GOP against the war on drugs?

Given: that in the rush to bomb Iraq, the Bush administration all but ignored the necessary war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, such that bin-Laden was allowed to escape into the mountains of Pakistan and the warlords who support him were allowed to regroup and reconsolidate their power; and

Given: that last year's opium crop in Afghanistan was the biggest yet and this year's looks to be even bigger:  http://www.nytimes.com/...

Can we safely say that the Bush Administration has taken the pro-drug side in the war on drugs?  I mean, if they were actually against drugs, why would they be quagmired in Iraq and looking for a new quagmire in Iran?  (Of course, you could ask the same thing vis a vis their position on terrorism:  are they for it?  Judging solely by their actions, they sure seem to be.)  Comments, anyone?

•  silly you

  you can't have a war on drugs without the drugs

  by yet another liberal on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 05:50:19 PM PDT

  •  Right.

    The last thing people who work in a $30 billion/year business want to do is put themselves out of business.

    by MHB on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 05:54:01 PM PDT

•  Well, they SHOULD be...

  if they were REAL conservatives, they WOULD be...

  but no.

  by Maryscott OConnor on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 05:55:35 PM PDT

•  Surprised?

  It's fairly well known and accepted that the drug cartels are interlocked with semi-legit corporations who are heavy Republican donors. Much of the "war on drugs" in South America is seen as an overt effort to manipulate politics, support puppet governments (not working well any more) and focus attention on the wrong things.

  Think about it. What should our police forces be doing, inspecting incoming cargo or finding pots of medical marijuana in cancer patients' apartments?

  by MrMichaelMT on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 06:00:58 PM PDT

•  If they were pro-legalization, I would vote GOP

  Honestly I would. The "war on drugs" has destoryed so many families and so many people's lives. MUCH much more damage than if all those people where actually addicts.

  That is one issue that I could become a single issue voter .

  by karenc13 on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 06:22:46 PM PDT

•  No, you can't have a war

  on drugs without the drugs.

  And you can't have a prison industry without the prisoners.

  If you didn't have any drugs, why would we maintain an infrastructure to interdict 10% of them?

  What if you built a prison, and you had to wait for criminals who actually had victims?
  Cells not billing out at hundreds of dollars a day?  Why would you build more? Hell, might as well let the State maintain it's own prisoners... wouldn't be any money in it.
  And think of all the financial aid we'd have to offer to students who didn't have drug convictions.

  Why, without a war on drugs, how ever would we isolate a perpetual underclass?

  ...And then there's Iraq, the other "war" on drugs...

  End of rant. Thank you for your patience.

  by Remembering Jello on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 07:06:49 PM PDT