Rumsfeld stresses terrorism fight in Latin America

AP ^ | Aug. 21, 2003 | ROBERT BURNS

[Tailgunner Joe]

Cocaine grows in Colombia. It will never be as cheap to grow here in the U.S.

If legalized, multinational corporations would control the drug trade and they would be in cahoots with the people who supply the cocaine: the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia.

Furthermore, the government which endorsed and taxed this pro-communist enterprise would have abused its role of authority by engaging in the business of drug-pusher, enslaving the bodies and minds of the weak to addiction in the interests of an alien political agenda. The government who did this would be an enemy of the people it seeks to enslave, to be fought and destroyed with the same zeal that will be brought upon the Communist FARC.

[SkyRat]

You posted this to MrLeRoy but I think I'll comment it:

It might lower the price of drugs but the amount of users would drasticallly increase.

The old If-suicide-was-legal-everybody-would-do-it argument. Very convincing.

Cocaine grows in Colombia. It will never be as cheap to grow here in the U.S.

Well, true for cocaine. But there are other drugs like hemp wich could be grown inside the US.

If legalized, multinational corporations would control the drug trade and they would be in cahoots with the people who supply the cocaine: the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia.

During the time it was legal that didn't happen. Right now, the drugs get smuggled inside the US by terrorist organisations. If legal this would be a job for UPS. Because it is transported by illegal means it is easy to use the same routes to deliver really evil stuff into the US, like nukes. Wouldn't happen if legal.

Drugs are the number one source of income of terrorists only because they can be cheaply produced and sold extremly expensive. If the price is reduced by, well, 500% they wouldnt earn enough to buy weapons. Although, since it would be a legal way to earn money they wouldn't need to be terrorists anymore. Afterall, people selling beer were considered gangster, too, for a time. I assume this has changed and there are no more street fight over the last whiskey delivery?

Furthermore, the government which endorsed and taxed this pro-communist enterprise would have abused its role of authority by engaging in the business of drug-pusher, enslaving the bodies and minds of the weak to addiction in the interests of an alien political agenda.

double standart. The government is already a drug pusher! Open your eyes. Taxed drugs = good drugs, not taxed = evil, evil drugs. Right now the government is using the DEA to keep it's monopoly as the only avaible drug pusher. Alcohol, nicotine, ritalin for kids. Look around you. Also, you still assume that legal drugs means increase in users, wich I heavely doubt. I wouldn't take drugs and you wouldn't too. I assume we both don't touch drugs because we know those are unhealthy. This doesnt change with the legal status.

The government who did this would be an enemy of the people it seeks to enslave, to be fought and destroyed with the same zeal that will be brought upon the Communist FARC.

That sounds like textbook propaganda.

[MrLeRoy]

the amount of users would drasticallly increase.

What evidence is there for this prediction?

The Narco-communists would work unimpeded to fulfill the demand

They'd face a lot more competition, with legal barriers to market entry removed.

[Tailgunner Joe]

The old If-suicide-was-legal-everybody-would-do-it argument. Very convincing.

"Recreational" drug usage obviously holds a great deal of appeal to some people. If drugs are so obviously bad, then how do you explain the drug epidemic? Does everyone want to commit suicide because we tell them they can't?

Drug use has increased in every place it has been legalized, followed by waves of crime and other immoral behavior. Do you really want American cities to be filthy cesspools of scum like Amsterdam? Is prostitution next?

But there are other drugs like hemp wich could be grown inside the US.

But you are arguing for the legalization of drugs like heroin and cocaine.

Making drugs legal would not make the terrorist organizations who sell them go away. They would not give up their terrorist agendas. Making Cocaine legal would be a betrayal of the Colombian government and a boon to the narcos who want to seize control in that country. Communists do not just fund their activities with drug sales, they use drugs as a weapon against countries they want to destabilize and overthrow. They make people dependent on them through addiction and can then control those people in the service of their agenda. This wouldn't change if drugs were legal, because they would still addict. It would just make it easier for them to do it.

[MrLeRoy]

"Recreational" drug usage obviously holds a great deal of appeal to some people. If drugs are so obviously bad, then how do you explain the drug epidemic?

First of all, the only truly dangerous drug whose use is "epidemic" is alcohol. Second, how many people who are deterred from dangerous drugs by there illegality are not also deterred by their dangerousness?

Drug use has increased in every place it has been legalized, followed by waves of crime and other immoral behavior.

Provide evidence for your claim.

Making drugs legal would not make the terrorist organizations who sell them go away. They would not give up their terrorist agendas.

No, but they would lose a significant source of funding.

Communists do not just fund their activities with drug sales, they use drugs as a weapon against countries they want to destabilize and overthrow. They make people dependent on them through addiction and can then control those people in the service of their agenda.

Then they're doomed to failure; use of the addictive drug alcohol is widespread in this country yet we are not destabilized.