Right now our politicians are putting us in danger!!! (1 Viewer)

[TheHonestTruth]

Let me start by saying there is nothing that gets my soul burning greater than this issue.



So we really care about keeping ourselves safe from the next attack that will probably dwarf 9-11 as we've all been told. I hear politicians make reference to a city being leveled potentially one day in a terrorist attack with a nuke or a dirty bomb,etc, etc, YET we are so caught up in our silly politics we forget one HUGE issue...



FUNDING





Terrorists make money primarily through drug trafficking in opiates. This means paying farmers a few beans for growing poppies and using them to manufacture heroin to make mega money. We are so concerned with keeping the drug war alive, that we'd rather fund our own future deaths versus cutting off their funds and letting people who want to use drugs live in peace without having to steal and rob and murder to get the huge sums of money to pay a price for a drug that would otherwise cost pennies.

Politicians dont have my respect talking about terrorism and ignoring its main financing operations that could be abolished with the stroke of a pen.

People need to get over their gut reaction to the H word (heroin), the chemical is called diamorphine and it was invented by Bayer in 1895 as a cure for morphine addiction (before we knew that all opiates simply convert to morphine in the brain). A morphine high is very drab, heroin people with a cheap supply are the least threating people on the planet earth, a caterpillar could be more dangerous, and nobody wants to feel like a bored zombie (thats what heroin does) when people are so busy with their lives these days. Peasent Chinese using opium are no comparison to society today. No significant numbers of people would suddenly become slaves to this boring drug, thats fear mongering left over from 1914 when we outlawed heroin partly because opiates were the yellow man's drug of choice. Today heroin has no place in the criminal justice code, unless we actually want to fund terrorists.

The problem is in society’s subconscious, most people carry this gut reaction to the H word. If people thought about it truly and they got over this gut reaction, they would be marching in the streets demanding Congress pass a law to end this immediately.

Im going to start asking people this:



This is what it boils down to....Are you more afraid of well funded terrorists or an increased number of morphine addicts? The logical answer is clear when its phrased this way, but most people dont even approach this level of thought. This is SO HUGE, this needs to be on the front page of every media outlet in America.



We can stop funding them. Its not fair to get killed in a random terrorist attack, but if you choose to use a drug, that is your choice. Its time to regulate heroin and stop another 9-11 (or worse) from happening. We could stop most terrorist funding with the stroke of pen. Just remember that folks.

And will it stop ALL terrorism?? No, I suppose if we keep funding royal oil shieks sympathetic to terrorists they will get their grants to bomb us, but that doesnt take away from the fact that drug money is the primary source of funds.


UBL has been classified as a narcoterrorist, and the regions where radical islamic terrorists are bred produce the vast majority of heroin and so this should be a giant issue with politicians. Its not going away, we cant ignore this problem!!

As the sun rises, the poppies will grow, they will be harvested and turned into Heroin, but its the choice of government if we still want to have it illegal so as to fund terrorists. Its not worth it, everybody who dies at the hand of a narcoterrorist didnt do it by choice, a drug addict can decide their own fate.

A politician cannot stand up and tell us that it is worth it to say that we're protecting people from themselves by keeping heroin illegal, INSTEAD of protecting them from a group of killers who we knowingly fund. We have to regulate the production of this stuff, and stop this insanity at once unless we all want to die at the hands of wealthy terrorists who have been able to acquire a stash of very expensive illegal nukes.

We are all in this world together. Our globalized economies are all vitally linked these days, terrorism threatens everyone's way of life, not just Americans, not just big city dwellers, EVERYONE is in this fight together. It needs to be stopped by the best means possible. Cutting off the primary source of funding through regulation of the opiate drugs they sell is clearly the greatest single thing we can do.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Congradulations!!!!!

I have argued against legalizing drugs for as long as I can remember. You just did more to convince me it might be a good idea in one post than has ever been done before.

While im not completely convinced, you certainly have my attention.

good post.

 

[The Real McCoy]

The entire world would have to legalize heroin.

 

[TheHonestTruth]

The entire world would have to legalize heroin.

As the world superpower of course we would get international support, its well known that the industrialized world has been very cooperative with us in the fight against terrorism (the war in Iraq is of course another issue) and it is the populations of these modernized countries that are wealthy and where heroin becomes a very profitable item on the black market and thus we could put these drug trafficking terrorists out of business very quickly when the White House gets behind this issue full force.

 

[TheHonestTruth]

Congradulations!!!!!

I have argued against legalizing drugs for as long as I can remember. You just did more to convince me it might be a good idea in one post than has ever been done before.

While im not completely convinced, you certainly have my attention.

good post.

I understand that you're not completely convinced hearing this for the first time, and I understand your perspective entirely because we all have this same gut reaction to the word heroin. This reaction has been imbedded in each of ourselves since our youth and I am no different, but I have learned to overcome this innate feeling and I will argue with anyone on this issue telling them we have to change this policy as soon as we can.

We have to get our priorities straight here.

The priority must be to take the production of the drugs away from the terrorists and put it into the hands of regulated institutions that will make it available to adults in limited quantities for personal use if they so desire. And let it be known that the drug is not desirable to many people, it never has been, and never will be. Morphine is a very boring drug, which you know if you've ever had a major operation or if you've been given an opiate for pain. But when a drug is made illegal it becomes glamorized and given a mythic status. Most people have no idea that heroin is simply another form of morphine. If people knew this, they would agree that the threat of an increase in morphine addicts is hardly a match to the threat of well funded terrorists.

I think an obstacle to this would be that when people think about a legal drug, they think of alcohol which is totally misguided. Alcohol is overtly pushed on the public through professional sporting events and throughout our media and it is a very social drug that is well established as a part of our national heritage, but opiates are by no means a social experience and ethically speaking cannot be advertised to the public.

There will of course be heavy restrictions on it. Restrictions would include: It will not be legal to sell opiates to other people without a county license as a legal supply operator, it will only be legal for adults, and most importantly it cannot be advertised the way our politicians allow other drugs to be pushed on the public like they do with tobacco and alcohol. So to find a supply operator you could contact your state or county officials.

It can be difficult to get over the fear of the H word, but replace it with the word opiate, or morphine and you realize this fear is very irrational in today's society when we are dealing with terrorists who are the primary suppliers of this drug.

But right now, our priorities are so out of whack that we are ignoring the reality which is that we are subsidizing terrorism by keeping these drugs illegal and its not worth it.

 

[Billo_Really]

If our politicians are putting us in danger, then we have only to blame ourselves. For we are the ones that voted them in office.

 

[TheHonestTruth]

If our politicians are putting us in danger, then we have only to blame ourselves. For we are the ones that voted them in office.

I totally agree with you in principle, but we count on our leaders to protect us from danger. That is of course the fundamental role of all governments and they are failing us miserably right now.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TheHonestTruth:
I totally agree with you in principle, but we count on our leaders to protect us from danger. That is of course the fundamental role of all governments and they are failing us miserably right now

If I had to grade them, they would definately get an 'F'. Man, I can't wait until the mid-terms get here.

 

[FluffyNinja]

heroin people with a cheap supply are the least threating people on the planet earth, a caterpillar could be more dangerous

Yeah, just ask Leif Garrett, heroin is totally harmless, man.

This is what it boils down to....Are you more afraid of well funded terrorists or an increased number of morphine addicts?

I suppose the answer depends on your perspective. If you live in a slum-of-a-neighborhood, where your children must trip over "harmless" heroin addicts as they walk to school, you may answer the latter.

 

[TheHonestTruth]

Yeah, just ask Leif Garrett, heroin is totally harmless, man.



I suppose the answer depends on your perspective. If you live in a slum-of-a-neighborhood, where your children must trip over "harmless" heroin addicts as they walk to school, you may answer the latter.

I never said that heroin was totally harmless, those are your words, I said people under its influence are by nature harmless because of how the drug affects humans (morphine makes people incredibly mellow), that is of course until we make the drug illegal and then we create crime to support expensive habits that otherwise would be very affordable for addicts.

Furthermore, to say that there is a serious problem in certain neighborhoods where children are tripping over heroin addicts on the way to school is very trite and not well examined. The fact that this may be happening in the slums under today's system doesnt mean we should sacrifice national security on this grand scale!!

In addition I would argue this type of occurrence is largely a result of this drug's illegal status. Today heroin addicts will naturally be in the streets under the current laws because they are usually poor as a result of having to pay hugely inflated prices for their drugs and so some of them are homeless and of course homeless people will be naturally inclined to abuse drugs. Of course drug addiction is not glamorous, but I believe that fewer people will find this drug appealing when its legalized and fewer will have the urge to use it, because the forbidden fruit element is taken away. It will become boring, and it wont have the same appeal to people who may be inclined to take drugs for the first time, because for this sect of society, part of the appeal is the illegality of the drug. So going to a pharmacy setting to get their drug will make some of them less inclined to begin using the drug. But even assuming that use increased, I would feel safer knowing that these people can get the drug cheaply and pay taxes to our government for it rather than giving 10x times that amount to terrorists every time they purchase.

I recognize that there will always be a small percentage of addicts in society addicted to drugs that most people would never find appealing, but there is no reason why our citizen's money should be going to fund terrorists when we can choose to use that money for drug education and to go the agencies that fight terrorism.

The cost benefit analysis does not sway in favor of the current policy. Today morphine addicts are simply not as threatening to the world as terrorism.

 

[Binary_Digit]

In addition I would argue this type of occurrence is largely a result of this drug's illegal status. Today heroin addicts will naturally be in the streets under the current laws because they are usually poor as a result of having to pay hugely inflated prices for their drugs and so some of them are homeless and of course homeless people will be naturally inclined to abuse drugs. Of course drug addiction is not glamorous, but I believe that fewer people will find this drug appealing when its legalized and fewer will have the urge to use it, because the forbidden fruit element is taken away. It will become boring, and it wont have the same appeal to people who may be inclined to take drugs for the first time, because for this sect of society, part of the appeal is the illegality of the drug. So going to a pharmacy setting to get their drug will make some of them less inclined to begin using the drug. But even assuming that use increased, I would feel safer knowing that these people can get the drug cheaply and pay taxes to our government for it rather than giving 10x times that amount to terrorists every time they purchase.

Absolutely. Another thing to consider is that many drugs in a decriminalized environment would actually be less dangerous for the user. Drugs purchased from responsible distributors who are bound by law would not have been doused in gasoline or hidden in a box of laundry detergent to sneak it past drug dogs, or made/cut with cheaper but more toxic ingredients.

 

[FluffyNinja]

Absolutely. Another thing to consider is that many drugs in a decriminalized environment would actually be less dangerous for the user. Drugs purchased from responsible distributors who are bound by law would not have been doused in gasoline or hidden in a box of laundry detergent to sneak it past drug dogs, or made/cut with cheaper but more toxic ingredients.

Perhaps we should take a long, objective look at the Netherlands, specifically Amsterdam and the long-term effects of this type of drug policy on the economic, social and moral welfare of the citizens. How well has it really worked there? Let's look specifically at the change in homeless rate due to loss of income, rising unemployment, rising cost of rehabilitation and healthcare services for the dependent, school drop out rates, etc. Let's not take a narrow approach. Does the Federal Government really want to become "the enabler?" Please don't come back with the excuse that we're enabling terrorists to fund their escapades (so predictable) because your original post only ONE vague and indirect method of funding terrorism. You place too much faith in internet postings and stories from the mainstream, left-leaning media. You make no mention that groups such as Al Qaida, and Hesbollah receive just as much funding from Islamic Heads of State in Syria and Iran as well as from oil. You should also check into the illegal gem(diamonds, rubies, emeralds, etc.) trade in Africa and its direct ties to terrorist funding.

Don't try to mislead the readers into believing that legalizing heroin will severly cripple terrorism. Your entire premise is based on the "assumption" that the majority of terrorist funding comes from the opium trade, simply not true! Unless you, yourself are a participant in the opium trade and are privy to some information that the rest of the public is not, then perhaps you should occassionallly question news and internet reports before you blindly accept them as complete truth!

And before you start posting links to prove your point, allow me to say, I'm not one of those naive college boys; I know perfectly well that one can find as many "credible" (questionable) sources as he/she wants in the mainstream media or on the web while totally ignoring contradictory evidence. For example, I can find just as many "credible" sources that say Global Warming is not occuring as you can find to prove it is. Let's not get into the "credible links" game. Let's try to be open minded and accept that there's always more than one solution and most the time the best approach is a multi-fasceted one.

That's the problem with politicians, they all have their "pet-projects" and their solutions that they want to take full credit for. These "watered-down" and one-sided solutions look good to the voting public (starving for improvement) during an election year.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Please don't come back with the excuse that we're enabling terrorists to fund their escapades (so predictable) because your original post only ONE vague and indirect method of funding terrorism. You place too much faith in internet postings and stories from the mainstream, left-leaning media. You make no mention that groups such as Al Qaida, and Hesbollah receive just as much funding from Islamic Heads of State in Syria and Iran as well as from oil. You should also check into the illegal gem(diamonds, rubies, emeralds, etc.) trade in Africa and its direct ties to terrorist funding.

