Arab terrorists use Drug money to fund Terrorism

World Tribune.com ^ | Friday, July 26, 2002 | GEOSTRATEGY-DIRECT

[dyed_in_the_wool]

The drug ring ``is responsible for 90 percent of the Ecstasy coming into the City of Torrance and other local cities,'' Crespin said.

So, I guess they can start laying off investigators now.

[weikel]

If drugs are sold at CBS they ain't being sold by Al Qaeda. Saudi Oil is Bin Laden's major source of financing anyway thats why I think we should go in and destroy everything and everyone not related to extracting oil and make the place a colony.

[Crispy]

My statement is economically sound. If drugs were legal, there would be a lot more people growing them all over the world. The supply would be way higher than demand which would make them dirt cheap. It would be like buying a pound of flour or a bag of rice. Economics 101.

[dyed_in_the_wool]

i could not disagree with you more. if we do legalize drugs, then more people will use drugs, and even if the price drops, the total money spent on drugs will increase.

Marijuana, for example can grow wild in just about all of the lower 48. It would cost next to nothing. (Which is why the 'let the government tax it' argument is invalid -- if I can grow my own, why buy taxed?)
Anyway, you'd most likely have some small regional farms and possibly some rather large ones in obscure places (due to the stigma.)
Although more people may use it (higher availability, no pun intended) the cost would be close to zero. If I could grow beer for free in my yard, do you think I'd charge my friends? Would I charge myself? Why would I sell it and risk liability? Seriously.

the fact is that several terrorist organizations control land that grows some of the best drugs in the world (e.g. opium)

We are talking about Afghanistan. It's climate is very similar to our Mountains in the Mid-West. Last time I checked, that's free land.

we could not begin to compete in the united states with these creeps if we did legalize drugs, both on price and on quality.

It's not like they're giving us a run at corn production. I think we could smoke them in any area of agriculture. Pun intended.
Peace.

[dyed_in_the_wool]

I think we should go in and destroy everything and everyone not related to extracting oil and make the place a colony.

I don't believe in colonization. However, we should consider grabbing the 'Seven Sisters' pumps (they only have 7 pumps, by the coast) and kill anyone non-U.S. within 100 yards of them.
Why waste ammo?
Later on, we could think of a good reason to claim it. Like, becuase it was funding the war on terrorism.

[Freebird Forever]

An equally true headline could read... "US Government Ads Incorrect: Marijuana and Coccaine not significant sources of terrostist funding!"

I'd tend to disagree with that proposed headline (and some of the spelling therein).

It is safe to say that leftist Colombian FARC rebels do benefit from the cocaine trade. Also, there is a fair amount of hashish coming out of Afghanistan, and that has been funding arms purchases for a long time. I will admit to seeing (but never possessing) kilos of black hash back in the 80's which was stamped in gold leaf, "Smoke the Russians out".

[mlocher]

cbs still has to get the drugs from somewhere. they will get them from al qaida and other terrorist orgs that control the production of drugs. their 'inefficient' marketing will go to the united states, but they will still reap large profits.

we market and refine oil, yet the saudis (and bin laden as you state) get rich. the same thing will happen if we legalize drugs.

i like the thinking on your other point however. it is a perfectly legitimate war strategy to knock out your enemies' production capabilities and render useless their natural resources. if we are at war with al-qaida, ok by me to knock out all oil fields they control and profit from -- drug fields too.

[stilts]

The irony is that the Taliban were also recipients of "anti-drug" money when they received the grant for slowing the production of heroin. I remember reading about this shortly after the 11th. I believe it was a US government program that rewarded countries for their cutting poppy production.

Strange as it may be, it appears in this case the terrorists didn't just get funded by those who use heroin, but they were also funded by those that pay taxes!

[mlocher]

economics 101

if more people make drugs the supply will go up and drugs will become cheap as you say. soon, many drug producers will go out of business and it will be those who cannot reign in their costs or production. drugs will quickly become a commodity. we in the united states are the greatest innovators in the world, but we are not very good at reigning in our costs for commodities, which is exactly why many jobs are going overseas. afghan farmers, loyal to the taliban, will be able to make opium much cheaper than we ever will. many countries compete favorably with us in agriculture (chile -- fruit; fiji -- apples; etc.) which is exactly why our government pays billions to support the food industry. we will not be able to compete.

economics 825

[Kerberos]

"makes it sound like the kid down the lane, who smokes a joint is in cahoots with Osami... which is a falsehood. "

Everything about the WOD is a falsehood.

[weikel]

CBS would still have to worry about the "trading with the enemy act" being a legitimate firm.

[weikel]

Unions and minimum wage laws besides the red tape, subsidies etc of big government are why we can't reign in commodities cost.

[mlocher]

i agree. don't forget health care costs, taxes and more taxes. oh yes, did i mention taxes?

[breakem]

On the morality of drug laws. Which citizens are more moral, those who chose not to use drugs in a country where they are legal or those who do not use drugs because their government will kill them or put them in jail?

[breakem]

Your 29 does not seem to take into account that the most commonly used drug is mj. This can begrown in most places in the country and would mean that people would gow their own. This is a different model tahn the commodities market.

[Bandolier]

Damn!!! So I guess if the dope were legal, and grown in Indiana, Al Quaeda wouldn't have made sh*t.

Hmmmm, as long as it is illegal and must be grown in foreign countries; foreign countries will make the money.

Vote for the drug war, fund Al Quaeda; keep the profits in Afghanistan.

[mlocher]

interesting point. do you do good because of the law, or because of the gospel. if the former, you are condemned to hell. if the latter, you just might stand a chance...

[breakem]

Is that your answer to which is the more moral situation/country?

[mlocher]

i understand your point, but we need to fast forward in time and look at the agriculture industry. people will in fact grow their own because they can. but they will soon find that due to economies of scale a farmer will be able to grow large amounts hassle free and it will be more convenient, and cheaper, to buy from someone else.

because our labor is so expensive, the marijuana crop will become part of the global economy and pretty soon we will be importing the stuff from who knows where. the marijuana industry will be subject to the "rule of 3" and perhaps one of the big producers will be in the united states, but the rest will most likely be elsewhere.

[breakem]

Let me answer for you. In many totalitarian countries and Islamic controlled ones they claim they are more moral than the US. Their people are scared into moral behavior. Blaspheme, have your tongue cut out. Commit adultry, lose your head. In the US there are a couple of hundred million who do not commit these "crimes." Why, because they choose not to. Thus the US is more moral than the other countries by not outlawing drug use, adultry, drinking and so forth.