October 4, 2001

5:18 AM

Taliban gets rich from drug trade.So, how long will it be until copping a buzz is considered "aiding and abetting terrorism"? Also, between these charges and the legitimate threats to safety presented by actual terrorism, does the already severely diminished Fourth Amendment really stand a chance?
posted by Optamystic (10 comments total)

The more you know how the Taliban operates, the more I'm inclined to believe that this is a criminal regime. And America has every right to take away their power.
posted by delpino at 5:33 AM on October 4, 2001

Dude, junkies aid and abet the international terrorist network and the Taliban. Hydro bud, now that's all-American.
posted by sacre_bleu at 6:38 AM on October 4, 2001

This reminds me of something that has been swirling around my mind since this all started. The parallel of a "war on terrorism" and a "war on drugs" feel compelling to me. . .

-- Diffuse, difficult to target perptrators

-- The complications of a demand (for drugs) and historical/religious/political basis (for terrorism)

-- The implications for the agricultural economy of otherwise peasants (for drugs) and relatively powerless, possibly blameless innocents that are euphemistically considerd "collateral damage."

I wonder what we may have learned from the drug situation that applies to the terrorism situation.
posted by fpatrick at 6:40 AM on October 4, 2001

I wonder what we may have learned from the drug situation that applies to the terrorism situation. ----> ask the cia !! re read your history, what they did in south america ...
posted by aureliano buendia at 8:34 AM on October 4, 2001

The Fourth Amendment will do fine.

Need any more proof of how f'd up these people are?
posted by ParisParamus at 8:36 AM on October 4, 2001

Perhaps I didn't make my question clear. Prosecutors are attempting to close down rave parties under "Drug Kingpin" laws. These laws carry penalties of up to twenty years in prison. How long until this stupidity extends to overzealous District Attorneys labeling drug use as a "crime that benefits terrorism" and therefore sharply increasing the already draconian sentencing?
posted by Optamystic at 9:18 AM on October 4, 2001

Overzealous District Attorneys labeling drug use as a "crime that benefits terrorism"

Unfortunately it is - but whose fault is that? Illegal drugs make terrorist organisations a fortune. Make drugs legal and you destroy a major part of their revenue.

Every time I have a smoke I help the IRA and UDA/UVF/UFF etc. buy more guns. Will I stop toking? nope. Will they stop using my money to buy guns? nope. Does that make me the enemy of the free, democratic west - according to Tony and George - Yes. Do I care - no.
posted by twistedonion at 9:28 AM on October 4, 2001

I saw one instance recently where the Taliban got rich from the drug trade. Seems they received $43 million from Dubya for "curtailing drug production."
Does this mean they weren't curtailing production? So what was that money for again?
I thought Dubya was a coke head, not a heroin junkie.

Seriously now, our fourth amendment rights are in jeopardy from more angles than this one about the raves. But did anyone expect less? As Attorney General, Ashcroft is not exactly a "strict constructionalist."
posted by nofundy at 10:55 AM on October 4, 2001

Drugs are just an easy way to make money for these guys. I think the paramilitaries also control pubs including in Dublin.

Patriotism isn't all bad but it can be used as a tool to crush dissent in other areas, and if you ask questions you're labeled unpatriotic and a commie. And then regular people who don't really care either way are too scared to defend anyone.
posted by chrismc at 1:33 PM on October 4, 2001

lol, if you read now the article posted by talos (title is The Pakistan Maelstrom, by Tariq Ali, url http://www.counterpunch.org/tariq6.html), you'll see that actually the american/uk support those who trade drugs !!!
cnn doesn't give ALL the infos, does it ?!
posted by aureliano buendia at 4:50 AM on October 11, 2001