The last two presidents and two of the current candidates have either used illegal substances or have had substance abuse problems. Does this show that winners don’t always refuse to use drugs?

Would you want a president who's under the influence?

Imagine this:

It's 3 a.m., and a phone rings in the vice president's quarters. A Secret Service agent answers the phone, listens, and then rushes into the VP's bedroom with the phone in hand and wakes him up.

Agent (placing his hand over the mouthpiece of the phone): Mr. Vice President, the president of Xyzistan has threatened to launch a nuclear strike in 15 minutes. You must respond.

Vice president: Where is the heck is the president? Why isn't he taking the lead on this issue?

Agent: Sir, he's coming down from his heroin high. We tried to wake him up, sir, but he's out of it.

Vice president: Give me the darn phone.

I seriously have no clue what his point is. Of course no one wants the president nodding out on dope during a nuclear crisis. Where the hell did that come from? Is he saying that if we listen to Jacob Sullum, we'll be risking nuclear war?

Not surprisingly at all, a google search reveals that Charles Stimson has a history of saying crazy shit. He was forced to resign from the Department of Defense last year following controversial remarks about the lawyers representing Guantanamo detainees. He literally got in trouble with the Bush Administration for taking things too far in the national security debate, which is quite an achievement. Fortunately for us, this trainwreck of a drug war debate will continue for two more days if LA Times doesn't invoke the slaughter rule and declare Sullum the winner today.