Drugs & Terrorism
 

I searched but couldn't find this topic anywhere so I'm adding it. While drunk last night, I saw that commercial about Drugs supporting terror and a friend of mine says "that's so true." Though I felt like grabbing a baseball bat and beating him until he was able to think for himself, instead I supported my view on why it wasn't true & why he was an idiot. Today I sent something out over our chapter listserve about it cause I'm still annoyed, so read it and tell me what side you're on.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I am completely annoyed with the current television ads claiming that drug money funds terrorism, I want to vent. Not to mention I talked to people who believe the ad was good. I guess it's ok to blame drug users for doing bad things, but not for deaths of thousands of people, I'd say that is a bit pretentious, wouldn't you?

Moving along to my points.

Drug Money does not support terror significantly more than any other enterprise. I'm aware the ads intentions were to scare those too ignorant to think for themselves, but the propaganda is quite offensive in the regards of laying such heavy shit on those that use. Furthermore, is it not true that our oil money also supports terrorism, playing the stock market supports terrorism, aiding other nations in imminent war promotes terrorism(training bin Laden)...where does the boundary cease?

I read something pretty ironic..."Drug prohibition creates a business opportunity for terrorists--if you oppose legalizing drugs, you support terror, too. " It can come from both sides of the issue because they wouldn't get so much money if it was legal.

Heroin and Opium are Afghanistan's main cash crops...true. What's Kentucky's? Most consensuses I've read that incorporate drugs states that marijuana is our main cash crop. Does that mean that the state of Kentucky is somehow affiliated with the al Qaeda terrorist network and that avid drug users of the state fund their camps? I guess that's the question. Nevermind drawing lines between Afghanistan and al Qaeda as two separate entities...we'll pretend they're the same and that they were solely financed on drug money...it is an absurd world were living in anyway.

You could say that everything stated in the ads is true in a way. I guess you're right in a way, presuming you mean a way lacking anything resembling proper context.

But way to go ONDCP, way to capitalize off of thousands of deaths on that September Day

I have to say that I found that ad pretty irritating as well. I agree with what was said about legalizing drugs -- I think that it would seriously cut down on crime and solve any number of problems. I'm guessing most people won't agree with me...

SigmaChiCard , this was discussed on the O'Reilly Factor-

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=26369


This supports your view

http://reason.com/sullum/020802.shtml

Hahahah too funny - drugs support terror...the U.S. Led war on drugs has always been used as a means for propanga but this is ridiculous.

...actually i geuss it's not that far fetched, blaming ethnicities for drugs has been going on for over a 100 yrs, i geuss it was naive of me to assume it stopped.

well stated sigmachicard. just cruious...what is your major? you did an excelent job defenting your opinion.

I don't really know what to make of the new ads. I've been watching more and more of the "say no to cigarettes and alcohol" ads recently and they make me feel almost the same way about the new war on drugs/terror ads. Do we really think that our kids are going to be offered drugs and alcohol in situations like the ones displayed and be able to be that nonchalant (sp??) about it? I like the idea of the ads, but I think that they might want to get in some of those writers from hollywood rather than the gov't ones they seem to have used for the last 20 years...

agreeing with SigmaChi Card
 

I hate those ads. The first time I saw it, i thought I was just missing something. Nope... they really have those little kids saying that drugs cause terrorism. :rolleyes: Apparently none of our drugs come from Latin or South America or Asia or Europe.... they all come from the TERRORISTS. That's how they bought their plane tickets. Give me a freakin' break.

The biggest flop of an ad campaign was in the 60's. They made a film showing how smoking grass would cause you to jump off buildings. The actions displayed by kids on a "high" was more in line with what LSD could do. It had NO credibility.

I don't think this is such bad idea. It isn't aimed at the current user. (IMO) Kids across the nation are into "hero worship" mode and this type of a campaign is really aimed at those who are on the verge or not yet at risk.

Think how many of you do NOT smoke. A lot of the reason is because you got the message at an early age and that message has been pounded into your heads. Sure there are other reasons, like seeing loved ones perish, but I really think it started with education, and "death" gave that message credibility.

I personally believe that drugs ARE tied to terrorists. It may appear they are only terrorizing their own people, but it's a web
that has tenacles reaching across the world. Drugs isn't the only venue however-the diamond trade is horrific- Bin Laden's money has been traced to honey and without making accusations-delve into Tyson Chicken. It's just that drugs can cause such havoc in a young person's life, especially when their mental capacity and cognitive abilities are still forming. So, it's as good a place as any to start. I'm only commenting on the ad itself and the intended purpose. I don't think anyone posting on this BB was in the target group which may explain why everyone thinks it was a bomb.

These ads were so friggin ridiculous. It's like those ads where the kids are "choosing" not to smoke - they're so cheesy they just make every 11 year old out there want to run, run, run to 7-11 for a pack of Marlboros. Kids are savvier at younger ages and they're not going to listen to ads that are such blatant propoganda. Hell, why not run "Reefer Madness" and be done with it - at least we could get some retro fashion tips.

As far as Afghanistan, I believe I heard that the presence of the Taliban drastically cut down on the drug trade because they were morally opposed to it. The US govt and the Taliban with the same opinion, who'd a thunk it?

There was a very good series on the History Channel called Hooked: Illegal Drugs and How they Got that Way. Pretty much pot, coke and LSD all used to be legal and were made illegal because they were linked to a specific ethnicity (or with LSD, the youth power movement). That is way oversimplifying but catch it the next time it's on if you can - very enlightening.

As far as Afghanistan, I believe I heard that the presence of the Taliban drastically cut down on the drug trade because they were morally opposed to it.

