Are We Helping Terrorists by Not Legalizing Drugs?

Are We Helping Terrorists by Not Legalizing Drugs?
Posted by FoM on March 07, 2002 at 10:57:42 PT
Partial Transcript from The O'Reilly Factor
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the Back of the Book segment tonight, the Bush administration is paying for anti-drug advertisements that say any American who buys illegal narcotics is aiding terrorists, because those people fund their mayhem partially through the drug traffic.But some libertarians disagree. They say the U.S. government aids terrorism by not legalizing drugs, thus taking the profit out of them.
Joining us now from Washington is Ron Crickenberger, the political director of the Libertarian party.Well, you know my position on this, that it's just foolhardy for a society as diverse, pluralistic and free as the United States to add more intoxicants to the market, the legal market, when you already have tremendous problems being caused by alcohol and tobacco. So if you just add to those problems, socially, it becomes chaotic. Now, you say that we're all going to be better off if we legalize, correct? RON CRICKENBERGER, POLITICAL DIR., LIBERTARIAN PARTY: Oh, yes, that's correct. We believe that legalization of drugs would take away many of the side effects of drug use. One of the side effects is the fact that drug use does fund terrorist organizations.We actually appreciate the fact that the drug czar's office has started this debate because they're right. There is a link between drugs and terrorism. But what their ads completely fail to make the point, and why they're only a half truth, is that the link is prohibition. It's the prohibition of drugs that drives up the prices, sometimes as much as 17,000 percent, hugely inflating the profits, And it's those hugely artificially inflated profits that lure drug terrorist organizations. O'REILLY: Well, I can't argue with that. I mean, that's correct, that if you didn't have any profit in the drug trade, the terrorists couldn't use that to fund their operations. However, by solving one problem, you create a massive Godzilla in another area.And I have never bought the Libertarian Party line that using narcotics or being intoxicated helps society. I mean, you're not going to see -- wait a minute. Wait a minute.CRICKENBERGER: Well, no, no.O'REILLY: Wait a minute, that's your line. You have a right to do whatever you want with your body. You want to get intoxicated, you have a right to do that. That's a Libertarian Party line and you know it.Now child abuse isn't going to go down. Children will have more access to legalized drugs because it's a social thing. It's all over the place now. It'll be more all over the place, if you go down to 7-11 to buy it. And no matter how you think you can regulate it, it's one of those things like Jurassic Park. You know, unintended consequences are going to go crazy. Go ahead. CRICKENBERGER: That's the problem with the drug war is all the unintended consequences there. And you're talking about will drug use go up if we legalize. There's really no evidence of that. O'REILLY: Oh come on. Don't be naive. The easier you make it, the more people are going to have access to it, particularly children. You know, in my neighborhood...CRICKENBERGER: Well, children right now say that alcohol is much easier -- alcohol and cigarettes. O'REILLY: So what? Why add to the problem? You guys always fall back on that argument. Why add to the problem? Listen, methamphetamine is a vicious, vicious drug. You'd agree with that. CRICKENBERGER: No question there, Bill.O'REILLY: Now you want to make that available to anybody who walks out of the pharmacy?CRICKENBERGER: It's already available, Bill. The real point is it's already available. O'REILLY: Not in my neighborhood. CRICKENBERGER: But if we're taking away -- I would beg to differ, Bill. O'REILLY: It's not available in my neighborhood. I know my neighborhood. Methamphetamine is not available in my neighborhood. Now I know it's available in a lot of neighborhoods. CRICKENBERGER: A whole lot. O'REILLY: If it were legal, it would be available in mine. And I don't want it there. CRICKENBERGER: Well, I understand that you don't want it there, but the fact is that it's available on almost every street corner. And people who want methamphetamine, or any other drug can find it in this society. O'REILLY: They can find it, but a 10-year-old can't. You know, you're basically saying in a selfish way, Mr. Crickenberger, and I respect your organization because do you have some good ideas, but you guys are being very selfish here. You're saying that because we want to be intoxicated or we want access to intoxicants...CRICKENBERGER: No, no, no. O'REILLY: That it's good for everybody. And it's not. CRICKENBERGER: No, that's not what we're saying at all, Bill. What we're saying is the consequences to society are worse from prohibition than they are from legalization. O'REILLY: Not if you handle the drug problem the way you should. If you had coerced rehabilitation and you had draconian penalties for dealers, you could cut it down... CRICKENBERGER: Well, we're talking about 25 million Americans used some sort of illegal substance last year, Bill. Are you going to put all of them in coercive treatment? You'd bankrupt the country. You can't do that.O'REILLY: No, you'd put the six million, who are running around on the streets, causing 80 percent of the crime and child abuse, you put them away.   