Monday, October 29, 2007

How things change... Not that long ago, anything approaching the Senlis proposal in Afghanistan was completely ignored or dismissed out-of-hand by the U.S. government. Opium eradication was the only possible solution to dealing with Afghanistan. However, as the situation continues to show no signs of improvement and U.S. looks more and more embarrassing every day, the previously taboo becomes thinkable. In a new report at the U.S. Army's Strategic Studies Institute, Lieutenant Colonel John A. Glaze writes: The United States should deemphasize opium eradication efforts. U.S.-backed eradication efforts have been ineffective and have resulted in turning Afghans against U.S. and NATO forces. The Council on Foreign Relations in New York has warned, "Elimination of narcotics will take well over a decade, and crop eradication is a counterproductive way to start such a program." While the process of eradication lends itself well to the use of flashy metrics such as "acres eradicated," eradication without provision for long term alternative livelihoods is devastating Afghan's poor farmers without addressing root causes. [...] The United States should explore the possibility of assisting Afghanistan in joining other countries in the production of legal opiates. [...] The Senlis Council recommends a strictly supervised licensing system in Afghanistan for the cultivation of opium for the production of essential opiate-based medicines such as morphine and codeine. Such a licensing scheme is already being administered in Turkey, India, France, and Australia. While cultivation for legal uses is not a "silver bullet" solution to Afghanistan's opium problem, it could eventually become a viable source of income for some farmers. This is the Army speaking. It's still too timid, but a remarkable concession nonetheless, even in an academic paper. 9:32:35 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []

A revenuer wants to be President Via Atrios -- Fred Thompson the prosecutor But more than anything, Thompson took on the state's moonshiners and a local culture, rooted in Tennessee's hills and hollows, that celebrated the independent whiskey maker's battle against the government's revenue agents. Twenty-seven of his cases involved moonshining -- more than any other crime. "Hell, I made whiskey and was violating the law, but I didn't do nothing wrong," said one of Thompson's many moonshining defendants, Kenneth Whitehead. "I would do it again if I had a still. I can't afford a still now." Just what we need. A not-too-bright fossil who likes prohibition. Of course, other than Ron Paul (who is far above the pack), every single Republican candidate would be as bad, or worse than, the current disaster. On the Democratic side, there would be a slight improvement. In the top tier candidates, it would probably be mostly due to a degree of comparative neglect, rather than any positive effort. The lower tier candidates -- Kucinich, Gravel, Richardson or Dodd, could result in noticeable, though still minor, reform. I do want to take a moment to highlight Chris Dodd -- not for any particular stance on drug policy in particular, but because of his recent effort to oppose telecom amnesty and stand up for Constitutional rights of Americans. It's important for us to remember that the drug war's erosion of rights led to abuses in other areas, and authoritarian leadership in general will also result in exploiting the power inherent in escalating the drug war. And in that regard, it is likely that the absolute worst option for our country would be Giuliani in the oval office. The biggest bully on the block turns out to be Giuliani. That would be a sad reason to make him president. 8:38:04 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []