Buying Drugs Supports Terrorism

Sorry if this has already been discussed. I am new to straightdope.com and I couldn’t find anything in previous posts about it.

Anyway, I assume everyone has seen the Office of National Drug Control Policy commercials state that if you buy illegal drugs you are supporting terrorism. I know that the Taliban are/were opium farmers and all, but how much of this is actually true? And is it true for all drugs or just the harder drugs (i.e., coke, heroin, morphine…)? And how does this stack up against the money that terrorists get from oil? And how does this measure up to the US supporting the AUC and their terrorizing of Columbia’s citizens?

I can get pretty heated up about this topic but I’m not going to. Let’s discuss it rationally and with clear facts (cite references).

Thanks!
Gavin

Just facts? Eh, you’re no fun!:wink:

Truth to tell, I can get pretty worked up on this subject myself, but I’m not in the mood for it today. And this has been discussed before (mainly in the Pit, IIRC). But the threads were probably lost in the recent board crash. They happened in February, right after the ads first came out during the Superbowl.

Anyhoo, in a nutshell: It’s all a bunch of bullshit.

I don’t know whether there is any validity in equating drug cartels and gang members with terrorists. Possibly there is some. But the point is, it’s the fact that drugs are illegal, and are therefore a black market commodity, that provides the profit motive for your various shady types to deal in them.

Pardon my hyperbole, but the War On Drugs is EEEEVIL!

Obviously terrorists get their money from lots of places. Mexican pot farmers are probably not supporting too much terrorism - but I really don’t know. Columbian and Peruvian cocaine probably gets lots of people killed by rebel terrorists in South America. FARC, Shining Path, nutty left wing extremists, nutty right wing extremists, etc.

One could argue that it is the illegality of the drugs that causes many of these consequential harms. If drugs were legal but regulated heavily they would not be such a cash cow for violent people. If we registered coke and heroin addicts they could stop stealing to support their habits - no small part of the crime problem.

Plenty of marijuana is grown in the U.S. and Canada. Be sure to ask your friendly neighborhood dealer for Patriotic Pot - keep your dollars out of the hands of terrorists, and in the hands of college dropouts!

Sure, it’s a pretty silly arguement. There are a whole host of products, legal and illegal, that by their sale support, directly or indirectly, things that are quite evil. But there are, of course, no federally funded ads about these things.

In reference to Al Queda, I’m not sure oil is a direct contributor (though surely indirectly). I actually remember reading that Osama’s family made most of its money (some of which he ended up with) on products like honey, not oil: so you can’t assume that rich contributors to terrorist efforts are always oilmen.

It’s also worth noting that opium in Afghanistan doesn’t mean it always went towards supporting terrorist activities, any more than the farmers who grew corn on the cob that Timothy McVeigh ate always supported militias. The profit motive is enough for some, without having any concern or contribution for terrorist goals.

[interesting aside]

During the Great Dope Famine of 1986 (anyone remember…uh, what were we talking about?) some friends of mine resorted to buying a half pound of hash. It came in a flat cake with a gold seal in the center showing a hand holding an AK-47 and the words “Afghani Resistance”.

Of course, that was back when the terrorists were known as “freedom fighters” fighting the Reds.

[/aside]

Well, there have been a number of murders of judges and the like by the Columbian drug cartels, including (IIRC) their Supreme Court. This is probably not political terrorism per se, but it is certainly terroristic tactics. If you want to argue that the cartels just want money, and are not therefore terrorists, I can’t argue the point, but the commercials you are probably thinking about don’t necessarily claim that the profits of all drug sales go directly to the terrorists.

As far as actual terrorism is concerned, according to the State Department and a UN Security Council resolution:

http://www.state.gov/www/regions/sa/facts_taliban_drugs.html

I think they since greatly reduced the areas of poppy cultivation under their control, but as they refused to destroy their stockpiles of opium, this was seen more as an attempt to drive the price of heroin up than a genuine move toward getting out of the drug business.

FWIW, Osama bin Ladin got his money from his father’s construction company.

Regards,
Shodan

The Taliban were against the growing of poppies and it was not until after they were defeated that the farmers went back into the fields and planted a crop this past spring. This doesn’t mean that bin Laden didn’t get financial support from selling drugs.