For the record, I disagree with the origional poster on whether this would cripple the finances of terrorists. That's my fault, I should have been more clear on that.

And before you start posting links to prove your point, allow me to say, I'm not one of those naive college boys; I know perfectly well that one can find as many "credible" (questionable) sources as he/she wants in the mainstream media or on the web while totally ignoring contradictory evidence. For example, I can find just as many "credible" sources that say Global Warming is not occuring as you can find to prove it is. Let's not get into the "credible links" game. Let's try to be open minded and accept that there's always more than one solution and most the time the best approach is a multi-fasceted one.

Well, you do have a point that some links aren't as credible as others. But I really don't think the alternative is acceptable. I'm not an accomplished sociologist who has dedicated the better part of his life toward studying this kind of stuff, and I wager that you aren't either. So I think arguing back and forth, without regard to any expert opinion, is counterproductive. An objective approach, as you suggest, should reveal most credibility problems in any links. Off-topic, but if you'd like me to make swiss cheese out of any "credible" website arguing against evolution, I'd be happy to.

Perhaps we should take a long, objective look at the Netherlands, specifically Amsterdam and the long-term effects of this type of drug policy on the economic, social and moral welfare of the citizens. How well has it really worked there? Let's look specifically at the change in homeless rate due to loss of income, rising unemployment, rising cost of rehabilitation and healthcare services for the dependent, school drop out rates, etc. Let's not take a narrow approach. Does the Federal Government really want to become "the enabler?"

I would like to look specifically at the change in homeless rate due to loss of income, rising unemployment, rising cost of rehabilitation and healthcare services for the dependent, school drop out rates, etc., resulting from the drug policy in the Netherlands, but unfortunatly I've been unable to find such statistics. Can you help me?

The reason I ask is because it would contradict a major premise, that the main reason crime and drug use are stastically associated is actually because drug use is a crime. I'm not sure whether you'll find this credible or not, but at least consider the points:

Why are we seeing, in all Member States of the European Union, that 20 to 40% of all prisoners are convicted for some type of drug related criminal activity or another? The answer is manifold:

1. In all our countries the use and distribution of cannabis and a range of other recreational drugs is criminalized. This criminalization had its origins in the tendency to criminalize the use of alcohol in the 19th century that never really caught on in Europe. (Though it did — for a short time — in the USA). Instead, we criminalized recreational drugs that were alien to our culture and social habits, leaving legal the drugs that were already integrated into our western culture.
2. Since the use of culturally alien recreational drugs is often associated with people living more or less deviant lifestyles, (thieves, artists, homosexuals, homeless, ravers), this class of people is exposed to a higher than normal level of scrutiny by the forces of law and order, making their chances of being caught in some sort of illegal act larger than the rest of the population. This expands the image of a nexus between drugs and deviance/crime.
3. Since the early dawn of the prison system, the probability that poor people are being caught and imprisoned is much larger than for richer strata of the population. Our jails are not filled for the most part with the successful high level money launderers, smugglers and 'Euro-subsidy' crooks. Except for serious violent crime, prison is the poor man's fate, the fate of the petty criminal roughly speaking the likelihood that poor people are caught for low level drug use and drug distribution activities is greater than for others. Poor people also have more reason to use and trade drugs in ways that help them adjust to adverse conditions, than richer people. Opiates for instance are a good downer, helping one to feel less social and mental pain — much better than alcohol can do that. Trading heroin provides some income for those who find no productive position in the labour market. Summarizing, the drug crime nexus is partly constructed via poverty, and is therefore related to more general issues of wealth distribution.

So, drugs are related to crime for a series of reasons, that are not tackled easily. These reasons are deeply embedded in our cultures and economies, and we can only hope to modify the connection between drugs and crime in a series of (small) steps.

http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/cohen.tackling.html

Not considering the rare but possible fits of rage a stoned meth user may have, the only reasons I can think of why a typical drug addict would be more prone to commit any other type of crime are actually bolstered by prohibition: inflated black market street prices, arguments with shady dealers, gang violence over drug turf, etc.

