According to Rory Callinan in The Australian Afghanistan is expecting a bumper 3600 tonne opium crop – the same as last year. This “will provide a huge narcotics war chest for Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorists who have been squeezed by new financial tracking operations.” In fact, it might be larger than Rory suggests, because Reuters credits the US with believing that the crop will be 50% larger this year than last.
Apparently 1.7 million Afghans, or 7% of the population, are involved in poppy production. It’s not surprising. James Kunder from USAID says “Today, what a farmer can realize for planting a hectare of wheat is about one-thirtieth of what a farmer can gain by planting a hectare of poppy…So those are the kind of economic factors you’re looking at. To us [at USAID], it’s astonishing that the percentage of Afghan farmers who are actually growing poppy is well under 10 percent.”
Why is the return so high on something which appears to grow so easily? Because the heroin that is produced from it is illegal in most Western Countries, and has been for the last 50 years. Has the ban done us any good? Professor Manderson of McGill University, Montreal, doesn’t seem to think so, judging by the topic of his lecture “Bewitched by the Fear of Possession: Fifty Years after the Prohibition of Heroin”. (But we won’t know what he thinks until he delivers his lecture at Brisbane’s QUT on 6th July. So ring Sian Haigh on 3864 2712 if you want to be in the front row).
I can’t wait for Professor Manderson (but couldn’t resist putting in a context sensitive ad for one of our sponsors) who apparently sees parallels between prohibition and witch trials, and my view has always been that the ban is more trouble than it is worth. 150 years ago the British and French were fighting a war against the Chinese for the right to export opium to China on low tariffs. Today, profits on the sale of refined opium are being used to fight a war against us, profits that are only huge because now we put a tariff on the importation of heroin by making it illegal.
I think that the War against Drugs is one where we should repatriate our troops. Why? Because it has failed on every count. It has not decreased the number of users of illegal substances and it has made it worse for people who do use. The side effects for society have been horrendous. There has been an increase in crime. Users steal to keep up with the inelastic demands of their habit. There has also been an increase in the number of criminals. By definition, users and suppliers become criminals, even if otherwise law abiding, but that then results in less ambiguously criminal people being attracted to the industry creating a vicious circle.
There has also been a decline in respect for authority. Most Australians at some time in their life personally flout the criminal laws either as a principal or an accessory. Who in my generation hasn’t both smoked and inhaled or at least associated with people who do, and failed to notify the police? We have no problems with this behaviour because most see drug use as socially benign and victimless. Police, often caught in the middle, become corrupted. That turns some police into criminals leading to a further decrease in respect for authority.
The whole war, while counterproductive, is also hugely expensive. If all the money spent chasing drug pushers and investigating bent coppers were spent on recruiting more police and putting them on the beat, how much safer and crime free would our cities be?
Now we are faced with a new side-effect. What will we do? At this moment drug profits could very well be financing an exercise to severely restrict the supply of oil from the Middle East. If that drug is denied the veins of western economies, then we will really know what withdrawal symptoms are. One justifiable line of criticism of the War in Iraq is that it is a distraction from the War against Terrorism. The War against Drugs could be just another such distraction. In any event I think we are more likely to win the War in Iraq than the one against drugs.

This piece is dedicated to the good and caring folk at the Australian Family Association, because that little girl on Play School with her two mummies should know she doesn’t have a real family.
Troubled station Channel 35 has finally won over men aged 17-99 with its new drama series, The Letter L. The show’s producer, director, writer and stand-in, Jock Little, claims that as the creator of Girl-on-Girl Volumes 1-5696 he has the knowledge to offer viewers an authentic look at the lives of eight ordinary lesbians who love working as nurses and part-time lingerie models and playing beach volleyball in their spare time.
Little hopes the introduction of Chuck Manning, recovering alcoholic and former star of several defunct soap operas, to the cast will see his program become just as popular with the wives, girlfriends and other female associates of “the discerning male population of television watchers”.
“Chuck’s a good looking guy who spends a lot of time at the gym and promoting his range of skin care products.
“Chicks dig that sort of stuff, and if there is one thing I know about,” Little says before pausing to drag on his mega size Cuban cigar, “it’s chicks”.