I don't care about the pot. I'd decriminalize pot. CRICKENBERGER: Well, if they are (UNINTELLIGIBLE) such as child abuse, or rape, or robbery, or murder, or any of those things, yes, we fully agree, those people should be behind bars, but not the peaceful drug users. O'REILLY: All right, look, the people who want to smoke pot in their basement... CRICKENBERGER: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) used an illegal drug at some point.O'REILLY:   Look, Mr. Crickenberger, the people want to smoke in their basement, I don't care. You smoke pot, you come out, and you get in a car, I care. CRICKENBERGER: Same here. O'REILLY: And if any intoxicating substance that you make legal is by definition going to become easier to get. And I'll give you the last word on it. CRICKENBERGER: Well, that's -- you may be right there to some degree, Bill. But the fact is that the drug war inflates the price of drugs dramatically. It fuels terrorist organizations across the globe. It fuels terrorist gangs here at home. O'REILLY: All right, I think we can beat the drug war and you don't have to surrender to it. CRICKENBERGER: Absolutely. We don't have to -- we can beat the problem of drug abuse in this country, but we're not going to do it with increasing the drug war. We've been trying that for 70 years. We've had the expenditure -- O'REILLY: They haven't done enough arrests. Mr. Crickenberger, both you and I know this drug war is phony and they haven't done it the way they should. If they did do it the way they should, then we would have a society like Singapore or China. CRICKENBERGER: We've locked up more people in this country than any other country ever has in its history. O'REILLY: All right, Mr. Crickenberger, thanks very much. We appreciate it.This is a partial transcript from The O'Reilly Factor, March 6, 2002. Source: FoxNews.comPublished: Thursday, March 07, 2002Copyright: Fox News Network, LLC 2002 Contact: comments Website:   Related Articles & Web Site:Libertarian Party Good Money at a Bad Idea Ads Hint at Change in War on Drugs Low in the War on Drugs - A. Huffington 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

Comment #18 posted by gloovins on March 09, 2002 at 19:25:12 PT
a reply
I'm glad my post triggered a response. My view is however cannabis is NOT a drug but an herb, a plant, so no in my perfect libertarian world Mommy from the bay area would NOT have gone to jail, of course, no, BUT a person giving HARD drugs to a minor (unless it's presrscribed by a Dr., I don't know how many would prescribe meth, coke or black tar heroin exstacy , but ?) or operating a car UIL of HARD drugs YES -- take them out of society for 30 days. Take their life away for a month. Wake them up. You'd be surprised what a month in the slammer will do to you. Tell me --if they legalized meth-coke-heroin-x tommorow would you do it?No? Well than don't worry. However, those currently using now in the U.S. DON"T CARE THAT IT'S ILLEGAL. They are using regardless because of, lets bring it back, basic supply/demand economics & the intrinsic desire for self-medication, alternative conconscience etc., that a certain segment of the population will always have.I say let em do all the drugs they want-- I don't want to live in a country where I get caught up in the crossfire because these certain substances are prohibited. BUT -- don't give it to kids or drive. Real simple. And if you do...expect harsh consequences. It would make that 7'11 worker think mighty hard BEFORE he sold to a minor w/a good fake ID. MMMM..30 days in prison or "Sorry...can't sell ya this today...". What do you think he go for? You tell me.Legalize, not to use, but for common sense.Oh yes & as far as O'Whylie's "decriminalize" stance on herb I say HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA what a joke -- it's already "decriminalized" in most states. Decrim is a bad thing though cause they still can arrest you, WILL def. fine you, and you have a record/ticket. Doesn't sound like it's "decrimalized" to me, damn. Maybe cause thats just a nicer word than prohibited or legal. See, everyone was high in the 70's when they made this up so it sounds whacked to twentysomething like me thats all.Take the hemp plant for what it is -- The most natural resource our planet has. It's time we used cannabis for all its worth, our future depends on it. Hemp for Victory in 2002!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #17 posted by RavingDave on March 09, 2002 at 12:01:23 PT
When I was in school...