Hmm, if murder weren’t illegal…then maybe…
All you drug heads reap the benefits of being American citizens but when it comes to obeying the law suddenly this country sucks.
Laws are a by product of civilization.
Do you have the guts to renounce your citizenship and move to Amsterdam.
Doubt it. You know how many sons, daughters, mothers, fathers etc. wish to God there loved ones had never gotten involved in drugs?
Don’t need a cite. The numbers are high.
Seat belt laws protect the stupid.
Likewise with drug laws. If they obey them that is.
Judges and law enforcement can’t pick and choose which laws they’ll defend.
When a judge or DEA agent is murdered by a cartel you’re an accomplice because the drugs are marketed on the American streets.
If it could be positively proven that drugs support terrorism, would it make a difference in your life?
I would hope so but I doubt it.

<All you drug heads reap the benefits of being American citizens but when it comes to obeying the law suddenly this country sucks. >

I trust this post comes from someone who has never touched alcohol. Incidentally, “drug heads” is probably more appropriate for the Pit than for GD.

<Do you have the guts to renounce your citizenship and move to Amsterdam.>

No, we prefer to lobby our politicians here for more just laws instead of pussing out on an otherwise good country.

<Doubt it. You know how many sons, daughters, mothers, fathers etc. wish to God there loved ones had never gotten involved in drugs?
Don’t need a cite. The numbers are high.>

It’s an issue of personal responsibility. Like drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes. The ones who can’t handle themseves have no right to screw it up for the rest of us. I make my own decisions regarding drug use, thank you.

<Judges and law enforcement can’t pick and choose which laws they’ll defend.>

No. But Congress can choose what IS the law.

<When a judge or DEA agent is murdered by a cartel you’re an accomplice because the drugs are marketed on the American streets.>

When you buy gas you’re an accomplice to everything nasty anyone in the Middle East has ever done. In any case, if drugs were legal the money wouldn’t be going to the bad people.

<If it could be positively proven that drugs support terrorism, would it make a difference in your life?>

Drugs DON’T support terrorism. Drug cartels do, and those only exist because drugs are illegal.

And if drugs support terrorism, directly? So does buying raisins. So does filling up the car. Why don’t they end the commercial with one of those last two? And really, I can’t really see a slumped over heroin addict getting a tear in her eye, flushing her stash and prasing ol’ glory after seeing the advert. Ditto for the crackhouse dwellers. If it were that easy to quit… As for non-addictive drugs of the flora persuasion, most of that is coming from your neighbour’s basemant or, egads, those shifty eyed Canadians.

So that’s where we went wrong!

I’ve been really happy with all of the replies I’ve read, clear, concise, democratic, even, until jimpatro’s.

>All you drug heads<
I see you already know the quantity and quality of my drug use? Hmmm.

>when it comes to obeying the law suddenly this country sucks<
The country doesn’t suck (where did you get that from my post?), it just needs much help to be as great as it thinks it is.

>Do you have the guts to renounce your citizenship and move to Amsterdam<
I’m with Coin on this one. I’m actively participating in changing this country for the better.

>You know how many sons, daughters, mothers, fathers etc. wish to God there loved ones had never gotten involved in drugs?<
Personal responsibility. I’ve had friends/family die from using. I’ve also had friends/family die from auto accidents. Doesn’t mean I want to outlaw cars.

>If it could be positively proven that drugs support terrorism, would it make a difference in your life?
I would hope so but I doubt it.<
Actually, it would. I would ensure that all “flora” that I purchased is homegrown (Patriotic Pot, funny stuff) or I’ll start growing myself. If it could be postively proven that oil supports terrorism, an equally valid and plausible hypothesis, would it make a difference in your life? Would you stop driving your car/truck/van/suv tomorrow?

Enough of this. This is exactly what I didn’t want this thread to regress into. Assumptions and judgements. It seems curious that the members who have posted rational, informative responses have been “drug heads”, while the irrational, asinine rant was posted from a intelligent, responsible Amorican citizen. You don’t know me. All I was asking for was some facts, not a diatribe into how all who use drugs are fool commie outlaws with no morals.