Apparently, it’s not just the “ladies” tuning in at home who are going to be seduced by the newly sober Manning, with Little revealing that during the episode in which he arrives in Los Eros, the fictional town where The Letter L is set, several characters will question their commitment to lesbianism, either without the involvement of men or with the participation of women.
“I want to sensitively portray the women’s confusion about their sexuality and the fact that Chuck’s the sort of bloke who could bring the world’s biggest bulldyke round”.
Hurt by criticism the show is “inaccurate male fantasy crap”; Little will also be bringing in “Butch” to assuage “humourless” women’s groups. “Butch” is a tough truckie with a heart of gold, whose love for Candy will go unrequited until, in a cross-promotion with Beauty is Skin Deep, she has a face-lift, collagen lip injections, botox, breast implants, fat removed from her thighs, a brow lift, a tummy tuck, her ears pinned back, a new hair-do and a free make-up consultation with a leading cosmetic company.
“Who would have thought that after all that work Rosie O’Donnell would still look so plain we would have to replace her with Pamela Lee for the after shots”, Little slurred. He failed to respond to accusations O’Donnell’s before scenes have been shot again with Anna Nicole Smith in the role of “Butch”.
Little would not give too much away about what else we can expect from this season until he was really drunk, at which point the press conference was informed that there’ll be a cat fight, a car explosion, an exorcism, a pregnancy, three marriages, four divorces, infidelity, the return of a child adopted out to an African village at birth, a beauty pageant, a massacre and the death of Misty who later returns to Los Eros suffering from amnesia and with a boob job she doesn’t remembering getting, but is very happy to have got.
Watch The Letter L on Wednesdays at 10.30pm on Channel 35 right after our last family program for the evening, World’s Most Clumsy Terrorists (note as scheduled edition was deemed offensive and insensitive to victims of Al-Qaeda, we have replaced it with hilarious old footage of the Beider-Meinhoff’s most klutzy member, “Gangly” Gertrude Steiner).
Don’t forget to read Darlene’s interview with Prof Flint here, because you know you love him too.

IF you have been delayed by the inexcusable closure of all but one lane in Edward Street Brisbane you have my sympathy, for that is more than the Brisbane City Council, or Watpac, will give you.
When I read that the BCC was closing all but one lane of a very busy, already congested, city street for at least a week I waited in vain for the RACQ, the motorists’ advocate, to speak out against this absurdity. I am still waiting – and so are the thousands of motorists being inconvenienced all day every day this week.
The number of occasions on which one or more lanes of busy city streets are blocked, often for months at a time, to suit the interests of private developers has got completely out of hand.
The former Labor Council sanctioned this nonsense and, sadly, it appears that “Can do Campbell” is doing so as well. His explanation on John and Ross’s Breakfast program on 4BC on Monday was disappointing……………and raises questions about whether he has become a captive of the City Hall bureaucracy already.
One lane of Edward Street has been blocked off for at least 12 months for this particular development – now another two lanes are out of bounds to motorists because the BCC has allowed the developer to carry out disruptive work during the day, and not at night when disruptions would have been minimised.
But that is not the only site, as any cabbie, delivery man, or motorist travelling through the city, will testify. There are two sites on Upper Edward Street that have had one lane blocked off for many months, causing traffic jams in and out of peak hour periods…………and I can name sites on Ann Street, and elsewhere in the CBD where the same thing has been allowed to happen in arrogant disregard of motorists.
Roads are for cars……..they are not meant to be a convenient extension of construction sites. Our roads are jammed enough as it is without the added inconvenience caused by virtually every private construction project under way in the CBD.
It is a pity the RACQ, using the enormous potential – and I stress “potential” – influence of its large membership has done little or nothing about the increasing encroachment on busy roads of construction projects……regardless of the traffic jams that encroachment causes.
The RACQ runs an excellent breakdown service – but its service as a lobby for its membership on such basic traffic issues need to be “fired up”, to put it mildly.
Each of these sites has one or two guys dressed up as “traffic wardens”, stopping even more lanes at will to allow trucks to enter and exit the sites. One wonders just how much real “authority” these agents enjoy?
These are tasks that used to be performed by off duty policemen…………..now it is a little industry on its own.
The delays I have witnessed outside peak hour in Edward Street this week have been disgraceful. What the impact on CBD businesses, and especially on the long suffering businesses on the other side of Edward Street, has been one can only guess.
Brisbane has massive traffic problems for a city of its size. They are worsening year by year. They don’t need the added burden of an arrogant construction sector taking over public roads apparently at whim.
The new Lord Mayor might be adopting the same don’t care attitude of his predecessors.
Perhaps the motorists’ only hope lies in the new State Transport Minister whose hands on, practical approach to a number of issues is winning him plenty of plaudits from friends and opponents alike?

It’s been a tough few months for the man The Sydney Morning Herald’s P P McGuiness astutely, and without overstatement, labelled “the most recent victim of the lynch mob mentality rife in Australian public debate”.
As I wait for Professor David Flint at Posh, the restaurant for mainstream Australians who can afford it, I speculate that the worst ignominy this intellectual heavyweight, and, without being too adolescent about it, total spunk for his age, has suffered is interrogation at a Senate hearing by that socialist in a bad suit, John “Blue-Baiter” Faulkner.
Bearing Paddy’s point about “lynch mobs” in mind, dinkum Aussies should know that if the Australian Labor Party (ALP) snatches power again, we’ll become a polity where our best columnists metaphorically, and possibly literally, will be forced to wear a giant letter identifying their conservatism.
Yes, a Labor victory will see Andrew Bolt compelled to adorn a big “C” to categorise himself.
Exemplifying the brutality we’ll reside under is the unfounded accusation that I’m a “right-wing apologist for the Bush Administration” because of my measured piece, America: Saviour of Civilisation or Rescuer of the World?
As for the chap I’m about to chew the fat with, his acclaimed analysis of the influence of the chattering class, The Twilight of the Elites, will ensure he’s banished to the ALP’s version of a Gulag, an Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) forum about the need for unfair dismissal laws to apply to small business.
Although my mobile telephone reception is dreadful in the City, I can discern Alan’s agreement with my conjecture about the Professor before the line dies. I reflect sadly, and informatively, to everyone in the quaint café, “if only I’d switched to Telstra, as they currently offer a Nokia for nothing on a $25 plan for two years.
“As the advertisement says”, I add with feeling, “great coverage so you can be truly mobile”.
Instead of hearing Jones, a broadcaster whose “perspicacity and integrity” (Flint paraphrased Price 2004) has been acknowledged, I ascertain only the incessant hiss of hot air coming from the kitchen and a deep voice emanating from table six where John Laws is holding court; entertaining his new Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) mates, no doubt.
Wait until they start insisting you watch their station rather than just appearing on it, Laws, and you’ll see that tuning in is enough to establish its, and your, bias.
An episode of Sesame Street about the number 7 and the letter L (for left-wing and lesbian, I suspect), could have been made by incendiary film-maker Michael Moore and Karl Marx, due to its emphasis on learning about people from different places and sharing with everybody.
Unable to telephone the Prime Minister to suggest Richard Alston as the next Chair of the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA), I pass more time nibbling on nuts and trying to recall the last time I saw “Dave”.
Was it at the ABA hearing into whether I gave favourable reviews to a number of eateries in several, well, all, of my radio editorials in return for free food or was it at that Liberal Party meeting when I seconded his motion that we go low-brow like the ALP and swap our usual soirée for a barbecue and a raffle?
Wherever it was, I was pleased to attend both with epistles ensconced in my handbag from the good Professor praising my insight and honesty. By the way, I was cleared on a legal technicality, the sausages were spiffing and I won the trip to Europe.
Unfortunately, problems with my (Optus) mobile rendered Flinty unable to reach me with the news he’s headed back to the Senate, so our interview will have to be postponed, probably until after the election when there’ll be plenty to gloat about.
Luckily for me, however, dishy Dr Brendan Nelson just walked in the door with a motorcycle helmet, a copy of his education reforms and the look of a politician who hasn’t got much media lately.
Don’t forget to visit Darlene’s website…contrary to rumours she doesn’t bite.

There were 47 words in last Friday’s interview between Ryan MHR Michael Johnson and ABC Radio’s Steve Austin that have the potential to do the Howard Government much more damage than the Trish Draper affair.
