Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Andrew Stuttaford at the Corner talks about throwing the drug warriors out of Afghanistan Check out this exchange at the National Review's conservative group blog "The Corner" Andrew Stuttaford Who is losing Afghanistan? George W. Bush, that's who. His watch. His administration. His incompetence. His arrogance. His failure to learn from failure. I wish I could say that I was surprised by this latest report from Aghanistan, but I'm not: "British officials are worried about the consequences of US proposals to eradicate Afghanistan's opium poppy harvest, which include spraying the crops from the air, a policy it adopted in Colombia. The fear is that tough anti-narcotic measures now would alienate poor farmers who have no alternative livelihood and drive more Afghans into the hands of the Taliban. Such a policy would further endanger British troops, military commanders say. " As I've said time and time before, the decision by the Bush administration to prioritize the drug war ahead of the war against the Taliban is of course, madness. It's time for the Brits to take a stand, and announce that either Bush's drug warriors leave Afghanistan or Britain's troops do. Ninety days would seem to be adequate warning. Andrew adds more here Then another Cornerite jumps in: Michael Ledeen I don't suppose there's any room for doubt in Andrew's categorical denunciation of the anti-narcotics campaign in Afghanistan. If there were, I would point out that the terrorists, most certainly including the Taliban, are major narcotics traffickers, derive a great part of their income from the drug traffic, and are in cahoots with various mafias in the project. Has anybody asked if the local growers are going to be reimbursed? Or do we take the Guardian and the Times as canonical? It's bad, and that's that. Life is rarely so simple as that. Ledeen has never been the sharpest tack in the box, and Stuttaford nails him. Andrew Stuttaford Michael, it's not just the Times and The Guardian. As you very well know, newspaper after newspaper after newspaper (across the ideological spectrum) has reported on this idiocy (I've cited plenty on this Corner in previous posts). If you prefer, check with the Senlis folks (also previously cited on the Corner). They are on the ground. If you don't like Senlis, try the British Army. I've previously quoted a number of its representatives on the Corner too, and they, Michael, are also on the ground, and they are doing their best while the Bush administration does its incompetent, contemptible worse. As for your point about the Taliban being drug traffickers, well, I hate to tell you, but it actually makes mine. The reason that the Taliban is able to make so much money out of this trade is the Western interdiction of Afghan opium. Black markets are always very profitable. In that sense, the drug warriors are the jihadis' best friend. Thanks for nothing, guys. And I'm sorry, Michael, this *is* simple. Basic economics usually is. The drug warriors need to be thrown out of Afghanistan, and fast, please. Boy, it sure is nice to see a conservative who hasn't drunk the cool-aid, and isn't afraid to use things like economics, and... a brain. 11:11:32 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Death penalty or legalization, that is the question Why not both? This bit of insanity has been making the rounds. Mayor Thomas Lauzon on Saturday said he hoped the Legislature would consider imposing the death penalty on convicted crack and heroin dealers, and to legalize marijuana. Crazy? Or crazy like a fox? After all, there's a legalization advocate who could never be accused of being soft on drugs. Oh, wait. We haven't heard from the Governor yet... Jason Gibbs, spokesman for Gov. James Douglas, said he had not discussed the issue of imposing the death penalty on crack and heroin dealers with the governor. But, he added, Douglas would oppose legalization of marijuana. "He's not unalterably opposed to the death penalty, but he doesn't have any plans to introduce it. There are some circumstances he would support a death penalty, but I'm not sure this is among them," Gibbs said. "Marijuana is a gateway drug for some folks, so he would not support legalization." Gibbs was referring to the view of some that marijuana is a "gateway drug" because it is the first step toward more serious drug usage and addictions. Now that's some scary crazy. He's sure that marijuana legalization would be out of the question, but will have to check as to whether the death penalty for non-violent drug offenders should be in play. Where do they find these people? 10:04:35 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Tommy Chong for Drug Czar Thanks to Jay for alerting me to the fact that Tommy Chong has a blog! And in this blog, he has announced his candidacy for the position of Drug Czar Tonight is a special night because I am announcing (to my friends) that I am running for the office of Drug Czar of America. Now i realize that the office of the Drug Czar is an appointed one by the winning party in the White House but because my chances of being appointed are very slim and almost non-existant I am actually going to campaign like every other politician and ask for your votes. Sounds like a great plan. And I can guarantee that Tommy Chong would do a better job of serving the American people and the United States Constitution than John Walters. In fact, I could guarantee that he'd do a better job than any previous drug czar. Of course, for that matter, an igneous rock would do a better job of that than any drug czar we've had. So when they distribute the ballots (or whatever they use), vote Chong for Czar. 1:01:05 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []