Posted on 03/05/2003 11:24:49 AM PST by TLBSHOW
THE O'REILLY FACTOR February 21, 2003 FACTOR Follow-Up
O'REILLY: Thanks for staying with us. I'm Bill O'Reilly.
And, in THE FACTOR "Follow-Up" Segment tonight, bad news in the drug war.
The U.S. inexplicably did not destroy the poppy fields in Afghanistan, and the Bush administration has not moved the military to the borders to back up the Border Patrol as the patrol has requested.
Result: It is business as usual for drug dealers around the country, and some believe America is waging a phony war on narcotics.
Joining us now from Washington is Heidi Bonnett from the National Defense Council Foundation and, from Houston, Ron Housman, the assistant director of White House Drug Policy under President Clinton.
Ms. Bonnett, I read your letter in "USA Today," very impressed with it, that you were angry about the U.S. not getting -- eradicating the poppy fields in Afghanistan. Tell us about your opinion and why you formed it.
HEIDI BONNETT, NATIONAL DEFENSE COUNCIL FOUNDATION: Well, I formed this because, in the last year, the opium production in Afghanistan has reached almost record highs again. It's re-established itself as the number one opium producer in the world.
And, while we have pledged money to this, we aren't doing enough. We haven't been helping to eradicate the poppy crops, and that's mainly -- if we go in and we bomb, then they're going to come, and they're going to sprout somewhere else.
We need to start enforcing more a multifaceted program and step in and really assist the Karzai government because the Karzai government has been attempting do this, but they basically don't have the money or the...
O'REILLY: All right. Now why do you think -- since we control Afghanistan -- the U.S. controls Afghanistan militarily right now...
BONNETT: Yes.
O'REILLY: ... and it would not take more than a week to -- for us to bomb those fields, to destroy those fields, why do you think it hasn't happened?
BONNETT: I don't think we've had the will to do it. There...
O'REILLY: Why? Why? It's nar -- it's heroin we're talking about here.
BONNETT: Yes, it is.
O'REILLY: It's an enormously destructive substance that finds its way not only to the United States but to Europe and everywhere else.
BONNETT: Yes, it's gone all over the world. I think that, even if we bomb it, there are -- we -- it's just going to -- probably we think that it's just going to spring back up again in another location if we're not giving the farmers another option because if a farmer can receive about $6,000 for an acre of opium, what incentive do they have to go back to...
O'REILLY: All right. Now I don't mind buying them off either, and we haven't done that.
Mr. Housman, you know, you -- look, you know how the White House works. Why hasn't? Mr. Bush done this? Do you have any idea?
ROB HOUSMAN, FORMER DRUG CZAR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR: Well, I can only speculate to a degree, Bill, but I think one of the things that Ms. Bonnett just said is very important.
If we don't provide some way of following up on this and getting farmers some replacement crops, some other economic development for this country -- I think the Bush administration is really worried -- and I think this is a huge mistake -- that we'll take away their largest cash crop, and I -- as I said, that's a huge mistake of...
O'REILLY: We can't be doing that. I mean, this is insane. Do you know how much crime -- you -- Mr. Housman, you know above all else must -- 70 percent of all of the street crime in the United States is caused by drug-addicted people, and...
HOUSMAN: Bill, I...
O'REILLY: ... and, I mean, we're over there, and you're telling me we can't destroy those fields and pay off those farmers? Come on!
HOUSMAN: No, we should. No, absolutely. I totally agree with you, Bill. I think we need to show some will here, and I think we need to do just that. We need to eradicate these crops, and we need to provide crop replacement and buy the farmers off, get them on our side, because we're never going to stabilize this country.
We'll never make it a democracy unless we do just that because, you know, as I've said for many times -- and you and I have discussed this -- there is an insidious triangle trade now that exists between terrorism, drugs, weapons, and money...
O'REILLY: Sure. And we -- and the Bush administration...
HOUSMAN: ... and we should break that triangle.
O'REILLY: The Bush administration has probably spent more money advertising that triangle than they have eradicating anything. This is why I'm stunned. And I can't get a straight answer out of Walters, the drug czar, anybody else, all right, to tell me why.
But I think I know, and that's because they don't want these warlords in Afghanistan who control the narcotics trade to turn on the Karzai government. So they're saying -- they're saying you do what you want, you sell all of the dope you want, leave Karzai alone, and we'll let you do it.
Mr. Housman, I...
HOUSMAN: And...
O'REILLY: ... think that's what's going down there.
BONNETT: But that's not...
HOUSMAN: Absolutely. And it's a false choice.
BONNETT: That's not really helping the Karzai...
HOUSMAN: Exactly. It's a false choice, Bill, because they're never going to get stability, they'll never get democracy, and, as Ms. Bonnett was saying, you will not have a strong Karzai government if you keep up letting the warlords run drugs.
O'REILLY: Yes, but they...
HOUSMAN: It just doesn't work.
O'REILLY: Ms. Bonnett, I think that's what's going down here, is it not?
BONNETT: Yes, the warlords have a vested interest in keeping the government weak because, as long as the government is weak, they can't enforce their own policies. So long as the government...
O'REILLY: Right. So the deal has been cut.
BONNETT: Yes.
O'REILLY: You don't bother our troops -- U.S. troops, and you don't bother Karzai, and we'll let you sell all the opium and heroin you want. That's the deal. I think that's what's going on here. Nobody disagrees, right?
BONNETT: No.
O'REILLY: OK. Now let's go to Mexico. Tons and tons of narcotics coming across from Mexico every single day. The Bush administration won't put the troops on the border even though they now have a reason: national security after 9/11.
Ms. Bonnett, any idea?
BONNETT: I think we just really need the focus on building up the Border Patrol, giving the Customs...
O'REILLY: Not going to happen. Not going to do it. You can...
BONNETT: No, they're not going to.
O'REILLY: No. The Border Patrol itself admits it can't do it, needs the military.
BONNETT: Yes.
O'REILLY: Mr. Housman, any idea why we don't have the military down there?
HOUSMAN: Well, I think one reason is, right now, we have a law called the Posse Comitatus law that prevents the military...
O'REILLY: No, doesn't apply.
HOUSMAN: ... from being used...
O'REILLY: Mr. Housman, it doesn't apply. It does...
HOUSMAN: Well, Bill...
O'REILLY: The Posse Comitatus law only says the military can't make arrests. It does not say...
HOUSMAN: Exactly.
O'REILLY: ... they cannot back up the Border Patrol and inhibit. Now you worked under Clinton.
HOUSMAN: And I agree with you on that, Bill.
O'REILLY: Clinton would not do...
HOUSMAN: I agree with you on that.
O'REILLY: Clinton would not do it either. Why wouldn't President Clinton put troops on the border?
HOUSMAN: Well, I think there's a natural hesitancy to deploy the U.S. military at home, but I also think that we're seeing a shift.
I mean, our borders right now are our front lines in the war against terrorism, in the fight against drugs, and these are interrelated problems, and we need to look at more National Guard support for deploying those units in intelligence.
O'REILLY: But we're not.
HOUSMAN: Bill, I agree with you.
O'REILLY: What is it going to take?
HOUSMAN: We ought to be looking at that. Well, I -- sadly, I think one of the things it may take is another disaster, and I hope it doesn't...
O'REILLY: Yes.
HOUSMAN: ... come to that...
BONNETT: I...
HOUSMAN: ... but we need a strong border...
O'REILLY: You know what, both of you? We're living out six-million disasters every day because there are six-million Americans addicted to hard drugs, and every day those people go through many disasters in their own life.
Some of them hurt us. Some of them are just pathetic. Some of them sell their bodies. Some of them have AIDS. Every day, six-million disasters. Yet the United States government with all its power will not do anything to help get this drug thing under control.
It's disgraceful.
BONNETT: Right.
O'REILLY: Thanks very much, Ms. Bonnett, Mr. Housman. We appreciate it. Nice to see you both.
That makes sense but we are not talking care bear dolls here we are talking hard core drugs that are so easy to stop.What? Do you think the poppy crop grown in Afghanistan (THAT'S what I'm addressing here) is destined solely for the US?
Sorry, but, there are *other* markets in that part of the world for that 'product' (that is also an entirely US-centric view of the world ad ignores other long time established 'practices' of various cultures around the world) ...
The U.S. inexplicably did not destroy the poppy fields in Afghanistan, and the Bush administration has not moved the military to the borders to back up the Border Patrol as the patrol has requested.First part already addressed above - the second part overlooks our involvement in potential war ...
I am willing to require as much testing as is done on the recreational mind-altering drug alcohol.
Of course, those on a low income or welfare will get it free at taxpayer expense.
Nonsense---nobody now gets free taxpayer-funded alcohol or tobacco.
So it's "mind-altering" now eh?
So it's "mind-altering" now eh?
Always has been.
Legalize, tax, and regulate....starting with pot. Allow harder drugs ...In light of history and the lessons we could *learn* from history if we only studied it?Will this cause new problems? Yes ...
3) Gradually legalize drugs.
-Eric
More at: http://www.bio-ethics.com/op_subabuse.htmTitle: Substance abuse, ethics and public policy
The problem of substance abuse is testing public norms once again. Why once again? Because this is not the first time that the personal and social damage caused by the abuse of mind-altering drugs has reached the point where public policy makers are anxiously searching for new approaches. History is littered with drug dilemmas.
