On 11th September 2001, clerical Islamist fanatics left 3,000 human beings dead in downtown Manhatten, at the US Department of Defence, and only an unquestionable act of patriotism, stopped Flight 93 destabilising the United States government further. In this case, the Islamist, or Muslim prefix is needed. I don't feel uncomfortable because some may have pitying looks, for me saying 'Muslim' or 'Islamist' fanatics. If Christain extremists obliterate the NI Peace Process, then I will call them 'Christain extremists'.

I believe we responded, correctly, in invading Afghanistan, which was run by an Islamist cabal, acting as envoys for far-right suicide murderers: aka Al-Qaeda. 

There is a solution, to Afghanistan, which leaves our politicians looking so stupid, as to overlook it. Hamid Karzai endorses it. It would allow Afghan democracy to flourish. The Taliban would collapse. We could chase them out of Pakistan. Afghans would have control of 60% of their GDP. Isn't the solution obvious? If we want, to defeat Islamism in Afghanistan, we must legalise drugs.

We could also achieve peace in one of the worst civil wars of the twentieth century, that is still continuing. Ingrid Betancourt is still being held hostage by FARC. Clara Rojas has recently been freed by the Marxist-Leninist organisation. Their success? The USA destroys coca crops, that pushes up the price of Cocaine, and of FARC's revenue. The crops controlled by the right-wing government, and the disgusting militias, with which our Foreign Office minister, Kim Howells, prostituted himself to, by posing with them, are largely untouched. Criticism of the right-wing militia's actions is second to none, compared to that off the equally repugnant, sichophantic FARC. Howells had the nerve to say, that 'Justice for Columbia' "supports FARC". This group advocates an end to the war, in which Columbian social democrats, are getting slaughtered by military's funded by the US and UK, because Columbia is paranoid that these left-wing democrats would support a terrorist organisation (of which, they would so not).

Evo Morales is doing his bit to stem the 'War on Drugs'. Legalisation, could also severely reduce the threat of Shining Path in Peru.

So, what about the effect domestically? Well, our prisons are overcrowded. Around 8,000 should be sectioned. There are around 2,000 who are too poor to pay for their fines. But, as well as instigating these efforts, we could free up, in the short term, another 11,000 places through legalisation of drugs. Around 10,000 are in prison for minor drug offences. Even if we legalise drugs, kingpins should not be released, because this would violate ex post facto laws. I will explain how to free up the other 1,000 places in a minute.

Heroin, because of prohibiton, is estimated by Milton Friedman, to be 3,000 times higher than if it was legalised. While we disagree on economic points of view, he is one of the best ever writers on drugs prohibition. This means 3,000 times more crime, whether through muggings, or pickpocketing etc. Friedman estimated that 10,000 people died in the USA, all through gunshot wounds, totalling a third of gun-related deaths in the USA, as a result of prohibition. It is also estimated that around 95% of guns in the UK, come from the drug trade. A young generation of, primarily black kids, are being eaten alive by prohibition. Forget the Trevor Phillips style talk of how legalisation would be a conspiracy to undermine the success of young Afro-Carribeans. The 27 kids who died in London last year, were victims of a gang war that is about territory in a drugs war. When you hear about gangs like the 'Bloods' in LA, think of Al Capone in Chicago.

80-90% of Prostitutes are estimated to be addicted to Heroin (or Crack). They mostly go into this wretched business, because their drugs are 3,000 times more expensive, than if they were legalised, and they'll do anything for a fix. This is more of an insight into illness, rather tahn crime. Prostitution can then be legalised, and Police efforts diverted towards cracking down on Sex slavery, and human trafficking. That's the other 1,000 out of our clogged up prison sytem.

Many seem to suggest that the problems that arise in our current drug policy, are inherent. I.e. What about the kid paid £100 to carry a bag of coke? Well, corporations could take the responsibility. Does anyone seriously think, that if drugs were on the free market, that organised crime, and manipulation of whole communities, whether kids, young black men, prostitutes etc. would be enhanced? I am certainly not advocating drug use. But consider this. How about, we have increased tax rates, for corporations who produce tobacco, alcohol and drugs, for our NHS, anti-smoking campaigns, rehab centres, and, quite importantly, towards education about the subjects in schools.

If we legalised drugs, a more open discussion would open up about drugs. Because tobacco has been legalised, in the past 10 years, thanks to NHS campaigns, the rate of smokers has dropped from 27% to 24%. If we treated drug addiction as a medical condition, we could see rates of drug use falling.

Why are the dangers of drug use also supposedly inherent? Alcohol became more dangerous, in the form of Moonshine. If Marijuana was legalised, strong regulation, would easily ensure that THC levels were not too high. A crack dealer sells this form of Cocaine, because it is more addictive, and a user will be back in a few hours, rather than days.

The government could award a contract to a company selling Marijuana, and then a larger contract to a company selling Heroin, to prescribe painkillers to the NHS.

So, there you go. New Labour can retain principles of Old Labour. We can still retain commitments to redistribution of wealth, and tackling inequality, while winning the 'War on Terror', and putting into place, the dogma of: "Tough on Crime, Tough on the causes of Crime".


P.S. What effect would this have on the homeless?