America Bankrolls Terrorism

With the war on terror expanding beyond the reaches of the Middle East, attention is now extending to South America.

Michael Catanzaro, writing for the June 2002 American Enterprise, highlights the increasing terrorist activity in Colombia, including not only the domestic FARC forces, but also Hamas, Hezbollah and even the IRA.

"Colombia is the most abundant source of cocaine and heroin in North America. FARC, along with other paramilitary groups fighting for control of Colombia, provides protection to farmers who grow coca and poppies, and finances its revolutionary operations through drug sales," writes Catanzaro.

According to Rep. Cass Ballenger, R-N.C., drug profits "are sent directly to the Middle East to support the operation of terrorist organizations, possibly even the planning of terrorist acts. … Americans must recognize that every time they buy cocaine or heroin, they are directly funding terrorists."

OK, sure. But try this: The American government must recognize that every time it enforces narcotics laws, it is directly funding terrorists.

Terrorists aren't interested in opium itself, except perhaps to relax after a hard and hectic day of murder and mayhem. What terrorists are interested in is money to fund said murder and mayhem. Sept. 11s don't come cheap, after all.

The most important factor – and strangely the most ignored factor – in connecting the war on terror to the war on drugs is the failure to connect the profits to prohibition.

Drugs are valuable. But why? Coca is just a bush. Opium from which heroin is made is simply the resin of a flower. It's the laws against the drugs that create the economic environment for high prices. Dope is lucrative because of the drug war.

Think about this: Marijuana can grow almost anywhere. It's a ubiquitous plant. Any time a plant grows easily in a number of environments, is easily cultivated, harvested and readied for sale, it has a hard time pulling the big bucks. When's the last time you heard of a farmer getting $3,000 to $5,000 for a kilo (a little more than two pounds) of wheat?

Because of laws against cannabis, the risks for growing it go up. Thus, to satisfy their demand, consumers must be willing to pay prices which make it worth the while of producers, distributors and sellers to take the risks. The legal crimp jacks the cost.

How much? Morocco's biggest crop is cannabis, which it processes mainly into hashish. While the trade is illegal, according to the June 17 St. Petersburg Times, it rakes in an estimated $3 billion a year for the little country. "So much Moroccan hashish is exported – 1,500 tons a year – that the country gets most of its hard currency from the illegal hash trade."

But the hitch with marijuana is that it's bulky. In the late 1970s, savvy South Americans sniffed out cocaine as the big cash crop. Then, marijuana was going for less than $200 a kilo in the U.S. For the same weight, cocaine fetched between $50,000 and $60,000. With profits like that, it didn't take long before cocaine crashed down the doors. Trouble is, with supply hiked relative to demand, the price crashed too; as Daniel K. Benjamin noted in a 1992 paper for the Independent Institute, it fell by as much as 50 to 90 percent in just 10 years.

"The South American drug cartels have discovered that growing opium poppies and refining their gum into heroin yields 10 to 20 times more profit per unit shipped than cocaine," explained Benjamin. "Peasants can annually earn $500 for one hectare of subsistence crop, $1,500 for coca, and $4,500 for opium poppies. Distributors can sell cocaine for perhaps $15,000 per kilo, but heroin brings $150,000 or more. Consequently, shipments of South American heroin to the United States are increasing at an alarming rate."

And as we all know, thanks to Drug Czar John Walters and his Super Bowl commercials, this money goes to fund terrorists. Every heroin fix is a guaranteed deposit in First Terrorist Trust.

Currently, the rhetoric about terrorism and drugs comes down to fighting two wars: One on bad people, the other on bad plants. Few are apparently ready to admit that by ceasing the war on the bad plants, the bad people won't be able to fund their bad operations.

The flip side, of course, is that because of prohibition they can, and every attempt to crack down just sends the prices up – making the war on drugs and our government instrumental in funding terrorists.

Americans have been told for 200 years that drinking alcohol is sinful – but is it? "God Gave Wine" by Kenneth Gentry argues from Scripture that alcohol is a blessing from God and should be delighted in and enjoyed. Order the book today at GodGaveWine.com.

Joel Miller is the book editor for WorldNetDaily. Additionally, his own publishing company, Oakdown, recently published "God Gave Wine" by Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.

Miller is right. Drug warriors can't have it both ways. If buying drugs supports terror, then their drug war inflates the price and makes selling drugs lucrative for terrorists. Without prohibition, the terrorists couldn't make a cent.

Pick your drug, any drug, and legalize it. Now, the first thing the government will do is tax it, heavily, (fed, state, and local) to pay for "drug related health problems". Who will be allowed to use the drug you picked --those over 16, 18, 21, 25? Whatever the age, rest assured that your current drug dealer will continue to sell to those under that age.

Who will sell your drug and, most importantly, collect and send in those taxes? Not your current drug dealer, that's for sure. Probably a licensed (how much for that?) distributor. You think this guy is going to be allowed to sell the really potent form of your drug of choice?

Using cigarette taxes as an example, the taxes on drugs will certainly rise. Then, as with cigarettes, users will look to other sources of their drug to avoid this tax, probably their good old dealer who continues to sell all the other drugs that the government hasn't legalized.

Details, details. Or did you think that nothing would change, other than not being arrested for drug use?

vin-one wrote: BTTT, hope this one doesn't get yanked.

This may be off-topic, but why do we just expect certain posts to get yanked?

Which posts are more likely to get yanked?

Getting back on-topic, I agree with Joel Miller -- drug money is an important source of financing for the terrorists and prohibition is the only thing that makes it profitable.

I thought I saw this same thread the other day,
I think it got pulled because they didn't credit to the author,
or something like that, others get pulled for being a stupid vanity.
Or a subject that is to risque for FR. such as a deep discussion on thongs,
and actualy they have been some of the biggest threads.

The most important factor – and strangely the most ignored factor – in connecting the war on terror to the war on drugs is the failure to connect the profits to prohibition.

Is it status quo, political correctness that they intentionally don't connect the dots,,,,,or, is it that they are so incompetent that they don't comprehend? Either way, they demonstrate that they're unqualified for the job.

More reason to eliminate drug sellers and users from the equation.

I too think its willful compliance in which the government facilitates the spread of harmful drugs. It created the conditions for an underground/black market for harmful drugs and terrorist-size profits.

It's important to point out that most politicians and bureaucrats that are not directly involved in the WOD chose to avoid connecting the dots. Whereas the upper managers of the WOD do connect the dots. Those not directly involve avoid the connections because to do so would diminish the need for their protection-racket services. Those directly involved are intentionally dishonest and intentionally damage individuals and thus society.

There's no government officials standing tall on honesty and integrity denouncing damaging policy and dishonest colleagues that utilize them. As if we are to believe that all members of congress are boy-scout honest. Yet most stood along side Clinton in his bald-face lies and wag the dog bombings.

The reality of it all is spreading and their days are numbered.

More reason to eliminate drug sellers and users from the equation.

That's the current plan. But all that does is push the prices higher makeing the drug trade even more lucrative.

The question then is, are we more interested in seeming to be "tough on drugs" or do we want to stop the source of funds for terrorists and reduce drug abuse, crime and corruption in the process?

That's the current plan. But all that does is push the prices higher makeing the drug trade even more lucrative.

The key is to reduce the demand at a greater rate than we reduce supply. That will keep your drug prices reasonable until they can come for you too. Simple solution.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.