Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20001-5403
Phone (202) 842 0200
Fax (202) 842 3490
 Contact Us
Support Cato

Cato Daily Dispatch for March 25, 2005

Subscribe to the Daily Dispatch via email

(Links to outside sources were active as of the date of this dispatch; however, not all news sources maintain links to current stories indefinitely. Some links also may require registration.)

Afghan Drug War Encourages Terrorism
Politics of Stem Cell Research
FCC Is Not a Substitute for Parenting

Afghan Drug War Encourages Terrorism

"The American military will significantly increase its role in halting the production and sale of poppies, opium and heroin in Afghanistan, responding to bumper harvests that far exceed even the most alarming predictions, according to senior Pentagon officials," reports the New York Times.

In "Drug Prohibition Is a Terrorist's Best Friend," Ted Galen Carpenter, Cato's vice president for defense and foreign policy studies, explains that "the harsh reality is that terrorist groups around the world have been enriched by prohibitionist drug policies that drive up drug costs, and which deliver enormous profits to the outlaw organizations willing to accept the risks that go with the trade.

"Targeting the Afghanistan drug trade would create a variety of problems. Most of the regional warlords who abandoned the Taliban and currently support the U.S. anti-terror campaign (and in many cases politically undergird the Karzai government) are deeply involved in the drug trade, in part to pay the militias that give them political clout. A crusade against drug trafficking could easily alienate those regional power brokers and cause them to switch allegiances yet again."

Politics of Stem Cell Research

"The House leadership has agreed to allow a floor vote on a bill that would loosen the restrictions on human embryonic stem cell research imposed by President Bush in 2001, according to members of Congress and others privy to the arrangement," reports the Washington Post.

"The vote, expected to take place within the next two to three months, would be the first of its kind on the politically charged topic since Bush declared much of the research off-limits to federal funding. The cells show promise as treatments for many diseases but have stirred intense controversy because they are retrieved from human embryos, which are destroyed in the process."

In "Don't Politicize Stem Cell Research," Michael Tanner, director of Cato's health and welfare studies, criticizes stem cell research by the federal government, arguing that science has become politicized when government money is involved: "By its very nature, government politicizes everything it touches. Science is no exception. Stem cell research needs neither government money nor politics. It is better is to get the government out and let the private sector continue its good work. Those people calling for increased funding could take out their checkbooks and support it. Those who oppose embryonic stem cell research would not be forced to pay for it."

FCC Is Not a Substitute for Parenting

"The Rev. Al Sharpton, upset about violence in rap music, asked the Federal Communications Commission on Thursday to punish artists and radio stations connected with violent acts," the Associated Press reports.

"Artists connected to such acts should be denied airplay on radio and television for 90 days, he told reporters after meeting with FCC Chairman Kevin Martin and two other commissioners. He also urged the agency to fine and review the licenses of radio stations 'that encourage a pattern of this, including allowing employees to do on-the-air inciting of violence.'"

In "Desperate Housewives and Desperate Regulators," Adam Thierer, former director of Cato's telecommunications studies, condemns FCC regulations and the "Let's-blame-media-for-all-our-problems" mentality: "Censorship advocates respond that parents just don't have enough time to monitor their children's listening and viewing habits in this hectic age. But this is a weak excuse for government intervention. If parents bring media devices into the home and then give their kids free rein, that's just poor parenting. While there's more media than ever before, there also exist more technological tools to screen or limit what children see. Parents don't bring other products home -- such as cars, weapons, liquor, or various chemicals -- and then expect the government to assume responsibility from there. But that is essentially the logic many social conservatives rely on to justify broadcast television and radio censorship."

Greg Garner, editor, ggarner@cato.org