English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

We just listened to Moises Naim at American University, the author of Illicit, and at the end of the Q&A session I decided to get the last word in.

Earlier he declared he's for legalizing marijuana because of how it has so many ironic inverse effects and markets against cigarettes. Regardless of the moral argument, his book discusses the trafficking of illegal goods and how they're used to finance America's enemies of state. He also discusses how Americans are naive and need to take action to clean things up around the world.

I asked him how legalizing marijuana would not provide terrorists organizations with an avenue to expand their financial base. He basically dodged the question when responding and stated the terrorism isn't an expensive venture (although his prior focus was on the massive funding underground cells get from trafficking of illegal goods).

I've been asking around what people thought, and some said I seemed confident and others said it was odd. What's up here?

2006-09-13 13:22:41 · 7 answers · asked by Mikey C 5 in News & Events Media & Journalism

7 answers

his motives is to sell drugs and profit from it, motives are stronger than reasons

2006-09-13 20:28:50 · answer #1 · answered by lantaliban 4 · 0 1

well in my opinion making pt legal would most likely take money out of the pockets of the terrorist because believe or not the second pot is legal there will about a million pot farms up and running the second they(the pot growers) can get legal as to why he dodge the question don't know but you make a good point

2006-09-13 20:34:02 · answer #2 · answered by Kevin E 3 · 1 0

His argument is illogical.
His intend is admirable.
We have way too many people who's lives are being ruined by federal and state laws that cripple their lives for ingesting something that does less harm to society then alcohal, while allowing pedophiles, and murderers to stay free.
Legalising dope, would curtail the flow of money to the black market, but the numbers relative to other sources of money to support terrorists are so small that his argument is sensless.
If he was really concerned with money flowing to terrorists then he should be trying to convince you to stop using so much oil based energy.
Because of our addiction to oil, Iran is able to send ten times more moneyto the terroists then the Biggest budget the KGB ever saw.
Wanna stop giving money to the people that wanna kill you, stop buying their oil...

2006-09-13 20:37:47 · answer #3 · answered by scary g 3 · 1 2

Sounds like a very good question and one which deserved an answer that he obviously could not give you either because he doesn't know the answer or because the answer was or would be against his own focus. Good for you for asking!

2006-09-14 01:57:46 · answer #4 · answered by B. 3 · 1 0

it's a legitimate question. i have a possible answer(i can't believe he could not provide you one, and i think it's rude to present this argument without SOME explaination.)

my thoughts involve recreational legalization.(as well as medicinal)

if it's available over the counter, dealers will be out of business.

i hope i don't sound like some nutbag.(lol)

2006-09-13 20:40:59 · answer #5 · answered by daddio 7 · 1 0

I think you were trying to be cute based on your comment about trying to get the last word in. You don't seemed convinced of your confidence in asking your question maybe that is why he brushed you off.

Look at how the Taliban are using the cultivation of opium poppies to finance their return to power.
While they were in power poppy cultivation was almost completely eliminated. But now its OK to them because it helps to corrupt the west and is a cash crop. The means justifies the means. Does that answer your question?

2006-09-13 20:29:52 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Seems like a legitimate question to me, under the circumstances.

2006-09-13 20:26:48 · answer #7 · answered by Rvn 5 · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers