I think my point is often overlooked. I'm not denying that there exists sustainable economic models for the "legal drugs trade", such as tobacco and alcohol, nor am I forgetting this in my hyperbolic critique of the
legalisation of the "illicit drugs trade". What I'm saying is simply a matter of scale. Look at the illicit drugs trade as it currently stands, valued at billions if not trillions of monies, dispite the effect of
very agressive lobbying on behalf of the worlds governments, police and military institutions. If this pressure were to let up, even in only a few of these countries, this would surely cause an economic vacuum that would be for all intents and purposes like a gold rush(?). What I'm saying is that there effectively exists a non-partisan international agreement to actively surpress the emergence of the free (as in speech) drugs trade. Coffee is already the second largest comodity in the world, it's not that far a stretch of the imagination to picture Meth or Cocaine supplanting the humble bean as our stimulant of choice were they to be part of a legal industry.
Don't get me wrong, I'm well aware of the rhetorical/polemic structure of this argument, as well as the simple age of it, I'm just chipping in with what I've considered. I myself have a very liberal approach to drugs, my use of certain drugs (which is moderate even for alcohol) and I have a family involved in Iraq/AfPaq, figured this thread was well suited to my two cents. Just thought I had to defend my comments as something more than simply a "ohhh, terrorist'll get ya" pokey stick.