Because the man has directly benefited from torture.

Take a look at this:

Anonymity Anonymus: http://fornits.com/anonanon/

It goes into some details, with scads of links, about the unsavory personages and practices of 'rehab' facilities.

I especially suggest the curious investigate this:

http://ideas-canada.ca/

On May 1-3, 2002, an organization who call themselves the " International Drug Awareness & Education Society" (IDEAS) will be holding a symposium on drug policy at the Vancouver Trade and Exhibition Centre, Vancouver, British Columbia. As they explain it, “Canada deserves the reputation as a tolerant nation but our tolerance for drug abuse threatens us. The permissive influences of the drug legalization movement, the 'medicalization' of marijuana, "harm reduction" policies and "soft" law enforcement are shifting Canada even further into full acceptance of illegal drugs in our society.” To promote the symposium, IDEAS has been running a series of advertisements in Canadian newspapers. This web site is meant to provide a little balance and encourage second thoughts.

The section on 'rehab' is especially chilling:

Orwellian anti-drug programs humiliate and abuse youth in a horrifying program of mind control http://ideas-canada.ca/about.htm

He says:

"The Taliban and Al Queda used Afghanistan's opium crops, as have Hezbollah and Hamas in the Middle East (Bekaa Valley), to help fund their terrorist activities throughout the world."

So what. They used it to get money because it was the commodity that was available to them. If they had a legal commodity to sell they would have used that to generate the money. Saying those who purcased the drugs supported the terrorists is like saying that anyone who bought a pizza in New York City in the 1970's supported the mafia(my apologies to those who ran non-mafia pizza parlors in NY NY during the 1970's).

Finally he says:

"...when they buy illegal drugs they are no longer just making personal decisions. Their drug purchases may be helping to fund organizations that are linked to terrorism, particularly in the case of cocaine and heroin."

If the government did not insist on controling personal behavor and allowed a free market system to distribute H and C we would not have any of these problems. The enormous profits that these drug dealers enjoy would disappear.

Insane idea, some might say, but a number of intoxicants are already legal. I don't think any great problems would be caused by legalizing these substances. Those who are smart enough to abstain now would do the same if they were legalized. Nobody is walking around saying, "boy I would love to try heroin, if only it was legal". And no junky says, "I have to stop taking this drug, it is against the law. People who jam spikes into their arms don't give a bloody damn about the law. Take it from me, I know some junkies.

I think you will find it being quite prescient, as it was written 11 years ago by the late William S. Burroughs.

I never cottoned to Burrough's novels. I watched the film adaptation of his NAKED LUNCH and was thoroughly lost. But his commentaries have proven to be scarily prophetic:

Just Say No to Drug Hysteria! by William S. Burroughs http://www.angelfire.com/il2/mapleparklibrary/alley/doc05.html

From the article:

In April 1987, I was privileged to attend a debate between Timothy Leary and Peter Bensinger, former head of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and at that time one of Reagan's self-styled drug experts. The debate was held at the Johnson County Community College in Kansas City, Kansas, in the heartland of America. It was a massacre. Bensinger was lying, and the audience was fully aware of his blatant falsifications. Pausing for applause after some assault on logic and common sense, he received instead a chorus of boos. Fully 90 percent of the audience supported Leary, who won the debate hands down.

Lying comes as natural as breathing to a politician, and as necessary to his political survival. One mark of a liar is his refusal to answer any direct question. (Emphasis mine -k.) When asked if the billions a year spent on enforcement of unworkable, unenforceable laws would not be better spent on research and treatment, Bensinger replied that the Defense Department spends more in a week than the DEA spends in a year. "Boo! Boo! Boo!"

Asked about the English system of allowing addicts heroin on prescription, he said: "They went right out and exchanged it for stronger street dope."

What could they find on the street stronger than 100 percent pure pharmaceutical heroin? "Well, uh, cocaine." (Which can also be obtained on prescription in England.) Lies ... Lies ... Lies. The Lie Decade.

And Bensinger is still lying through his teeth. And like most DrugWarriors, he is being paid very handsomely for his efforts at 'public service'.

Let's say I have just been born.!..Spawned by some sort of union between a nalepka-hutchinson coupling.....

Long before September 11, 2001, people were using drugs.

Just in case you didn't know.

And... you know what else? I really don't think there is anything that you can do about it, except get mad and write senseless drivel in a newspaper.

Terrorists get funding from drug sales because drugs are cheap to make. Laws against drugs make street prices for drugs 1000's of percent higher than normal market forces would dictate.

Econ101 teaches us that whenever the supply for anything for which a strong demand exists is artificially kept low, a black market will develop and a new, higher price will be found for the market to reach equilibrium. This is a natural law as unbreakable as the laws concerning gravity.