Back to the Netherlands again, here's an old (1995 but still relavent, and credible?) study that indicates heroin use per capita was "considerably lower" in the Netherlands than in certain prohibitionist countries (Scotland.

http://www.drugtext.org/library/articles/jason1.html

I've seen reports that suggest drug use is typically a bit higher in prohibitionist states, and I've seen reports that there is too little difference to say for sure, but I haven't seen any "credible" report indicating that prohibition has a positive effect. Anymore I think it's just a warm and fuzzy.

 

[TheHonestTruth]

Perhaps we should take a long, objective look at the Netherlands, specifically Amsterdam and the long-term effects of this type of drug policy on the economic, social and moral welfare of the citizens. How well has it really worked there? Let's look specifically at the change in homeless rate due to loss of income, rising unemployment, rising cost of rehabilitation and healthcare services for the dependent, school drop out rates, etc.

Please. Lets look at Holland objectively with some facts compared to other nations, can you provide ANY sources or are you just going to say things that are totally unproven and something that isn't widely known in any manner. Even assuming they have a higher rate of homelessness for example, you could hardly say that is because they have tolerated drug use. Association is not causation, that is a logical fallicy. Holland is also a socialist nation where I would say they probably spend more per capita on welfare than most industrialized nations.

As for drug use causing problems there, remember they have not legalized any drugs in Holland. They have merely set up a system that continues to support the illegal drug trade, all they have done is tolerated small quantities of soft drugs there and set up facilities for addicts to use heroin. In fact, coffeeshop owners can only possess 500 grams at one time. This means they need to have at least 2 shipments per day for any of them to stay in business under the legal rules set up (although they are now voting on regulating the production of cannabis for coffeshops so this might change), and thus they must buy in illegal quantities to operate under their current laws. And so the illegal drug trade is very alive there as it is in every modernized nation, so your point is based on misleading premises. By contrast, we would be taking a step they aren't close to and we would be able to rid society of prohibition related problems that they are still dealing with most of which is the crime created by drug prohibition. However, the only evidence I have heard is from the mouths of Dutch officials themselves who say that the Netherlands now has far fewer people using hard drugs than the U.S., but until we can have some objective statistics to review, your arguement about Holland holds no water.

Please don't come back with the excuse that we're enabling terrorists to fund their escapades (so predictable) because your original post only ONE vague and indirect method of funding terrorism. You place too much faith in internet postings and stories from the mainstream, left-leaning media. You make no mention that groups such as Al Qaida, and Hesbollah receive just as much funding from Islamic Heads of State in Syria and Iran as well as from oil. You should also check into the illegal gem(diamonds, rubies, emeralds, etc.) trade in Africa and its direct ties to terrorist funding.

Don't try to mislead the readers into believing that legalizing heroin will severly cripple terrorism. Your entire premise is based on the "assumption" that the majority of terrorist funding comes from the opium trade, simply not true! Unless you, yourself are a participant in the opium trade and are privy to some information that the rest of the public is not, then perhaps you should occassionallly question news and internet reports before you blindly accept them as complete truth!

Vague and indirect? No. Osama Bin Laden being classified by our own government as a narcoterrorist is clear evidence that he is financing operations with drugs. You say that terrorists receive just as much money from heads of state? Well we all know bin Laden had received money because of his ties to Saudi royalty early in his formation of Al Qaeda, but most terrorists are not from a royal blood line. Given the fragmentation of terrorist cells today, drug production is the most easily accessible source of funds for the average terrorist cell because they are in a region that grows poppies and its an activity any group could conduct. AND, even IF they get the same amount in yearly revenue from heads of state which is incredibly unlikely given the huge sums of money in the drug trade, we cant stop that with the stroke of a pen. However, we can eliminate the drug revenue with a new law.

And so as I said if you read the original post, it wont stop ALL terrorism financing, but it will put a major dent in their financing operations. Even if its not a majority, which there is no possible way to prove either side you're on here, seeing as how our own government estimates that 90% of heroin comes from the Afghanistan/Pakistan region you can hardly tell me it doesn't significantly fund terrorism when the people with the power to run drugs in those regions are the outlaw groups in that region...THE TERRORISTS!

Gems, oil, etc... those are finite resources NOT controlled by terrorists, but by business people who could fund them, however those items are very expensive because they dont grow in the dirt and so we cant suddenly make them worth 10 times less and if we could do that to stop terrorism we should but we cannot.

But opium poppies are a plant. Its a flower that grows all year in these regions of the world and they should cost pennies, therefore if we can put them at a legal market value, the drug running terrorists go out of business.