I honestly thought it is the agricultural economy that was decimated and that is why rebuilding is going to be a daunting task. Instead of growing crops for food and trade the Taliban turned to growing drug crops. That is if the presentation "Beneath the Veil" on CNN is accurate. They show it relatively frequently. Perhaps there is a distinction between the Al Queda and Taliban, but at the time the show was made, they were using "Taliban".

I couldn't remember the name-"Reefer Madness" but that was a joke.

Do you all think the "TRUTH" commercials are effective for smoking? Maybe it all depends on more variables than anyone can really determine.

Those commecials did achieve one goal-they have people thinking and maybe out of the critiques something positive will emerge.

On a different note but similar topic -
I get pissed off when I see or hear things about conflict diamonds. There are measures in the senate right now to try and ban all conflict diamonds - or shall I say, diamonds whose mine we cannot verify.
For those of you who do not know, some people believe that the same conflict diamonds that were being sold to fund terrorists in Sierra Leon, are thought to fund Osuma.
What people don't realize is that a diamond is very hard to trace. The composition of a diamond does not tell us what mine it came from, let alone what continent. So in fact, there is no full-proof way to tell where diamonds come from - unless you dig it out of the earth yourself, lazer enscribe it and sell it directly to DeBeers (FYI, there are so many middle men in diamond selling that is another reason why it's hard to find out where diamonds actually came from).

I was watching this topic on Politically Incorrect and Bill Mauer said we should all wear CZ's and ban diamonds...
So let's get this straight Bill, you want to take another marketable product out of the US? Like our economy isn't in the hole enough! And like does he believe the whole world will stop buying diamonds along with us? I highly doubt it.

Sorry to be so off topic, but I think the drug ads are just trying to capitalize off of people's fears.

Hootie

I have read about and researched the Taliban for a few years now (as soon as I heard about the treatment of women), long before 9-11-01. I also recall reading something to the effect of the Taliban morally opposing drug use, and that they curbed a lot of drugs leaving Afghanistan and directly affected their economy. I do admit it's been awhile, so I don't recall where I read this, but I had the impression it was valid, and it fit into the other acts of the Taliban.

Don't get the wrong idea, I'm not supporting drugs or their recreational use whatsoever. I just don't like to see such outright propoganda. For one thing, I am inclinded to be a bit rebellious and do the opposite of what "authority figures" tell me, and was that way as a kid. Maybe more so. So I imagine other kids having those some inclinations would think they should run out and smoke.

And you can't overlook propoganda's influence in the past, either. I once saw a film called Atomic Cafe which is a collection of old 1950's-early 1960's PSA's and "educational" films to help prepare Americans for the oncoming nuclear bomb(s). One seen had a boy wrapped in foil, and his dad sending him off to ride his bike, "safe from harm". :rolleyes: Not to mention the WWII propoganda that shows Germans and Japanese as evil, or Hitler's propoganda that shows Jews as less-than human. When has anything good come from propoganda?

At any rate, I do think education (facts, with research to back them up) are the best deterrent. As for the "truth" ads, I have mixed feelings on them. Some I like, and some I just find bizarre.

Well
 

1. Drugs supporting terrorism: In economics, there is a whole class of unreported incomes, transactions, and careers defined as the black market. Those who participate in "illegal" careers are funded through currencies that are generally laundered through clandestine methods (think Arab currency markets based wholely on IOU type documents and word of mouth with no record keeping) and become hard to trace. A major source of income for terrorism is, sadly, drugs. That is not to say that it is the only source. But it is still a major one. Afghanistan under the Taliban did NOT curb or abolish drugs. That is a lie and to just assume that a theocracy is fully moral, is sad. The Taliban came to regulate drugs to capture the strongest income producing export that required little to no development or investment. One reason that the Islamic republic of Iran decided to help with the war against the Taliban regime (outside the Sunni vs Shiite conflict) was to rid Iran's border cities of huge drug problems arising from the Taliban's exports of poppy. The Taliban was fully fine with people outside of their country using drugs. If you want another example, we can look at Columbia. This country is incredibly more complicated than Afghanistan and I don't want to get into all the details, but the rebel FARC, which is considered a terrorist group by many, funds itself mainly through two methods. The first is kidnappings and the second (Which is the main one) is drug sales. Regardless of whether you consider the US an imperialist power which should have no presence within latin america, you cannot deny the brutality and the crimes of FARC which fit into the loosely defined "terrorist group" profile.

2. Conflict diamonds: First I would like to remind everyone how brutal the situation is in Sierra Leone...where an astoundingly large population of civilians are maimed for life in order to prevent their resistance (note they were not resisting yet). Diamonds can however be traced. The largest diamond company in the world (De Beers Group) could easily identify which diamonds are theirs since they include marks into the diamonds as you mentioned. However, you don't realize the role De Beers plays in the diamond market. It owns almost the entire market from the mines to the refiners, and is a virtual monopoly in the diamond industry. Whether it is to advocate social reforms or maintain its monopolistic role, De Beers keeps tight watch over its diamonds and is against conflict diamonds which are from mines outside its control and thus competing against its own. As for the funding that went through to other terrorist groups: illegal/conflict diamonds have been used for everything from terrorism to transferring of funds between mafias...not just terrorism, but definitely including terrorism.

I've included no analysis in this posting but hey, I have got to go to white castle and chow down before doing massive amounts of reading for the one class I managed to not show up to more than 2 times this quarter. blah.

-Rudey

Drugs might not be related to terrorism, but I don't have to like some one in order to admire their tactics.

josh8o
 

I'm an electrical engineering major ironically enough, with intentions on going to law school