You'll note that there is no need for a 'Gravity Enforcement Administration'.

The true financial backers of terrorists and war-lords in Colombia are the prostitutes on the public payroll like Mr. Besinger, Asa Hutchensen and the rest of the law enforcement community who (ya gotta hope they're at least smart enough to pass an undergraduate-level course) understand this quite well, but are 'Just doing my job'.

I sell pot. I buy it from the people here in Hawaii who grow it. My pot costs $500 per ounce, thanks to the efforts of people like Mr. Besinger. No terrorists ever touch my money.

As a drug dealer, (and now, I guess, practically a terrorist myself) I want these whores to keep 'doing their jobs'. Their efforts keep me from having to get one.

As long as Pete and Asa keep doing their jobs, war-lords and terrorists wont need day jobs to stay in business either.

They can keep the coke and heroin trades to themselves. Legal drugs would mean that vicious corporations like Phillip Morris, Pfizer and Anheiser Busch would steal the whole business away from Osama and I, just like Seagrams got the booze-biz from Al Capone and Joe Kennedy and Steve Wynn and The Donald (Trump) took gambling from Bugsy Seigal and pals.

And those corporations might have to proof your kids to make sure their 21 before selling them some Friday-night party supplies.

Osama, myself and the pot dealer at your kids school currently don't have to.

Go Ahead. Make my fiscal year. Keep it illegal.

- Pablo Escobar's cartel in Colombia was the major U.S. source of cocaine for over 15 years.

Three points that do nothing to back up the argument spewed onto the page above by Peter B. Bensinger. The first is parts one and two of an outright fallacious syllogism, which goes something like this:

1. Terrorists cannot operate without money 2. Drug trafficking is a cash business 3. Therefore, all money earned by drug traffickers goes to terrorists.

Wrong! Any idiot can see through this baloney. One idea does not logically follow from the next, and none of the above ideas prove that people who purchase illegal drugs help to fund terrorism (the vast majority of whom are purchasing cannabis, by the way, which has virtually no connection whatsoever to any terrorist organizations, unless one counts the black market businesses put into place by prohibition itself).

All of the cocaine and heroin sold in America is imported. Yes, and so is all the legal morphine. The point here is another faulty syllogism, ergo:

1. All cocaine and heroin sold in America is imported 2. All terrorists are not from America 3. All cocaine and heroin sales must fund terrorists because they are from outside America.

Wrong again! Can anyone believe that this idiot is actually spouting this insane rubbish, and can anyone believe that the decision to publish it wasn't some sort of belated April Fools joke? Can you spot the faulty premise (Hint: it follows the number 2)? Can you spot the faulty conclusion (which I had to wrangle a bit just to make it seem to sort of follow from the two premeses, one of which, as I have already pointed out, was faulty to begin with)?

Finally, the author brings up Pablo Escobar, who was in fact the leading source of cocaine in the U.S. for about fifteen years--until the U.S. government killed him, and dozens of other organizations took its place. Look, Mr. Bensinger, if you want to point out the link between terrorism and drug sales, could you at least form an argument that does not completely embarrass the DEA and all of its holier-than-thou shoot-em-up followers? The United States' handling of Pablo Escobar (which basically amounted to using Escobar as the target of a big game hunt, complete with pictures of his killers smiling beside his corpse) did nothing to stop the flow of cocaine to the U.S. (it in fact increased sharply since then), and it proved (to those who were paying attention) that America's solution to the drug cartels was foolish at best.

No, Bensinger, none of your arguments work to support the link between drug purchasers and terrorists. Frankly, it is true that drug money is part of the funding terrorists receive, but if the drugs themselves were legal (as Kaptinemo has already stated), the insane profits to be had by selling them would disappear. There would be no more "cartels" because they would all be too broke to continue, and there would be no more drug-funded terrorists because the illegal drug well would be dry.

But prohibitionists like Bensinger cannot understand that they are responsible for terrorists receiving illegal drug money. Of course, it has also mainly been the rabid prohibitionists that have made billions of dollars selling American weapons around the globe. Does anyone see the connection there?

Is prohibition more costly to society in monetary terms and human suffering? Does it provide the prison industry (construction, linen, food, vehicles, guards, uniforms, etc) huge profits and the government taxes on these profits? Are there 2 million prisoners? Are 60% of these non-violent drug offenders? Does the Bush family have stock in the prison food supply industry? Cannabis in its hemp stage has or has not the greatest mass of any plant or animal? Does cotton require 270 million tons of chemicals, does flax destroy the soil and is soybeans hard on seniors digestive tracts? Can cannabis sativa (helpful hemp)grow almost anywhere, aerating the soil, without the chemicals (growing wild in many states providing 99.28% of the cannabis eradications in the US) replace cotton? Is it competition out of the way under prohibition?

