I hate it when something makes absolutely no sense and this thing doesn't.

Unless....

(And I do hope I'm wrong in my suspicions.)

Anyway, what prompted hours of (ongoing) puzzlement was Glenn Reynolds' link to this post by the Corner's Andrew Stuttaford.

I've been thinking about what it might mean if the following contentions by Stuttaford (which I'll summarize) are correct:

There is a worldwide, 10,000 ton shortage of medical opium;

Afghanistan produces 4,000 tons a year;

Afghanistan has a competitive advantage (established crop, cheap labor, etc.);

Attempts at crop eradication failed by increasing prices, and "created an additional incentive to grow more the following year";

All leading to additional political support (and a source of profits) for the Taliban.

Stuttaford properly dismisses concerns that opium might compete with the EU:

Do I think there's a danger that the result of allowing Afghans to sell their opium to pharmaceutical companies will be to create an 'opium mountain' to rank with the produce mountains created by the EU's Common Agricultural Policy? I'd be very surprised, but even if it does, so what? Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world, a little income support wouldn't hurt. In fact, it might well do some good.

But it's Stuttaford's last paragraph that really has me scratching my head:

As for legalization, you wisely dodge that endless controversy on the grounds that it's never going to happen. You are probably right, but it's still well worth remembering that the current approach effectively acts as a generous subsidy to the Taliban, al Qaeda and, almost certainly, numerous other terrorist groups, but so long as everyone's O.K. with that...

I'm not O.K. with that, O.K.?

I might be cynical, but I am not so cynical or paranoid as to imagine that my government would contemplate or countenance deliberately subsidizing the Taliban as official policy. That's 9/11 conspiracy-style nonsense.

But I'm wondering whether there might me another possibility, and whether it might be grounded in the well-known desire in certain special interest quarters to conflate terrorism with the war on drugs. (Might it be someone's goal to expand the narcoterrorism meme, perhaps?)

Mostly in bits and pieces, I've been reading various opinions in support of the drugs=terrorism allegations for years, but suppose a major amount of opium were allowed to flow into the hands of the enemy in a country where this fact could be easily documented. Wouldn't that supply a perfect propaganda coup for the drug "warriors" who've long awaited a chance to claim they're genuine combatants in the war on terror? There could be a merger of military and law enforcement by way of Homeland Security, major utilization of Patriot Act provisions against drug dealers (all of whom could be considered "financiers" of terrorism), and with any luck, even individual users might be considered legally linkable to terrorism. They're already using SWAT teams for routine drug enforcement; throw in the terrorism angle and who would dare object (save the libertarian fringe and a few bloggers)?

Sorry, but such a result is not OK with me, and I say that as a longtime supporter of this country's war on terror. It's bad enough that there are those who seek to conflate the drug war and the war on terror, but if there's even a possibility that my admittedly paranoid suspicions might be right -- that drug warriors might not mind seeing the Taliban get its hands on 4000 tons of opium despite a legal need for it -- then the implications are disturbing.

For starters, it was only a couple of weeks ago that I voiced support for a "domestic intelligence service" with special powers to fight terrorism. Any serious attempt to conflate terrorism with the war on drugs would run counter to the idea of such an agency without police powers, by blurring the distinction between the war on terror and domestic law enforcement.

It's bad enough that the drug war creates economic opportunities for the enemy. But looking the other way and letting them have opium in the face of a worldwide shortage?

I hope I'm wrong in my speculations about the reasons, but whatever they might be, it's definitely not O.K.

I agree with Glenn Reynolds that this issue reduces itself to three simple words: buy Afghan opium.

MORE: According to this detailed report, the total income Afghan farmers receive from opium is around $100 million a year. If the world needs it and there's a legal market for it, buying it seems like common sense. (There I go, talking common sense in the context of the drug war!)

UPDATE: I should make it clear that I agree with everything Andrew Stuttaford said. A commenter seemed to think otherwise in saying the following:

I did not take Andrew's statement to be in the vein of drugs=bad and terrorism=bad therefore drugs=terrorism. If opium is going for a premium and the Taliban controls some territory where they can grow opium, or take it from those who do, they can finance their weapons purchases through it. Leaving it at the status quo does that. I don't think the policies in this case are linked.

Again, if there is a worldwide legal market for their opium, why not buy it?