Legalize drugs and defund terrorism?

Question

Here's the headline from Yahoo homepage "Terror groups raise funds through drugs: DEA". From my point of view this is very typical PR from this federal agency, with the unstated but implied message that all illegal drug users are responsible for funding terrorism - that all illegal drug users must take personal responsibilty for terrorism. When (for instance) most marijuana consumed in the United States is produced inside the country (ok, who are the terrorists?). But the main question (proposal) here is that given that illegal, or recreational, drug use is practically impossible to eradicate, and the Taliban are funding themselves via opium production, shouldn't the US government take production, distribution, AND drug consuling and consumer protection into their own hands, and in this difficult but practical way, defund Columbian mafias and Afganistanian religio-fascists?

Idb83: the government has this agency called the FDA that regulates AND protects consumers. Will Mom and Dad protect me from saturated fats and/or tainted products from China?

hamoh10: yes, I know, I'm trying to live in the best of all worlds. But how about taxing drug sales and funding drug addiction consuling and rehabilitation?

Answer 1

The ONDCP had a short-lived campaign to that effect, a college kid saying "I killed a farmer" and the like.
I agree with the DEA, drug consumers are responsible for death and destruction. It expands beyond that, because through Plan Colombia, the paramilitary AUC received much of its funding from the Colombian military. American tax payers have also (indirectly) funded terror.
One can argue whether the prohibition of some narcotics creates the environment that allows terrorists to fund themselves. What is really not debatable is that we have exacerbated a civil war in Colombia that has caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people (and before that, the same in Peru). That it hasn't been an issue is more an indictment of our media, our leaders and us.

Answer 2

like charles pronounced, they're 2 thoroughly diverse problems. the version is that drugs are a passtime. terrorism is violence, no longer addictive, no longer some thing in demand. with the aid of curtailing the hazards, you propose amking it much less risky, yeah? the completed element of this is to harm human beings, so how in the international could desire to creating hurting human beings criminal make the practice much less risky? you will possibly finally end up with extra human beings doiing it, and extra human beings being harm. different than for which, terrorism, if legalised, could be in contravention of such a lot of human rights. (civil liberties, i think of they're called in usa.) I dont see why a us of a might prefer to allow human beings to kill its voters.

Answer 3

Why should the government protect me and my kids from drugs... Isn't that my job. To instill in them concepts of honor, character, and integrity ? To teach them that we all have free will, and the choices we make in life speaks greatly of our own character ?

Keep you drug dealers, drugs and the rest ot that sh!^ out of here. Loose the demand and you have no sale.

Answer 4

I think there's a valid point to your question, but it shouldn't be up to the government to protect consumers from drugs.

It should be up to parents and families.

Answer to your follow-up question: Yes, they should. Mine did.

Answer 5

BALONEY! th' guv will just TAX it.