The following are replies to the question:

"What is the NRA's position on the War on Drugs."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The NRA has stated it does not believe it is legitimate to blame
legal gun ownership for the violence associated with illegal drugs.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Harlon Carter wrote an article in "The American Rifleman" and "The
American Hunter" allegedly extolling the virtues of the war on drugs.

(Harlon Carter was sent some four pages of printout of our early
(CompuServe NRA forum) discussions here after his article appeared
in the American Rifleman/ Hunter, Sept. 1989.  He was grateful. "I
feel that a blow struck which fails to draw a little intellectual
blood is largely a wasted effort." The following is a letter to Bill
Clede from Harlon Carter dated Sept. 14, 1989, and is uploaded with
his permission.)

My respect for the opinions of hundreds -- maybe a thousand by now
-- who have responded, including the small number who have
intemperately opposed (and this includes the Washington Post),
suggests I should state my purpose in writing the article...

My initial and eye-opening concern can be found in the obvious
connection being attempted by our opponents in the areas of drug
control on one hand and of firearms possession and hunting on the
other.

If they should succeed in establishing in the minds of the people
such an erroneous connection, we will suffer for it as much, or even
more perhaps, than we suffer by their success in connecting in the
public mind that the existence of firearms has a predominant place
in the prevalence of crime.

That gun control is expensive and non-productive has no effect on
government where there is a continuous effort to impose laws that
won't work upon like laws which haven't worked.

History tells us clearly that the people of all countries ultimately
will trade off their liberties for security, thus drastic action is
now required to protect the security of the people while protecting
the liberties of those who plainly live above reproach.

Furthermore, I sincerely believe we much avoid the expenditure of
billions -- finally, trillions -- of dollars, unbelievable and
incomprehensible sums, in the useless endeavor to stop the world
wide drug business.

Moreover, the use of the U.S. military forces abroad by their mere
presence is, or will be, a major factor in the escalation of their
use in the law enforcement and military affairs of other countries.
We should not use the U.S. military, even wherein their governments,
in the knowledge of their understanding of our desires, have indeed
requested such assistance, but did so in the absence of provisions
for crops substituting for the drug producing plants which have for
many years been the staple produce and livelihood of their peasantry
and without which many thousands -- even millions -- would suffer
economic distress and some would actually starve.

By all means, we must avoid putting into the hands of our opponents
in this gun control controversy a weapon which might finally defeat
us. Accordingly we must recognize that the Columbian drug cartels
are being armed with American made weapons. That is simply not
preventable. American troops in Columbia are in danger. Some
American soldier inevitably will be killed and the American media
will charge killed with an American made weapon. (Cf., Dan Rather,
CBS, 5:30pm Arizona time, September 9, 1989)

In addition, we must stop the clamor and the plans for billions of
dollars in new prisons. They simply provide a nice, short, routing
of TV and air- conditioning and schools teaching improved methods of
crime.

I'm not opposed to the death penalty but this is probably an area
where it is inappropriate. As I said in the article, it is not
necessary. Neither are "troops on every street corner."

Some have raised the question as to whether my article represents
NRA policy.  As you know, it does not. All our magazines carry under
the masthead in all- capital letters: OFFICIAL NRA POSITIONS ARE
EXPRESSED ONLY IN STATEMENTS BYLINES BY NRA OFFICERS OR IN ARTICLES
IN THE "OFFICIAL JOURNAL" SECTION.

For the very few pitiable critters who, lacking an adequate command
of the English language, employed invective or even called me Hitler
and Mussolini, I have a brief response. It was Franklin D.,
Roosevelt, a liberal Democrat, who was the nemesis of Hitler and
Mussolini and it was he who interned thousands of Japanese and
Germans (yes, Germans, too) in concentration camps during World War
II after suspending the right to habeas corpus. No one complained
about it at that time. I merely recommended similar action for drug
dealers and users today. Maybe I stepped on somebody's toes.

In this respect, thank them for me. I might say also that I am
especially grateful for the condemnation of the Washington Post.
(Editorial, September 10, 1989) It helps to tell the world what kind
of man I am.

I have little respect for the men who shrink from the condemnation
of our enemies or who hesitate to invite it. We should, instead,
strive to merit it.  If we avoid the stern stuff, if we avoid the
red meat, we'll be condemned eventually as people fed on pablum --
the food of wimps.

One more thought and a challenge: I have spent half my life -- 35
years -- in law enforcement. Why don't they come forth with a
positive plan of their own?

----------------------------------------------------------------------