From Thursday night’s Fox News All-Stars.
On Charlie Rangel’s defiant news conference after the censure vote:
In the end, that’s the irony. That same arrogance which caused him to obviously commit all these [financial] sins is the one that had him turn down a simple reprimand, which he could have had, and suffer the censure, which is a true humiliation and a disgrace.
On John Boehner calling the Democrats’ tax cut vote a “chicken crap” maneuver:
The speaker-to-be has signaled us that we are not going to have rhetoric at the level of John Calhoun and Henry Clay in the coming Congress.
On the lawlessness in Juarez:
This is extremely serious stuff. This has really not entered our national consciousness. Of course, people in Texas and the border states know about this. But the idea that we would live next to a country that has lost control of some areas which are on our border [is] really quite strange for us.
We’ve had this two-century existence where we’re protected by two oceans, have Canada which is at peace with us and Mexico as well. Now … parts of Mexico becoming like what parts of Colombia were in the 80s and 90s, and even small areas of it today, which are essentially controlled by drug gangs or [becoming] even, if you will, like parts of Pakistan, which are outside the control of the central government.
And 3,000 killings a year in Juarez — where you have ten a year on the Texas side — is astonishing. I think in the end if this continues we’re going to end up within a decade or so with American soldiers on the other side of the line working with the federales to actually just keep it under control and not a no man’s land. …
But I would add there is one element on our side of the border. American demand is driving the drug trade. Always has. Nancy Reagan had a campaign against drugs, considered corny, old-fashioned. I think the government ought to have a stronger campaign — as it does against smoking and obesity. We ought to renew that [anti-drug campaign] and to make [drug use], if we can, over time, unfashionable. That’s the only way you’ll reach young folks, and we have to do our part by decreasing demand.
I got some blowback the other day for saying the Speaker-elect should have chosen different words. Im glad to see I am on the side of Krauthammer here. I was also on his side for the AIDS debate.
Twice in a week! I feel like I'm in good company!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"We ought to renew that [anti-drug campaign] and to make [drug use], if we can, over time, unfashionable. That’s the only way you’ll reach young folks, and we have to do our part by decreasing demand."
That's very disappointing. Nancy was great but did her campaign actually decrease demand? Has anything we've ever done decreased demand?
The problem is NOT the demand, as if the only people who can possibly physically produce narcotics are Mexican druglords, and so for heaven's sake we need to stop using drugs. Hmm. What if it were LEGAL to produce narcotics? Why then the whole problem disappears with a stroke of the pen.
"But," the prohibitionists say, "that would lead to a vast increase in demand." Really? You have evidence to that effect? In fact all the evidence is to the contrary. I fail to see it written into the laws of the natural world, like gravity or thermodynamics, that legalization must lead to a great increase in demand. The evidence suggests the opposite.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOr we could, you know, end the whole failed debacle known as the "War on Drugs". And then agencies such as the US Border Patrol could, you know, start doing their jobs rather than protecting us from a supervillain like Willie Nelson with (*gasp*) marijuana at a "checkpoint" 100 miles from the border.
Nah, we we *really* need is a stronger government campaign to tell us what cool is. Good grief.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDr. Krauthammer hit the nail on the head, big time re: drugs
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI've long admired Krauthammer's writings, but his comments regarding the Drug War here are so off the mark, it's startling.
The errors are too numerous to list, but to be brief, people will always use drugs, will always demand drugs, and will always manufacture and distribute drugs. There are options on how to sensibly organize this activity, and there's room for disagreement.
There is not, however, a rational basis to believe the government can reduce demand amongst the young by campaigning to make drug use unfashionable. Good grief.
There's an upper limit and a lower limit to the percentage of human adults who will engage in mild-altering behaviors. The number rises and falls in the short term, but it will persist until—over several millenia—human nature itself changes.
I would think a *conservative* would understand that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseds, if drugs were legalized who would produce them? Big Pharma? Would they be willing to take on the lawsuits when people get injured or die after using the product? The liability seems too great to me. What about the .gov? They have a good record of providing high quality goods and services at a low cost, right? I don't see it working out as well as proponents think.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseInsolentPuppy-
There are already companies that produce alcohol, which is a common cause of major injury in this country. And yet every day more alcohol is produced.
I am often pessimistic of our "not my fault" litigation system, but it seems to me that drug companies will be able to avoid liability for someone who performs illegal acts under the influence.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseInsolentPuppy -- I always assumed Altria would get in on the game. Really your objection seems to ignore that in this great land we manufacture firearms, alcohol, and tobacco in private, thriving companies. There are issues and risks, of course, but it's not like these keep every reasonable company out of the game so the only possible alternative is paying Mexican druglords who behead their enemies.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Doctor is right about making drugs unfashionable. In Africa, marujuana is readily available, but beer is much preferred for social status reasons. What's strange is the the good Doctor is calling for a government campaign! What better way to make drug use appealing than have a bunch of squares telling you not to use them. Make drugs legal, but require the process for access like the DMV. That will drain the glamor and excitement out of their use pretty quickly.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseReally ? The answer to lawlessness driven by the supply and demand of a substance subject to prohibition is - STRONGER enforcement of prohibition ?!?!?!!!?!
Ugh.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseArgue about other drugs all you wish, but the fact that MJ is still illegal is just idiotic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse