A STONE'S THROW

WHO THINKS ASPEN'S JUST LIKE PAKISTAN? THE DEA, OF
COURSE

So the DEA has come and gone - parachuting in, zapping the bad guys
and flying away again.

And, in the process (as a cheerfully cynical friend pointed out),
U.S. government agents treated local law enforcement the same way
they treated the government of Pakistan when they went in and nailed
Osama bin Laden: not evil enough to be shot, but not reliable enough
to be trusted.

And there is, of course, no worse insult than to be considered
untrustworthy by an undercover drug agent.

So now, it seems, it's all over but the shouting - except, of course,
for the handful of designated losers, some of whom might wind up
spending the rest of their lives in jail.

The feds, as always, threw around some big numbers: 500 pounds of
cocaine! That is a big number, but it seems somewhat less awesome when
you realize that it was spread out over 15 years. We're really not
talking drug kingpins here.

But never mind that. As always, once the news broke, the squawking
began.

The loudest noises came from those who were outraged - outraged! -
that our local lawmen were not doing a better job of cracking down on
drug traffic.

One of the loudest squawkers quoted her own rhetoric from the last
sheriff's election, when she said, "When Braudis and DiSalvo agree
that our local drug problem is a health issue and not a criminal one,
we are nothing but a sanctuary city/county for drug dealers."

And that nonsense, believe it or not, is where the story gets amusing
(again, except for the poor fools facing long years behind bars).

The amusement comes when you consider the report from the Global
Commission on Drug Policy, which begins with this statement: "The
global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for
individuals and societies around the world."

That general conclusion is followed by recommendations that
include:

End the criminalization, marginalization and stigmatization of people
who use drugs but who do no harm to others.

Encourage experimentation [with] legal regulation of drugs to
undermine the power of organized crime.

Offer health and treatment services to those in need.

In short, the Global Commission on Drug Policy recommends that the
global drug problem should be considered a health issue and not a
criminal one. Like Sheriff Joey DiSalvo.

Now, as a left-wing wacko, I realize that many of you who disagree
with these points will immediately argue that this so-called "global
commission" must also be a group of lefty wackos.

I'll list a few names and let you draw your own conclusions: George P.
Shultz, former U.S. secretary of state; John Whitehead, banker and
civil servant, chair of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation;
Kofi Annan, former secretary general of the United Nations; Maria
Cattaui, former secretary general of the International Chamber of
Commerce; Paul Volcker, former chairman of the United States Federal
Reserve.

Yup. Lefty wackos, each and every one of them. Particularly the George
Shultz guy, who worked for those other notorious lefty wackos, Richard
M. Nixon and Ronald Reagan.

So anyway, this bunch of evil-doers (which reminds me that Shultz was
an advisor for George W. Bush's presidential campaign during the 2000
election, and part of the so-called "Vulcans," a group of Bush policy
mentors that also included Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice - two of
my favorites) went on to say this:

"We also need to recognize that it is the illicit nature of the market
that creates much of the market-related violence - legal and regulated
commodity markets, while not without problems, do not provide the same
opportunities for organized crime to make vast profits ... and, in
some cases, fund insurgency and terrorism."

Look, I'm not advocating that anyone take any drugs. (Really, I'm
not.)

But if we want to solve the horrendous problems of the violence that
has scarred our society - and, to a much greater degree, the societies
of the nations to our south - we have to get serious and be realistic.

The war on drugs has not succeeded and will not succeed.

And those who insist on continuing to pursue those failed policies are
either not serious - or are determined to maintain their own paychecks.

And that's really a major part of the problem, isn't
it?

Who wants the drug war to continue unchanged?

The DEA ... and the violent drug cartels who are making vast amounts
of money and who don't mind murdering people along the way. They're
partners in crime, as it were. Just protecting their jobs.

Not many people alive today remember the last time America was
over-run with violent gangs that threatened the social order -
murdering people and making millions along the way.

The government tried all-out war that time, but it didn't work, not at
all.

And then the problem was neatly, quickly and permanently solved in
1933, after 15 long violent years, by the repeal of
Prohibition.

A lot of people have died from alcohol since then, but none have been
machine-gunned to death by bootleggers.

That part of the equation is really pretty simple.

I know some people say - over and over again, with increasing volume
each time around - that any form of legalization will result in
sky-rocketing drug use.

Come on. Get real. No one has any real problem getting hold of
drugs.

Ask your kids.

Right now, it's a lot easier for a high school student in Aspen to get
some marijuana than to buy alcohol. (Or cigarettes - if we want to
talk about a really nasty drug.)

That's what happens when something is legal and carefully
regulated.

So when a DEA agent brags (as one just did) that the "arrests make
Aspen ... safer by taking significant amounts of drugs off the street
and putting violent criminals behind bars" you know that he's not
telling the truth.

He's just protecting his paycheck.