 

[FluffyNinja]

Vague and indirect? No. Osama Bin Laden being classified by our own government as a narcoterrorist is clear evidence that he is financing operations with drugs.

Hmmm. You are citing the statements of our own government as hard evidence? Boy, this is a stretch.

As far as the statistics on homelessness, unemployment, school drop-out rates, rehab expenses, etc. in Holland....... I have not been able to find any hard statistics. That is why I brought it up. I simply believe that it would be quite interesting and informative if we took a close look at such data - if available. because of their marijuana and heroin (soft drugs as you call them) policies, I believe that Holland would be a good case study for your premise. I'm not really trying to debunk your proposed outcomes - on the contrary - I believe that it is a very interesting approach. I was simply trying to fill in some of the information gaps -- questions that I had about terrorist funding. One point that you make does make a great deal of common sense -- it seems that going after funding sources IS the way to stop these fanatics! In my post I was simply suggesting that there may be many other alternative sources of funding that we could consider as well.

 

[TheHonestTruth]

I simply believe that it would be quite interesting and informative if we took a close look at such data - if available. because of their marijuana and heroin (soft drugs as you call them) policies, I believe that Holland would be a good case study for your premise. I'm not really trying to debunk your proposed outcomes - on the contrary - I believe that it is a very interesting approach. I was simply trying to fill in some of the information gaps -- questions that I had about terrorist funding. One point that you make does make a great deal of common sense -- it seems that going after funding sources IS the way to stop these fanatics! In my post I was simply suggesting that there may be many other alternative sources of funding that we could consider as well.

I just want to clear up that I never said heroin was considered a "soft drug" in Holland. They have had a small number of obscure facilities for the use of heroin, but mostly these are one of a few churches that do it and where law enforcement turns a blind eye, so addicts dont have to go onto the streets if they are lucky enough to know some of these places, but they haven't yet allowed it to be sold in licensed facilities like cannabis.

The real story there is that they haven't yet regulated production and so obtaining any of these drugs is still illegal and thus it still supports organized crime, which is the real issue Im getting at here because terrorism is by far the worst form of organized crime the world has ever known. But right now this issue is being totally ignored by politicians because they are so concerned with image and conventional widsom in Washington that nobody wants to risk proposing such a controversial solution to a such a complex issue despite its absolute vitality to national security. Our politicians really need to get it together. Where are the leaders in our government when we need them?

 

[Binary_Digit]

Good points THT. I knew that before the Taliban fell Afghanistan's main export was opium. If what you say is true, that around 90% of the world's heroin comes from that area, then it stands to reason some terrorists may be funding themselves that way. After all, it's the fastest and easiest way for our own criminals to make huge amounts of money.

 

[TheHonestTruth]

Good points THT. I knew that before the Taliban fell Afghanistan's main export was opium. If what you say is true, that around 90% of the world's heroin comes from that area, then it stands to reason some terrorists may be funding themselves that way. After all, it's the fastest and easiest way for our own criminals to make huge amounts of money.

Here is something you might like to read. Its a wikipedia article that uses the sources of the BBC news and the United Nations.





"February 11, 2005

Afghanistan is the #1 producer of opium in the world - responsible for 87% of all illicit opium production - according to reports from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), and its opium production has accelerated since the coalition invasion in 2001.

The November 2004 annual reports put out by UNODC show that Afghanistan opium production has been increasing each year since the coalition invasion. The UNODC report for 2004 shows a 64% increase over the previous year in the area of opium production, and a 22% increase in export value for the year(US$2.8 billion).

"It could be brought under control with a good dose of law enforcement, which at the moment is lacking," Antonio Maria Costa, executive director of UNODC, said in an interview in 2003 when reports showed an increase in hectares under production of 8% over the previous year. "I believe that the war against terrorism, leaving aside addiction, will not be won unless we control the opium economy of Afghanistan."

Doug Wankel, Counter Narcotics Coordinator at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, said the opium industry in Afghanistan is financing terrorism in an interview with USA Today. "It's financing subversive activities. It's financing warlordism. ... And if it's a threat to the government of Afghanistan, it's a direct threat to the national security interests of the United States."

Calling the data "disheartening," UNODC reported that Afghanistan now produces three-fourths of the world's opium. The report estimated revenues from growing and trafficking to be half of Afghanistan's gross domestic product."