Most notably perhaps was the abuse of opium in China, and interestingly, during the Opium Wars of the last century the Emperor of China repeatedly pleaded with the British to halt the smuggling of opium into his country by British merchants. However, British representatives in China urged the Emperor to legalise the trade, highlighting the vast revenue to be raised for both sides by the subsequent increase in use. But the Emperor remained resolute. He said:
It is true, I cannot prevent the introduction of the flowing poison; gain-seeking and corrupt men will for profit and sensuality defeat my wishes, but nothing will induce me to derive a revenue from the vice and misery of my people. [1]
The Emperor recognised the damage to his society by the pervasive use of opium and refused to become complicit in what he saw as a social evil. He refused to allow opium use to become normalised into everyday Chinese life. It was too harmful and was tantamount to consigning to the grip of addiction even greater numbers of his people than were already affected.
In the latter half of the nineteenth century, drug abuse and addiction were at times deeply problematic in the USA and the UK, and England between 1820 and 1930 has been described as ‘completely narcotised’ [2] . Such widespread use led to increased problem use, and dealing with those addicted taxed some of the best medical minds. Around the turn of the century, despite heated dispute, a consensus began to emerge about a theory of addiction, and writers were generally in agreement on the major issues, one of which was that:
... substitution of drugs such as cocaine, cannabis indica, or even heroin - which had been variously recommended in the last three decades of the nineteenth century - was a terrible mistake. [3]
This ‘terrible mistake’, that is government sanctioned provision of addictive mind-altering substances, had seemed an attractive proposition to some, given the tenacity of addiction and the failure of many treatment efforts. For some it was much easier just to let the state freely provide the sought-after substances and be done with it. And so today the wheel has turned again and similar proposals are being considered for a problem that not only refuses to go away, but escalates.
So what should the public policy be, and what values should the relevant laws reflect?
At a time when the underlying value systems and principles that inform the framing of the pertinent laws are being reconsidered by some elites, it is worth being reminded of the meaning of laws.
As moral philosopher Germain Grisez notes:
… law’s effectiveness depends far more on forming the majority’s practical reasoning and judgements than on forcing the unwilling minority to comply. [4]
Laws have educative value far beyond their ability to rein in law-breakers. They reflect deeply held values commonly shared across the community and serve to instruct all and sundry regardless of whether ultimately they are transgressed.
PS. Ignore the linked footnote refs.
"Always has been."
But "mind-altering"?
I think that's stretching the classical definition of "mind-altering" a bit. From that same article I posted an excerpty from earlier:
In the social revolutionary movements of the 60s and 70s, individual license to pursue lifestyle choices for pleasurable purposes, as long as no-one else got hurt [10] , gained legitimacy, and drug use quickly entrenched itself as an expression of that ‘freedom’ - ironically for some a ‘freedom’ to choose bondage as addiction took hold.In light of the above I think your use of the term "mind-altering" is inappropriate in it's application to enjoying a beer or a glass of wine and furthermore lends itself to an unfortunate 'watering down' and a reduction in the impact the term "mind-altering" otherwise serves to communicate.Perhaps some of those revolutionaries had detected some hypocrisy in the previous generation in which inebriation with alcohol was somehow considered differently, and enjoyed a degree of tolerance not afforded the other mind-altering drugs.
Indeed there is little difference today, when becoming ‘blotto’ is considered by some as a socially acceptable party pastime whereas to come under the influence of other substances is not. In reality, in a moral sense drunkenness with alcohol can be viewed in a similar way to being mind- altered on other substances.
The degree of harm may differ, but inasmuch as such abuse works against human goods like social interaction, the capacity to reason, and health, there is little difference. Young people in particular are acutely attentive to the detection of hypocrisy and will mercilessly expose it.
However, a distinction between alcohol and other drugs can be made.
The intention in using cocaine, heroin, marijuana, LSD or amphetamine involves deliberate mind-altering. An episode of use is not generally considered successful unless a certain goal has been achieved. And that goal is to experience significant mind alteration. Why else bother?
Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence to show that health, the capacity to reason and to socially interact, are adversely affected. However, the judicious use of alcohol has no such effect. In fact there is evidence to suggest that certain health benefits can be derived from sensible moderate use. Add to this the importance of an alcoholic drink in a religious context, viz. in Christian communion, and a legitimate role and use can be justified.
But the injudicious use of alcohol does; ergo, it's mind-altering.
In light of the above I think your use of the term "mind-altering" is inappropriate in it's application to enjoying a beer or a glass of wine
... or a puff on a joint.
LET'S put it *back* into context:
The intention in using cocaine, heroin, marijuana, LSD or amphetamine involves deliberate mind-altering. An episode of use is not generally considered successful unless a certain goal has been achieved. And that goal is to experience significant mind alteration. Why else bother? Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence to show that health, the capacity to reason and to socially interact, are adversely affected. However, the judicious use of alcohol has no such effect.I intentionally break up some of the LARGER paragraphs appearing in these articles 'cause I *know* some of youse guys have problems reading followed up by serious comprehension deficits as well. I think your response is living proof ...
Bullsh*t. You alleged distinction lies in ruins---deal with it.
At most, this claim can be the basis for distinguishing mind-altering users from other users---NOT distinguishing among substances.
Intention inheres in the user, not the substance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.