Funny how you never cite sources for these erroneous points you try to make...
But, whatever flimsy arguments you are trying to make by using unreferenced quotes, the experts and the drug cartels themselves actually agree with me.
Crime, terrorism and social order
Experts such as Andreas von Bülow and Milton Friedman concede that almost every serious crime of terrorism is funded by illegal drugs but they don't agree that prohibition can reduce these phenomena. In fact the prohibition protects the drug cartel insofar as it keeps the distribution in the black market and creates the risk that makes smuggling profitable.[89][90] As former federal narcotics officer Michael Levine states in relation to his undercover work with Colombian cocaine cartels,
"I learned that not only did they not fear our war on drugs, they counted on it to increase the market price and to weed out the smaller, inefficient drug dealers. They found U.S. interdiction efforts laughable. The only U.S. action they feared was an effective demand reduction program. On one undercover tape-recorded conversation, a top cartel chief, Jorge Roman, expressed his gratitude for the drug war, calling it âa sham put on for the American taxpayerâ that was actually âgood for businessâ.[91]
Critics of drug prohibition often cite the fact that the end of alcohol prohibition in 1933 led to immediate decreases in murders and robberies to support the argument that legalization of drugs could have similar effects. Once those involved in the narcotics trade have a legal method of settling business disputes, the number of murders and violent crime could drop. Robert W. Sweet, a federal judge, strongly agrees: "The present policy of trying to prohibit the use of drugs through the use of criminal law is a mistake".[92] When alcohol use was outlawed during prohibition, it gave rise to gang warfare and spurred the formation of some of the most well known criminals of the era, among them the infamous Al Capone. Similarly, drug dealers today resolve their disputes through violence and intimidation, something which legal drug vendors do not do. Prohibition critics also point to the fact that police are more likely to be corrupted in a system where bribe money is so available. Police corruption due to drugs is widespread enough that one pro-legalization newsletter has made it a weekly feature.[93]
Drug money has been called a major source of income for terrorist organizations. Critics assert that legalization would remove this central source of support for terrorism.[94] While politicians blame drug users for being a major source of financing terrorists,[21] no clear evidence of this link has been provided. US government agencies and government officials have been caught trafficking drugs to finance US-supported terrorist actions in events such as the Iran-Contra Affair, and Manuel Noriega but the isolated nature of these events precludes them from being major sources of financing.[89]
Quote from bugscoe:
Oh, looky herre:
Now if I'm not mistaken, those facts seem to suggest that you've bumped your head and got yourself a real boo boo.
I've got a nice CCM helmet for you that will keep you safe from your future tumbles and keep your current brain damage from becoming much worse.