Outside The Beltway links to this article on a new danger to allergy sufferers. I am one who suffers and who finds relief with one Claritin D tablet each day. When the new law was passed requiring people to give i.d., and address, and have that infor.....

There is nothing amusing about the situation...

What makes it open-ended is not its scope, but the fact that its scope logically includes Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, and we just aren't going to pursue the war that far. It's true that we declared victory over Fascism in 1945 even though Spain and Argentina were still around; but this is more like planning to declare victory over Fascism with Italy or Japan still around.

Today's winner is Rene Sandoval, Director of the Quad Cities Metropolitan Enforcement Agency....

While the motivations are similar, I'd argue that the two realms are not the same. In the Wot, the government is protecting citizens from a violent threat. In the WoD the government is trying to protect the citizens from themselves. That latter is, in my view, diarmetrically opposed to the very notions our government was founded on. And even if you disagree with that, the idea is one of totalitarianism when taken far enough. So while there are parallels, I don't think the analogy is all that apt.

Where I do have a problem with the WoT is its open-ended nature. If it was say a war on Islamofacism or something like that we could at least have some sort of final outcome. Either all the Islamofascists are defeated (we win) or not (they win). Sort of like WWII. But defeating terrorism probably will never happen as it is a cheap and effective means of waging conflict. So, the idea that we enact restrictions on our freedoms for such a nebulous/open-ended conflict is troublesome in that regard.

Jonathan Wilde at Catallarchy comments on a story documenting an Illinois man’s arrest for buying Claritin D, which contains pseudo ephedrine (PSE), because he purchased enough for both himself and his son to take one a day for a month.Rene......

However, the policy motivations in the WoT (i.e., safety) are very similar to those in the WoD. I fear that we have already seen irrational policy-making in that arena, and will see more of it in the future. This is not an issue to be taken lightly, I would argue, not one to be dismissed. The logics of the WoD is very much present in the policies of the WoT. Hence, if you find the WoDs to be problematic, I think that there is room for concern over the WoT, regardless of whom it is in the WH.

We will often put up with a lot if we think it will make us safer. In the Quad Cities they are arresting people for buying too much decongestant. Is it really that much of a leap to note that if we are willing to do that then perhaps we need to be concerned about anti-terrorism policies within the borders of the US?

My problem is that I think any president, irrespective of party affiliation, would have such a bill (not necessarily the entire Patriot Act Renewal). The War on Drugs is an old war and one that Presidents and candidates for said office alike seem to want to pursue vigorously. Granted, Bush is the current sitting President and as such he gets the lion share of the blame for current stupidity. But to pretend this is a Republican only problem is just nonsense.

As for the parallels to the War on Drugs vs. the War on Terror, I don't see the former as being a legitimate war. While one can have some legitimate issues with the idea of a War on Terror vs. say a War on 'Fill in the Enemy', the WoD is really about the Nanny State. It is very much like Prohibition during the 1920's and 1930's. It is about curtailling what one group of people see as naughty/undesirable behavior and really isn't, to me, all that different from things like anti-miscegenation laws.

The War on Terror is, well, a war. Historically, war has always meant drastic measures, even in this country, and usually more drastic measures than anything Bush has done, even in this country.

The War on Drugs is, well, not a war. But calling it one is a great way to justify the kinds of drastic measures that we normally tolerate only in prosecuting a real war.

Meth labs are a real problem, IMO. But they are not machine gun nests or terrorist cells. Arresting people for buying a little too much allergy medicine is not justified.

I favor drawing the line so that most of the gray area is on the legal side. Then vigorously going after those who still insist on crossing the line.

I agree with your position on the decongestant in question.

However, I think you miss the point about people concerned about the Bush administration's anti-terrorism tactics. They often embody the exact philosophy that Ms. Sandoval employs in the following statement: “Does it take drastic measures? Absolutely. Have we seen a positive result? Absolutely,” Sandoval stressed.

Surely that describes the attitude in the administration regarding detainees, electronic surveillance and database construction (amongst other issues).

Indeed, I see a number of unpleasant parallels between the drug war and the war on terror. As such, if you are concerned about the policies deployed in the war on drugs, I would argue that one should likewise cast a jaundiced eye towards anti-terror policies.

"Wring their hands." You're "on the fence" about the DOJ database, but you want to insult people who are upset that Bush has violated federal law on electronic surveillance? [Expletive phrase deleted] and your "amusement," too.

Regardless, please remind me which President signed into law the bill, passed by a Congress controlled by which party, that criminalized the use of Sudafed? I'll give you *lots* of guesses, so don't feel shy.