[George M. Middius[_4_]]

How do the the Taliban (both Afghan and Paki) get the money for their
munitions? All intelligence says they have only one source: The proceeds
from heroin, which is made from poppies grown by Afghan and Paki farmers.
If the drug trade could be stifled at the source, the militants would have
no income. Of course we can't do that. Not for lack of trying -- it's just
not feasible.

But we can redirect the money away from the outlaws and into the
government's coffers. To do this, we would just have to legalize heroin.

Once public corporations get involved in the production of a taxable,
regulatable substance, many social problems would diminish. On the
financial side, heroin would be a huge profit center instead of the money
pit that prohibition is. If the thugs and lowlifes who now comprise the
Taliban's rank and file try to interfere, there would be plenty of money
for the government to oversee proper corporate security.

I expect the Scotties of the world to shriek in horror at the thought of
legalizing a "killer" drug. We can do without them also.

[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 14, 4:11*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
How do the the Taliban (both Afghan and Paki) get the money for their
munitions? All intelligence says they have only one source: The proceeds
from heroin, which is made from poppies grown by Afghan and Paki farmers.
If the drug trade could be stifled at the source, the militants would have
no income. Of course we can't do that. Not for lack of trying -- it's just
not feasible.

But we can redirect the money away from the outlaws and into the
government's coffers. To do this, we would just have to legalize heroin.

Once public corporations get involved in the production of a taxable,
regulatable substance, many social problems would diminish. On the
financial side, heroin would be a huge profit center instead of the money
pit that prohibition is. If the thugs and lowlifes who now comprise the
Taliban's rank and file try to interfere, there would be plenty of money
for the government to oversee proper corporate security.

I expect the Scotties of the world to shriek in horror at the thought of
legalizing a "killer" drug. We can do without them also.

We can grow poppies here. What states have the best conditions?
Kansas?

[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 14, 5:49*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

Heroin is not harmless and condoning its use and making money
off the lives wasted in addiction is immoral.

ScottW

How about cigarettes, alcohol, and daytime soap operas?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

Heroin is not WOOF! harmless and condoning YAPYAPYAP! its use and making BARKBARKBARK! money
off the lives grrr wasted in ROWF! BARKBARKYAP! addiction is immoral.

How about cigarettes, alcohol, and daytime soap operas?

Don't forget excessive indulgence in fleadip.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 14, 4:49*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 14, 1:11*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:





How do the the Taliban (both Afghan and Paki) get the money for their
munitions? All intelligence says they have only one source: The proceeds
from heroin, which is made from poppies grown by Afghan and Paki farmers.
If the drug trade could be stifled at the source, the militants would have
no income. Of course we can't do that. Not for lack of trying -- it's just
not feasible.

But we can redirect the money away from the outlaws and into the
government's coffers. To do this, we would just have to legalize heroin..

Once public corporations get involved in the production of a taxable,
regulatable substance, many social problems would diminish. On the
financial side, heroin would be a huge profit center instead of the money
pit that prohibition is. If the thugs and lowlifes who now comprise the
Taliban's rank and file try to interfere, there would be plenty of money
for the government to oversee proper corporate security.

I expect the Scotties of the world to shriek in horror at the thought of
legalizing a "killer" drug. We can do without them also.

*I don't have a problem decriminalizing harmless drugs.
Ca. medical marijuana laws have sprung up coop businesses
for growing along with seeds materials etc.

Ah, a "free market" approach.

Relatively harmless.

So you're OK with "relatively harmless" as opposed to "harmless".

I think I have it now. LoL.

Heroin is not harmless and condoning its use and making money
off the lives wasted in addiction is immoral.

Whatever happened to "let the buyer beware"?

This isn't a "free market" approach at all. LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 15, 3:23*am, George M. Middius
wrote:

Scottie really does believe that when it comes to narcotics, the gov't is entitled to
dictate behavior.

It's interesting to observe where 2pid has no problem with gov't
intervention and where it makes him really REALLY angry.

Gov't should NOT intervene in any business matters. When they do it
drives manufacturing jobs overseas to Ireland (like Microsoft and GM).
This is in spite of Jefferson's observation 250 years ago that
"merchants have no country".

Yet the gov't should intervene in the bedrooms of private adult
citizens, in marriage issues, in reproductive issues and so on.

And the gov't, as you pointed out, should sometimes intervene in
health issues (making heroin illegal) yet not in others (tobacco and
alcohol).

So 2pid's motto appears to be "Let the buyer beware! (Sometimes!)".

Poor 2pid is as flaky as GOIA's eczema-ridden ass. It's OK though:
tomorrow 2pid will argue the other side. LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 15, 3:12*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 14, 1:11*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:

How do the the Taliban (both Afghan and Paki) get the money for their
munitions? All intelligence says they have only one source: The proceeds
from heroin, which is made from poppies grown by Afghan and Paki farmers.

U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard
Holbrooke spoke of a new thinking on the issue during a recent visit
to Pakistan. Holbrooke says the long-held notion that Afghanistan's
illicit opium trade is the main source of funding for the insurgency
is simply not true. And, he says U.S. policy is going to reflect that
reality.

"If the drugs ended tomorrow, it would not have a major effect on the
Taliban source of funding," said Holbrooke. "And, that's one of the
reasons the United States is going to downgrade crop eradication as
part of its policies in Afghanistan. We're going to upgrade
interdiction. We're going to upgrade our efforts to go after the main
drug traffickers. But we want to focus on where the money really comes
from."

Hobrooke admits is a very complicated and difficult problem to
address. He says efforts to make progress in that area, include adding
a member of the U.S. Treasury Department to his staff to focus
exclusively on the source of Taliban funding.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-06-15-voa24.cfm

Sounds a little like doublespeak....interdiction works but eradication
does not?
I suspect eradication is too damaging to "hearts and minds" efforts
while interdiction
is more directed at the big boys and may disrupt arms as well as drug
smuggling.

Eradication removes income from the locals where there doesn't seem to
be a replacement for the lost income.

I would ask how he can deny that the Taliban makes money from drugs,
yet has had to add a staff member to find out where they do get it. It
sounds like we really don't know how they get their money.

I would also suspect that they've looked at how successful the "War on
Drugs" has been for the last 25 years. Our efforts at "eradicating"
coca production in South America leaves somthing to be desired and
we've spent a ton in the attempt.

[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 15, 5:22*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 15, 3:12*pm, ScottW2 wrote:



On Jun 14, 1:11*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:

How do the the Taliban (both Afghan and Paki) get the money for their
munitions? All intelligence says they have only one source: The proceeds
from heroin, which is made from poppies grown by Afghan and Paki farmers.

U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard
Holbrooke spoke of a new thinking on the issue during a recent visit
to Pakistan. Holbrooke says the long-held notion that Afghanistan's
illicit opium trade is the main source of funding for the insurgency
is simply not true. And, he says U.S. policy is going to reflect that
reality.

"If the drugs ended tomorrow, it would not have a major effect on the
Taliban source of funding," said Holbrooke. "And, that's one of the
reasons the United States is going to downgrade crop eradication as
part of its policies in Afghanistan. We're going to upgrade
interdiction. We're going to upgrade our efforts to go after the main
drug traffickers. But we want to focus on where the money really comes
from."

Hobrooke admits is a very complicated and difficult problem to
address. He says efforts to make progress in that area, include adding
a member of the U.S. Treasury Department to his staff to focus
exclusively on the source of Taliban funding.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-06-15-voa24.cfm

Sounds a little like doublespeak....interdiction works but eradication
does not?
I suspect eradication is too damaging to "hearts and minds" efforts
while interdiction
is more directed at the big boys and may disrupt arms as well as drug
smuggling.

Eradication removes income from the locals where there doesn't seem to
be a replacement for the lost income.

I would ask how he can deny that the Taliban makes money from drugs,
yet has had to add a staff member to find out where they do get it. It
sounds like we really don't know how they get their money.

I would also suspect that they've looked at how successful the "War on
Drugs" has been for the last 25 years. Our efforts at "eradicating"
coca production in South America leaves somthing to be desired and
we've spent a ton in the attempt.

A large majority of property crimes is for money to buy drugs, at
inflated prices, at that.
Alarge proportion of all crime is property crime for money to buy
drugs, and
for drug distribution.

[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 15, 7:35*pm, ScottW2 wrote:


*Here's the solution. We give away free crack. *All the gangs go broke
and all the crack heads will be dead in six months.
*I know George likes the idea as sarcastic as it is.


The original topic of this thread was the slolution to the taliban
problem.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

*Here's the solution. We give away free crack.

The original topic of this thread was the slolution to the taliban
problem.

Don't berate Witless for the first time ever that he's ventured outside
his box. Scottie 'thinks' he's using "sarcasm", but in reality the drug
war in Mexico is a threat to our society. No question we should legalize
cocaine and marijuana. (Meth too.)