Reply #34: One major reason for legalisation

[McKenzie]

is that doing so would cut out the huge profits that are to be made. The corollary to that is the freeing up of immense resources to deal with the effects in a transparent, and civilised, manner, not to mention freeing up LEA resources to tackle other, pressing crimes. Unfortunately, the drug trade is home to some powerful, vested interests who would stand to lose in a big way from legalisation; and not all of those vested interests dress in dark shirts with light coloured ties.

There are other issues such as how money flows through the banking systems of the world and assists in maintaining liquidity of capital. Cutting off the flow of drugs money would have serious implications for the world's financial systems because of the way that liquidity of capital interacts with the capitalist system as we operate it.

The irony is that alcohol, one of the most destructive drugs of all, is perfectly legal despite causing untold numbers of premature deaths, road accidents, family breakdowns, violence and the whole demonology of shitty things we could do without. Of course, the US tried to ban the stuff during Prohibition. The consequences should inform even the most dense individuals is that as soon as something becomes illegal, but is in high demand, organised crime follows close behind.

It is not a tenable argument to support alcohol (the public sector drug) and then decry "drugs". Either all should be legal or all should be banned because alcohol, like many drugs, has its addictive and destructive qualities. Yup benburch, I say legalise because banning just enriches the criminals and swallows up huge amounts of LEA resources at the expense of other criminal investigations.

The drugs war is, quite frankly, a sham and home to some of the worst hypocrites imaginable.

</rant>

http://narconews.com/narcodollars1.html