When I was in high school, it was a hell of a lot easier for me to get a bag of weed, hit of acid or ecstasy, or a bag of coke, than to get a beer. I find it laughable that O'Reilly would continue to use the same argument over and over. He has basically defused his own idealogy.For instance, he says, "It'll be more all over the place, if you go down to 7-11 to buy it." Now tell me, how easy is it for a minor to go down to the 7-11 and buy beer? Not many minimum-wage clerks want to incur a massive fine for selling alcohol to a minor. Sure, one might argue that they can just get someone older to buy the beer. And that would be a true statement. However, it's a series of checks which is quite effective on the whole. Whereas the corner drug dealer, on the other hand, couldn't give a shit how old the buyer is. Hence, the ready availability of illegal narcotics.I find it deplorable that Mr. Crickenberger did not have the presence of mind to point this out to Mr. O'Reilly. On the other hand, he was rudely interrupted enough that I can understand his inability to effectively articulate such a though.And how can Mr. O'Reilly claim that we haven't done enough to arrest people for drugs? We arrested over 700,000 people last year, mostly for marijuana possession. That's an unbelievable number of otherwise law-abiding, tax-paying Americans jailed and given criminal records. It can hardly be said that we haven't tried that path.On one point, I partially agree with Mr. O'Reilly. In order to step up our drug war, we would have to become like China. That is, we would have to throw all civil liberties out the window, and commit more heinous human-rights offenses than we already do.Incidentally, Mr. O'Reilly, drugs are available in your neighborhood. You simply haven't looked hard enough for them. You are merely being naive to imagine otherwise. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #16 posted by freedom fighter on March 08, 2002 at 13:05:42 PT
Sending someone to a prison only make that person a better criminal. And beside, if you have checked the 48 hr story about the mother supplying cannabis for her 8 yr old son, should she be put in a prison? So, that's a big no from me.:) If you are talking about hard drugs like herion, cocaine, meth and alcohol for profit, I would shut that down. I would also put the BARS out of business too. Too many drunk drivers.I would prefer to go Dutch. Their system take the people off the street. A herion user knows that he can go to a place and get a clean needle and have the product checked for quality. At the same time, he is offered to change his lifestyle. The end result is less crime. He does not have to rob or steal to support his habit. Their herion population have stablized and are getting older. Not younger like it is in U.S. It says alot about their society when a drug user can approach a Peace officer who does not carry a gun and have a chat together without fear.Someone ought to get O'reilly a one way ticket to China! In Singapore, you can get arrest for not flushing the toliet.I'm sure glad he came out of the closet. I'm sure some conservative republicans would not like what he have stated.ff
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #15 posted by Dankhank on March 08, 2002 at 06:28:17 PT:
I watch the "O" pretty regular, and have to agree that his statement, "Decriminalize Pot," suprised my wife and I.If asked neither of us would have ever predicted that he would say that, ever.Things are indeed changing ...
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #14 posted by Dankhank on March 08, 2002 at 06:24:43 PT:
OK ...
It is known that cannabis users are better drivers than even straight drivers ...Why don't we have the penalties you cite for alcohol abuse?Will these laws apply to alcohol, too?
Hemp N Stuff ...
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #13 posted by gloovins on March 08, 2002 at 03:26:47 PT
 ALL CN READERS : oops:)
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #12 posted by gloovins on March 08, 2002 at 03:07:11 PT
the "War on Drugs" is (& will always be) a complete & utter failure. It's like trying to control people's behavior. You can't. And I believe that ALL politicians who favor harsh drug laws are TOTALLY IRRESPONSIBLE because they all believe in supply & demand economics & when you have a CONSTANT demand for drugs that will always be there, why not TAX & REGULATE the SUPPLY? Instead, we pour BILLIONS each year to "stem the flow" of drugs from South America, Mexico etc. to win a "war" that politicians KNOW is impossible to win. I do believe though that if drugs were legal, there would be rules regarding purchasing of them though.1. Mandatory minimum prison sentences for any one caught supplying to minors or operating a motor vehicle under the influence. (30 days 1st offense 1 yr 2nd, 3 to life 3rd offense & subsequent offenses)2. Mandate that half the tax on drugs go into rehab programs for those seeking to get clean for free or GREATLY reduced rates.3. To purchase drugs, one must 1st sign a waiver acknowledging all the dangers & risks & to be knowledgeable of all the laws in 1.How many could live with this.?.. See smart Libertarians are ready for O'whyley's type of retorts. C'mon I want to know!Am I crazy ..... or realistic??? Tell me...
