpt from Hutchison's April speech before the House Committee on International Relations for the answer:

"On March 18, 2002 Attorney General John Ashcroft and I announced the unsealing of a Federal indictment against seven defendants, three of whom are members of the 16th FARC Front. This case, conducted by DEA's Bogota and Brasilia, Brazil Country Offices, the government of Colombia, with assistance from the Department of Justice Criminal Division Attorneys, is the first time that members of a known terrorist organization have been indicted in the United States for their drug trafficking activity."
That's right, careful reader! Let's repeat the all-important phrase just one more time, just to be sure we are all clear on the concept: "This case… is the first time that members of a known terrorist organization have been indicted in the United States for their drug trafficking activity."
Does this one set of indictments clarify that connection between drugs and terrorism for you? This author is not yet clear on the concept. I guess I will have another cup of coffee and think about it for a little while longer. Perhaps if they tell me enough times, and repeat all the right key words and phrases, it will all become clear.