Do living trees filter up to 5000 gallons of water each day? Do they require more chemicals than any process in paper making? Is hemp stronger than trees? Does it have greter yield? Do tree's provide oxygen? Do they remove carbon dioxide? Do they support thousands of living species in a co-operation that can not survive when they are hewn down? Can hemp replace the industrial use of trees? Is it competition out of the way under prohibition?

Is meat the best source of protein? Does it cause health problems? Do poor countries without meat have the same diseases as countries using meat? Do cows require 80% of the US agriculture in grains? Have these corporate grain farms half emptied the Midwest fresh water underground reservoir called Ogalala with irrigation? Are dairy products nutritional? Do waste from daily cow bathings run off into the drinking water? Are corporations burning tropical rain forest to graze cows? Is Hemp Seed the most nutritionally complete food source known to man? Is it used by cultures? Is it competition out of the way under prohibition?

Is the use of fossil fuels the most devastating thing to ever hit humanity? Do 15,000 gallons leak into lakes rivers and streams each year? Do crude oil gasoline fueled cars emit harmful emissions? Do they contain lead and sulfur adding to the acid rain? Do they burn as clean as biomass? Could all of the nuclear, coal, crude and natural gas fossil fuels be replace with hemp biomass? Does Bush have crude oil interest? Did Henry Ford shelve a hemp/soybean biomass fueled automobile in the 30's? Did he produce and shelve an auto body from hemp and soybean fiber steel? Is petroleum carcinogenic? Is asphalt from crude tar breaking down and contaminating the soil and water? Do we really have to "protect" our oil rights with wars in South America, Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq, Albania, and do states producing oil have the harshest cannabis sentencing? Are the herbicides pesticides made from crude oil? Can Hemp replace crude oil and fossil fuels? Is it a lubricant? Does hemp plastic biodegrade in compost? Is it legal? Is it grown in over 30 countries worldwide? Is it imported at higher cost? Is it on the list of things to become illegal? Can hemp produce paint. Can hemp make paper without the crude chemicals used in process the less cellulose tree paper? Can hemp grow without the crude oil pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers? Is it competition out of the way under prohibition?

Many have passionate reasons for choosing the side they stand on, many will profit from prohibition on both sides. The urine tester labs and the labs that make the antidotes to urine testing. The lawyers defending and prosecuting. The Bars and Taverns, Tobacco and hard drug dealers. The growers and the cops, the prisons, peddlers and pharmacies. The drunks released if they snitch and the prohibitionist propagandist receiving corporate funding. And they all spend it on everything advertised putting a big smily face on the tax collector.Is it competition out of the way under prohibition? Who makes money growing it for personal use at home? No one, and maybe thats also why its illegal. No taxes, and it doesn't raise the GNP. Ditchweed comprises 99% of Cannabis eradications, Cannabis is the Keystone of the War on drugs they don't sell and WoD is the meat and potatoes of modern Fascism. Its time to end it. Legalize Sacramental Cannabis Food, Fuel, Fiber, FARMaceuticals and Hardrug&Booze, fossil fuel, cotton, nuke, meat and wars protecting them alternative! Eliminating the competition by Lobbylacky politico's and administrated education depravation! Peace, Love and Liberty or D.E.A.th! DdC

So debate him. If Ethan Nadelman's qualifications as "a self-appointed expert" are unimpressive to you, Mr. Bensinger, then yhou should have no trouble demolishing his views on drugs and terrorism.

Just whom do you expect to control narcotics trade when mere possession of the materials land a person in prison? As long as cocaine and heroin are illegal, only the most violent and fearless people will deal in them. While you, Mr. Bensinger afraid of debate, spread terror and death by shuffling papers in a plush office.

Bensinger is one of the drug war's highest paid whores, financed by numerous repressive organizations that promote the drug war for money: he's a former head of the DEA; director of Illinois Department of Corrections; president of Bensinger, DuPont & Associates (employee "assistance" programs); Chairman of Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

http://www.bensingerdupont.com/newsite/about/peterbensinger.html

Here's some more of Bensinger's propaganda:

Since when is burning leaves good medicine? Since when are the voters responsible for determining what prescription drugs get stocked in our pharmacies? In the early 20th Century, Congress passed the Food and Drug Act to protect the public from snake oil salesmen, many of whom, in fact, were selling opium and heroin and other products that failed to meet the medical claims advertised.

This is hardly the "Voice of the People."