They could mean that the Liberal Party organization will be forced to look at disciplining Mr Johnson. That the Australian Electoral Commission now have prima facie evidence that Mr Johnson has acted to subvert the public disclosure laws to complement their current inquiry into his affairs. He may also be forced to change his statement of pecuniary interest. And it is possible that he may be in a position where it appears that funds for his re-election have not been accounted for properly in what could be, at least technically, a breach of a constructive trust.
What were those 47 words? They are at the end of this paragraph and I have italicized them.
“Well, you know, all these people know who I am. They’re in the position where they can decline it. People like Ricky Ponting’s manager, it was made very, very plain to him that he was coming to a community forum and we had to recover the costs of that forum. We asked for it to be, for the appearance fee to be reduced, unfortunately they declined that, so we had to recover the funds and we were able to do that through companies very generously sponsoring it. Companies don’t make political donations or certain companies don’t feel comfortable making political donations and so certain companies made those directly to the schools, directly to the venue, directly to the caterers, and certain companies made it payable to me because I had to pay Ricky Ponting.“
Up until this point Johnson had spent the interview denying that his Ryan Community Forum had been a political fundraiser. The first half of this paragraph continues that line until the last sentence. Then Johnson coughs. Money was apparently paid directly to the venue, to the caterers and to him because certain companies are not “comfortable” making “political donations”.
So Johnson admits that he used Ricky Ponting to front a political fundraiser, despite having denied it now for weeks. Problem number one for the Prime Minister. This also means that he took money from schools in his area for a political function. While he denies in this interview that the schools paid anything, www.crikey.com.au has a copy of an email asking for money from a state school on their website. I understand this email to be genuine.
And why are companies not “comfortable”? Is it because they don’t want to support one side of politics or another? That can’t be it. They could avoid feeling uncomfortable by not donating at all. The only answer that makes any sense is that they are uncomfortable if others know they have donated.
That is why the AEC should be interested. The electoral act doesn’t allow you to pay third parties without disclosing the payment, unless it is less than $1,500, in which case it doesn’t have to be disclosed, but then, why would a company pay Johnson directly in that case. Of course, Johnson has time to fix this transgression, because the Ryan Community Forum falls into this financial year so isn’t due to be declared until August or September 2004. However, earlier in the interview he admitted that money was paid directly to caterers for earlier functions which do fall into the period which should have been disclosed by now.
The AEC now has a duty to look at all Johnson’s functions, whether they purport to be fundraisers or not.
But it gets worse. Johnson also admits that money was paid directly to him. This is where the Liberal Party needs to take some action. The Liberal Party’s fundraising code, which candidates agree to abide by, forbids a candidate from taking a donation from anyone. This is so that there can be no suggestion that a candidate has been bribed.
This is where it gets really tricky for Johnson. It would most likely be argued that any money paid to Johnson was paid to him on trust for the campaign, but he would need to make sure that he paid the money across very promptly either to the campaign or one of the suppliers, and that his accounting was completely accurate. Any delay or shortfall would lead to suggestions that the money was never going across.
The AEC investigation is partly because of allegations that he effectively defrauded his campaign fund by withdrawing money from it without proper authorization which he had made as a donation. Johnson is on the record in parliament as saying that this was not a donation but a loan, while at other times declaring that it was a donation. There is also the matter of his mother presenting a catering bill for lunches for volunteers in the office and on election day of $4,800 when a normal campaign budget would be around $500 for the same item.
Lastly Johnson could have problems with his register of pecuniary interests. This register is another check against members being bribed. If companies have made payments to him and they have not been disclosed as electoral donations, they are still a benefit that he has received, and they ought to be on the public record.
Ryan is a seat that the ALP recently held and is not the blue ribbon Liberal seat it once was. It is one that the ALP would hold on state election figures. With Trish Draper registering a swing against her in her South Australian seat of Makin of 14% – 5% of it since revelations about her travel – the Liberal Party might want to peek under the lid of Ryan. Michael Johnson would appear to be prepared to commit offences against the electoral act, even if he comes out clean on some of the other matters. That ought to be enough for the Labor Party to have a really good go at winning Ryan back again this election.