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #11 posted by Dan B on March 07, 2002 at 22:18:47 PT:
Tom Tomorrow has comics drawn by a guy named Tom Tomorrow, and one from March of last year is a classic about Bill O'Reilly. Check it out using the link below. Dead-on funny!Dan B
Tom Tomorrow on Bill O'Reilly
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #10 posted by overtoke on March 07, 2002 at 18:42:16 PT:
More Quotes
O'REILLY: It's not available in my neighborhood. I know my neighborhood. Methamphetamine is not available in my neighborhood. Now I know it's available in a lot of neighborhoods.I don't really have a comment except that he is completely wrong. And what a irresponsible thing to say.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #9 posted by mayan on March 07, 2002 at 16:58:45 PT
I can't believe O'Reilly said that either!!! I didn't catch that when I first saw it!"If they did do it the way they should, then we would have a society like Singapore or China."                - Bill O'Reilly
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by xxdr_zombiexx on March 07, 2002 at 16:57:13 PT
Bill O'Reilly, angry ventriloquist dummmy .
Who's hands are,..uh...working him, and for whom is he speaking? *****************************
he says:"my position on this, that it's just foolhardy for a society as diverse, pluralistic and free as the United States to add more intoxicants to the market, the legal market, when you already have tremendous problems being caused by alcohol and tobacco. So if you just add to those problems, socially, it becomes chaotic"The reference to the "dont add something else bad to the legal market" would tell me FOX has given airtime to the INCB. The recent article "UN rebuts arguments for legalization of multi-faceted wonderplant...I mean marijuana.." began with just this line and that was essentially the import of the argument. The idea is being worked through the media as part of an escaltion of the war against cannabis culture. FOX is an active mouthpiece for the prohibitionist apparatus.Lookinside hit it on the head: O'Reilly stands for nothing, but talkin trash for a paycheck.I'm not an overtly "religious" person, but, just like Jerry Springer, Bill O'Reilly sells his soul to do his gig as it is currently. *******************************************
O'REILLY: They haven't done enough arrests. Mr. Crickenberger, both you and I know this drug war is phony and they haven't done it the way they should. If they did do it the way they should, then we would have a society like Singapore or China. *******************Does O'Reilly REALLY want to live in a police state? Does he have an inkling of what that means? He cannot really mean that, thus we can assert that he is indeed talking out of his butt simply for effect: style with no substance.Im afraid his treatment of Mr. Crickenberger is about the way I treat telemarketers, not professionals. Mr Crickenberger seems to have not lost his composure despite O'rielly's blathering and baiting. O'Reilly frequently misrepresented the Libertarian policies, grossly oversimplyfying or outright misstatting them to assaignate them essentially. Put words in Mr. Crickenberg's mouth, squandering his access to airtime.I could yak all day about this mess, but I wanna focus on how FOX broadcasts what I consider conservative/Republican ideology. Crickenberger was on here to be smeared; thrown to the wolf. The cannabis movement was belittled and trivialized. He reinforced the NON-separation of hard and soft drugs. Despite his little blurb about how he (in his great benevolence) would "decriminalize pot",He manages to reinforce that pot is bad several times. especeially that bit about people who want to "smoke pot in their basement".
More superconservative nonsense, but consistent with his draconian views on the need to arrest people, and that pot should be "decriminalized".Either he is very ignorant, or a soul-selling media prostitute. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by Hoofhearted on March 07, 2002 at 16:19:21 PT:
Did anyone else notice how quickly the discussion ended when it was pointed out to Mr.O'Reilly that the US has the hightest prision population on the planet already? This is a war on people, not drugs! Education and understanding is the way to deter drug use...not lying to our kids about the consequences of using drugs. Most of the people in the US prison system today are nonviolent drug users(read pot users)not the people who manufacture or smuggle drugs. What a waste of human life and our hard earned tax money!Prohibition and "Reefer Madness" is what funds terrorism.
Terrorist's be called "DEA".
PEACE and HARMONY....Steve in PR
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by Elfman_420 on March 07, 2002 at 14:11:01 PT
I am not impressed, Bill...
WALTERS: Yes, we actually have a race going on. There are two big economic development plans that are now being unleashed in Afghanistan. One is, and the smaller one is the United States and its allies. The larger one is the opium trade. We have plants in the ground. The rush now is to try to get enough security presence on the ground to begin to collapse the opium markets. How much we're able to do this spring remains to be seen, but we're working very hard. O'REILLY: Well, bomb them. Bomb the fields. WALTERS: Well, I'm not sure bombing is going to do it, as much as providing the security to eradicate and to confiscate. O'REILLY: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait, look, you know where the fields -- everybody knows where the fields are. You can see them by the satellite. That's why we have satellites. You tell me you're not going to go in with air power and wipe those fields out? Why not? WALTERS: Well, I think that bombing is probably not the... O'REILLY: All right, napalm them. Destroy them. WALTERS: We will try to destroy the fields, but what we want to do is to build the institutional capacity to sustain this over time. And that's a matter of both providing crops so people can eat and... 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by Jose Melendez on March 07, 2002 at 13:59:25 PT:
forgot the link
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by Jose Melendez on March 07, 2002 at 13:58:50 PT:
what's this? conspiracy theory, or fact?
