cannabisnews.com: The War on Drugs is Necessitating War on Terrorism The War on Drugs is Necessitating War on Terrorism Posted by FoM on October 16, 2001 at 09:02:02 PT By Sheldon Richman Source: Sun Herald Americans no doubt would be distressed to learn that the U.S. government helped finance the terrorist attacks that killed so many people in New York and Washington. It's not such a far-fetched thought. According to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, terrorist organizations are financed in part by profits from trading in drugs. "The illegal drug trade is the financial engine that fuels many terrorist organizations around the world, including Osama Bin Laden," Hastert said. But what makes the drug trade so profitable? Just one thing: The U.S. war on drugs. How ironic! The war on drugs is now necessitating the war on terrorism.War does indeed beget war.This is a particularly sordid example of what the CIA calls "blowback," the backfiring of an official operation.Drugs in themselves are fairly cheap to produce. Growing marijuana, poppy for opiates, and coca for cocaine is no big deal. Poor people do it all over the world. The processing of those crops into usable drugs is also relatively inexpensive.What makes the drug industry so lucrative is the U.S.-led effort to stamp it out. With prohibition comes high risks and thus elaborate efforts to hide drug-related activity - in a word: the black market. Black markets always produce high profits; they are the premium needed to compensate those who undertake great risk to produce the prohibited product in defiance of the authorities.This is nothing new. It is the well-grounded economics of black markets. Opponents of prohibition have long held that the way to remove the exorbitant profits from drug dealing is to end prohibition. Few in the policymaking world would listen.Now it is clear, if it wasn't already, that drug profits are used to finance abominable operations, such as terrorist organizations that seek to kill innocent people. This should surprise no one.Black markets tend to be run by the most ruthless and despicable characters around. Because black markets are outside the law, the standard forms of resolving disputes are unavailable to their personnel. If a multimillion-dollar drug deal goes awry, the wronged party can't sue the offender. The courts are not open to him. So he's likely to take matters into his own hands. That means violence.For obvious reasons, then, the drug trade will attract those with the fewest scruples about using violence. Indeed, it will reward those who are best at it. Enter those who wish to engage in terrorism.It has long been known that violent groups in Latin America have made money by protecting coca farmers from government agents, both American and indigenous. It should come as no surprise to learn that the same happens in Asia and the Middle East.Make no mistake about it: it is U.S. policy that creates a harmony of interests between violent guerilla organizations and poor farmers trying to make a living by growing crops needed for the production of drugs. The U.S. government has foolishly hoped that those farmers could be encouraged to grow legal crops. It has even tried to poison the illicit crops. But those efforts are futile, because the financial reward for producing drugs is so large.In fact, the reward is so large that often the U.S. government's foreign partners in the anti-drug effort are also involved in the black market. Nothing is better at corrupting the law-enforcement establishment than prohibition. Let's not forget our own history.But the U.S. government persists in its worldwide war on drug producers and traders despite countless failures and "blowbacks." Let's be blunt: every U.S. drug czar has been an unwitting financier for terrorists.No one is saying that drugs are the only source of money for terrorists. But the multibillion-dollar industry is undoubtedly a major source. Denied that money, the terrorists would have to operate at a far more modest level. And the lives of many innocent people would be saved.Here, then, is another good reason to end the absurd war on drug producers, sellers and users. There were plenty of good reasons already. But this one might finally get people to reconsider this truly stupid policy.Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation -- http://www.fff.org -- in Fairfax, Va.Every U.S. drug czar has been an unwitting financier for terrorists.Source: Sun Herald (MS)Author: Sheldon RichmanPublished: October 16, 2001Copyright: 2001 The Sun HeraldWebsite: http://web.sunherald.com/Contact: maildrop sunherald.comRelated Articles:It's Time to Give Up the War on Drugs http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10882.shtml Heeding the Lessons of the War Against Drugs http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11070.shtml END SNIP --> Snipped Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #9 posted by krutch on October 16, 2001 at 14:50:08 PT: Disturbing Generalizations I don't know what drugs the author is talking about here but I am sick of this generalization:"For obvious reasons, then, the drug trade will attract those with the fewest scruples about using violence. Indeed, it will reward those who are best at it. Enter those who wish to engage in terrorism."What are the "obivious reasons" Richman eludes to? Does he actually know anybody who deals drugs, or did he come to this conclusion based on the conventional "wisdom" that the press constantly spews on this subject.I have known many big time and small time dealers in my life, and none of them are violent people.I have already said that Dennis Hastert's comments pure BS, so I will spare everyone that diatribe. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by Morgan on October 16, 2001 at 11:26:20 PT Don't get me wrong... ... I thought this was an excellent piece, and I understand that the use of the word 'unwitting' is probably a tounge in cheek nicety... just pulling short of actually labeling these Drug Czars as 'witting accomplaces' to terrorism...in other words...traitors.But, I've read these words too many times before. And they tend to color these guys as just ignorant of reality, perhaps blinded by their zeal to 'do good', with 'unintended consequences'. This can be easily forgiven by the public. It's Homer Simpson realizing he has done something stupid, slapping his head and saying 'Doh!' Over and over again. Funny.I guess I'm just tired of waiting for the final, terrible realization to set in, and the gloves to come off. Not likely in the present climate. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by Silent_Observer on October 16, 2001 at 10:42:29 PT Morgan, Perhaps not the word "unwitting". I suspect it was used in the way of being polite - an unnecessary nicety, one might argue. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by Lehder on October 16, 2001 at 10:23:43 PT does anybody buy THIS? The following is a very serious, but credible interview with David Shippers, the D.C. lawyer, who was the prosecuting attorney in the Clinton impeachement. This guy is one of Washington's top lawyers and insists throughout this transcript of a lengthy radio interview that the government knew about 9/11 BEFORE it happened, that HE knew, and that some of the FBI agents knew too, but even together, they couldn't get anyone to listen to him/them. It's a long article, but it offers information that you might want to consider. This one is no hoax, or if it is, it is being printed and taken seriously in news outlets of various persuasions . . . . HOWEVER it has yet to make the mainstream news. Check it out for yourself if you like. Maybe an FBI agent would like to comment on this story. Maybe one of you would like to try and marginalize Dave Shippers, eh? Well, I wish you would, cause I really don't like this story. But what the hell would I know.Read on:http://nyc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=12997&group=webcastAJ: We're talking to David Shippers. We're discussing FBI agents across the country having prior knowledge of the attacks, trying to get these guys arrested or even to get a warrant, knowing they were associates of Bin Laden, others being trained at the Pensacola Naval Air Station, Clinton not wanting the names of Al Queda when they had the chance, there is so much evidence of prior knowledge.....AJ: Here's the bottom line question. The attack on lower Manhattan, the third big attack. We know you tried to get to the Attorney General. What did you say? DS: My first move was to go through some of the people that I knew in Congress because I was working on two fronts. On the one hand I wanted to get someone to listen to Jayna about Oklahoma City; on the other hand, I was trying to get someone to understand that Hamas has infiltrated the United States so thoroughly that I don't how long it will take to run them out. All over the United States. They had a training camp for terrorism at Chicago. How about maybe one of you federal "dissidents" speaking out? Tell us it ain't true. It's too gross to have to think about.DS: And in Chicago, they did their job and they got pulled off the case. And down in Oklahoma City, you've got those three agents. And what did they do? The method by which they stopped them. They bring some garbage charge against them and then say well they are dissidents. They try to affect their credibility by that. Are all 11,000 of you bought, paid-for and dumb? It seems to me you have some explaining to do.DS: Yes, 6000 people are dead. And there is more coming. There is more coming. Yeah, thanks. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by greenfox on October 16, 2001 at 10:18:45 PT Oh, and Morgan... I don't buy it. Never have... never will! :)sly in green, foxy in kind.-gfPs- lookinside, email me. I have some info for you that I am sure you'll love to hear! [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by greenfox on October 16, 2001 at 10:17:34 PT AMAZING! Despite the media outrage, I don't think drug policy will change anytime soon. Bushy Wushy makes way too much money off it. Furthermore, the pols are always ten years (or so) behind. Amazing!-Gf [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by Sudaca on October 16, 2001 at 09:50:38 PT tip toe "In fact, the reward is so large that often the U.S. government's foreign partners in the anti-drug effort are also involved in the black market."mind you just the foreign partners.. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Morgan on October 16, 2001 at 09:36:49 PT Really? "Every U.S. drug czar has been an unwitting financier for terrorists."The word 'unwitting' makes it seem as if all these Drug Czars were just too stupid to understand the real effects of their actions. Does anybody buy this?********************************************************** [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by FoM on October 16, 2001 at 09:07:18 PT National Post Article Stop Bombs, not DrugsSpending billions going after the illegal drug trade is not only ineffective, it wastes money that could be used more effectively in the war on terrorAuthor: Jacob Sullum Source: National Post Published: October 16, 2001 Shortly after the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, the U.S. House Speaker, Dennis Hastert, announced that he had put together a special advisory panel: the Speaker's Task Force for a Drug Free America."The illegal drug trade is the financial engine that fuels many terrorist organizations around the world, including Osama bin Laden," he explained. "By going after the illegal drug trade, we reduce the ability of these terrorists to launch attacks against the United States and other democracies."Actually, "going after the illegal drug trade" is what allows terrorists to fund their operations with the artificial profits created by prohibition. In that sense, the US$40-billion or so the United States spends on drug law enforcement each year represents a subsidy for murderers.Banning a product that people want to buy creates an opportunity for criminals, who can earn big profits because they are willing to run the risk of producing, transporting and selling contraband.This "risk premium" can be huge, with cocaine and heroin selling for 20 to 40 times as much as they otherwise would.Prohibition thus delivers to armed thugs around the world a handy stream of revenue, which they can dip into by selling drugs or by taxing producers and traffickers who operate in areas they control. Bin Laden's organization seems to have benefited from the drug trade indirectly, by way of the opium money supporting his Taliban hosts in Afghanistan.Complete Article: http://www.nationalpost.com/financialpost/story.html?f=/stories/20011016/737997.html [ Post Comment ] Post Comment