Just for the record, jimpatro, I’m not a “drug head”. I used to smoke pot, and have done some other things, but these days I stick to alcohol and caffeine. But I still support legalization, for a variety of reasons.

First, for practical reasons: the drug war is unequivocally an abysmal failure. Even many law enforcement officials admit this. Despite the billions of dollars spent, and the tens of thousands of people jailed for no greater crime than performing experiments on their own nervous systems, drug use continues unabated. All that has been accomplished is the level of violence associated with drug dealing has risen exponentially, and countless lives have been ruined in the name of shameless political scapegoating.

Most of the problems associated with drug use, the violence, crime, and gangs, are directly caused by the fact that drugs are illegal. It’s trite to even point it out, but look at the example of Prohibition. When alcohol was illegal, the Mafia sold illegal liquor, and we saw the exact same kind of violence and corruption then with alcohol that we do today with other drugs.

Also, for personal, ethical reasons: I believe that I have the right to decide in what ways I will or will not alter my own consciousness. I decide, not the government. As long as I’m not harming anyone else, it’s nobody else’s business.

Drugs should be regulated, yes. Minors should not be allowed to purchase them. And laws regarding public intoxication, driving under the influence, etc. are entirely appropriate. But jailing someone, ruining their career and seizing their property, because they choose to smoke a joint or do a line in the privacy of their own home, harming no one, is absolutely wrong.

And speaking of minors, are you aware that it is much, much easier (in my experience) for minors to obtain pot or ecstasy, among others, than it is for them to obtain alcohol? Why do you think that is?

As for your point about laws: In my opinion, just because something is a Law, doesn’t automatically make it right. It used to be a law that Americans had to pay taxes to the king of England. It used to be perfectly legal to own another human being. There are good laws, and there are bad laws. I beleive people have a responsibility to seek to change bad laws. This is a bad law.

Okay, now for some cites. Not my strong suit, I’ll admit. So I’ll just point out some other posters who have done some research. Please read the excellent posts by SuaSponte in this thread, and the many thoughtful responses here. Scotth, if you’re reading this, I tried to find the thread where you laid out an eminently sensible drug policy proposal, but came up empty. Perhaps you could point me to it?

Buying oil and diamonds do more to support terrorism than buying a dime bag from the guy in the tie-dye who’s got some UV lamps in his basement.

And remember, the only reason there is such a market for drusg is because they are illegal. Just think of the mobsters that sold booze during Prohibition–we saw well THAT worked!

Wake up buddy, being a rebel, left or right, does make you a terrorist. Methods of violence are terrorist or otherwise, a conventional state army can comitt an act of terrorism, ie isreali helicopter attacks on palestinian civilians, American nuclear weapons being tropped on capital cities full with families. Murdering non-combatants for religious, political or economical ends is terrorism in my book, weather it be under a flag of stars and strips, the star of david or a nazi thingy is irrelivent.

Here’s another old thread on the topic: “I support terrorism by eating raisins”

Hmm… If rebel = terrorist, does that mean that George Washington = Osama bin Laden? Washington did grow hemp, after all…

Oh, and for the record, no nuclear weapon, American or otherwise, has ever been used in an act of agression. You could make an argument that destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (neither of them “capital” cities, btw) was a terrorist act, but since you don’t seem to know the difference between “nuclear” and “atomic,” perhaps it would be better for us all if you didn’t.

Drugs sales certainly contribute to funding terrorism in Northern Ireland. (but so do pirated software, Playstation games & chipping, CD’s, DVD’s, and lots of other black market sale items). ‘Sanctioned’ dealers are allowed to sell, giving a percentage of profits to the local organisation. Any competition or unsanctioned dealers are soon ‘discouraged’ from their activities. (With a bullet or two in their kneecaps, elbows or ankles).

But, generally, people don’t care. If you can get a DVD for a tenner months before the film is even released in the cinema, the moral argument goes out the window.

If you really want to fight terrorism, stop buying diamonds.

'Course, the Bushies can’t score cheap-n-easy points with that ad campaign, so don’t look for it any time soon.