A television ad campaign that was run in the USA during the Iraqi war suggested that if you drove a sport-utility vehicle, you were helping to fund terrorism! How? By putting money in the pockets of oil-producing, terrorism-sponsoring countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran.
One of the commercials cuts from a man at a gas station to a map of the Middle East to video footage of a terrorist training camp, while a little girl's voice says, "These are the terrorists who get money from those countries every time George fills up his S.U.V."
While we don't personally drive SUVs, we have little sympathy for such anti-SUV rhetoric! It often replaces facts and reasoned analysis with a quasi-religious zeal to denounce America's sins of excessive consumption.
Drivers of small cars fill up at the same gas pumps the same as SUV owners; it's not just what you drive, it's how much you drive. (A friend of mine sarcastically suggested: "If you drive your offspring to any superfluous activity besides school, you're supporting terrorism," ) Critics point out that some of the CEO sponsors of these commercials live in vast, oil-heated homes, have fleets of cars and fly in private jets.
In one sense, however, the ads are most welcome - as a parody of the even more ludicrous commercials from the Office of National Drug Control Policy, which assert that anyone who uses drugs is helping support terrorism!
A 'drug money funds terrorism' ad campaign was launched by the US government in 2002. First, there were the ads in which clean-cut teenagers and young adults stared into the camera saying incredible things like "I helped blow up a building."
A later spot shows two men in suits discussing the connection between drugs and terrorism. The younger man, who looks rather clueless, tries to argue that it's a complicated issue; his older, wiser looking companion quickly sets him straight. The young man concludes, "Not that complicated."
It's hard to think of a more blatant insult to the intelligence of the American public than this crass attempt to exploit the tragedy of September 11"' for the anti-drug agenda.
Do terrorists sometimes benefit from drug profits? Sure! The heroin and opium trade of Central Asia has been identified, in particular, as a source of funding for terrorist sponsors including the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
But there really is more than one side of the coin. The Taliban also profited from the 'war on drugs,' receiving $43 million from the US government in 2001 forth purpose of eradicating Afghanistan's
heroin-producing poppy fields.
And whatever one thinks of the various pros and cons of drug legalization, it's hard to deny that prohibition (making recreational drugs illegal) is precisely what allows criminal groups, including terrorists, to profit from the illegal drug trade.
As a further example, according to US government sources, the organized crime groups allegedly involved in Ecstasy trafficking, are almost all Israelis from the former Soviet Union. They may not be nice guys, of course, but they can hardly be suspected of funneling money to Al-Qaeda.
And surely, Americans who get locked up for growing marijuana plants in their basements have not given any of their profits to international terrorists. Yet somehow, I doubt that we'll see an ad campaign with the slogan: "Fight terrorism - grow your own pot!"
In the past two decades, the US government has expended billions of dollars and untold human effort on the War on Drugs. Just when the terrorist threat might have made us question the wisdom of the war on drugs, the anti-drug constituency quickly piggybacked onto the War against Terrorism. It's not that complicated.
The above is a paraphrase of an article by Cathy Young which originally appeared in the Boston Globe on January 6, 2003 and was later republished at reason.com, one of our favourite libertarianoriented, common sense websites . It has been used with credit and thanks to the author under our right of "fair comment on public issues. "
Chapter
18:
THE
UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES
OF
WELL
INTENTIONED LAWS
"The welfare state is the oldest con game in the world. First you take people's money away quietly, and then you give some of it back to them flamboyantly. " Thomas Sowell
On a brief stopover in Monte Carlo during the preparation of this book, we saw a desperate 'letter to the editor' in the local English language newspaper from a retired British couple. They had applied to rent many different unfurnished apartments or houses on the French Riviera. They couldn't understand why, given their excellent references, they were given the bum's rush - as soon they gave their ages (over 70). They were always refused and shown to the door as if they had some contagious disease.
The newspaper editor explained that there was a 1989 law in France, to 'protect' tenants in general
- and older people especially. In a nutshell this law says, "if a landlord wants to terminate a tenancy of a person over 70 (apparently even for non-payment of rent), the landlord must move them into a similar apartment in the same area at a similar rent."
Finding another landlord who will take on a deadbeat protected tenant of advanced age is of course an impossible task. The law means that the property owner must subsidize his tenants so long as they shall live.
This 'well intentioned' law has had the effect of making it absolutely impossible for anyone over 70 not already in possession of an apartment in France to rent one. They can still theoretically buy or rent an often unaffordable furnished apartment or hotel room. What can they do?
1 Move in with anyone who will accept them.
2 Engage in a fraud by having a younger friend or relative rent in his name. 3 Move to another country
4 Try public housing or buying an apartment - maybe with a government subsidized loan! Editors
Note: Ironically, the unavailability of rental units (caused by government) spawns new government programs and thousands of (guess what?) new bureaucrats to run them.
5 Die.
Another such law in France prevents any evictions from unfurnished apartments for any reason from November to April. Obviously, the legislators felt that no one should be put out and made homeless on the street during the winter. But they were too stupid to see what the practical effect would be:
The natural result is that all landlords in France now require prospective tenants (of long lease apartments or homes) to have a three year rolling financial guarantee from their employers, or a bank as surety on their lease contract.
Of course, if you want such a bank guarantee, all the French banks will demand a deposit equivalent to their maximum liability - that is, three years' rent to be left at their institution, bearing no interest, plus an additional hefty fee for the paperwork. Employers are also understandably reluctant to put up long term rental guarantees, given that the employee could just hand in notice to quit at any time; leaving the ex-employer liable for rent.
As a matter of fact and practice, employees with steady jobs are the only people who can rent decent long-term apartments (outside of public housing) in France today.