New evidence linking the owner of the Venice Florida flight school which trained Mohamed Atta
         to the Central Intelligence Agency surfaced earlier this month. 
         The new evidence adds to existing indications that Mohamed Atta and his terrorist cadre's flight
         training in this country was part of a so-far unacknowledged U.S. government intelligence
         operation which had ultimately tragic consequences for thousands of civilians on September 11th.
         Far from merely being negligent or asleep at the switch-the thrust so far of allegations expected to
         be aired at joint Senate and House Select Committee hearings next month-the accumulating
         evidence suggests the CIA was not just aware of the thousands of Arab student pilots who began
         pouring into this country several years ago to attend flight training, but was running the operation,
         for still-unexplained reasons. 
         During a controversy over the awarding of a bid for an aviation maintenance facility in
         Lynchburg, Virginia, what had begun as a purely local spat took on national importance when it
         unearthed connections between Rudi Dekkers-the Dutch national whose Huffman Aviation
         trained both of the pilots at the controls of the airliners which crashed into the World Trade
         Center-and the CIA. 
         "Good-by Magic Dutch Boy; Hello Jerry Falwell" 
         The CIA's links to Dekkers surfaced when an unknown company called Britannia Aviation was
         mysteriously awarded a five-year contract to run a large regional maintenance facility at the
         Lynchburg Virginia Regional Airport. 
         At the time of the award virtually nothing was known about Britannia except that the company
         worked out of a hangar at Rudi Dekker's Huffman Aviation at the Venice, Florida airport. 
         But when Britannia was chosen over a respected and successful Lynchburg company boasting a
         multi-million dollar balance sheet and more than 40 employees, aviation executives there began
         voicing concerns to reporters at the local newspaper... 
         "There was some sentiment that there might be something suspicious about Britannia Aviation,"
         stated business reporter Chris Flores of the Lynchburg News-Advance. "There was a clear
         feeling that nobody knew who these guys were, or where they were coming from." 
         The suspicion deepened when it was discovered that Britannia Aviation is a company with
         virtually no assets, employees, or corporate history. Moreover, the company did not even possess
         the necessary FAA license to perform the aircraft maintenance services for which it had just
         been contracted by the city of Lynchburg. 
         At a Lynchburg City Council hearing on the dispute there were vocal objections from observers
         baffled as to why a company with virtually no qualifications was being awarded a contract to take
         over a large regional maintenance facility designed for major carriers like Delta and USAir
         "It was as if someone with a learner's permit from the DMV got picked to drive Richard Petty's
         car at Daytona," explained one local aviation executive and NASCAR fan. 
         "It made absolutely no business sense that anyone could see." 
         "Be True to Your School." 
         When Britannia Aviation's financial statements were released after prodding by the local aviation
         community they revealed Britannia to be a "company" worth less than $750. 
         Paul Marten, a British aircraft mechanic who was the Britannia executive in attendance, rose to
         say it wasn't true. Britannia's assets, he was sure, amounted to more than $750, though how much
         more was a question he left unanswered. 
         A Lynchburg city official attempted to wave aside objections that Britannia was insolvent with a
         joke. "At least they have more on their balance sheet than Enron," said Lynchburg City
         Councilman Robert Garber. 
         Trying to save further embarrassment, Britannia executive Marten reassured those in attendance
         that at Huffman's hangar at the Venice Airport they had for some time been successfully
         providing aviation maintenance services for Caribe Air, a Caribbean carrier. 
         And that is how the world learned that under Rudi Dekker's FAA license Paul Marten's little
         dummy front company worked for a notorious CIA proprietary air carrier which, even by the
         standards of a CIA proprietary, has had a particularly checkered past. 
         Caribe Air's history includes 'blemishes' like having its aircraft seized by federal officials at the
         infamous Mena Arkansas airport a decade ago, after the company was accused by government
         prosecutors of having used as many as 20 planes to ship drugs worth billions of dollars into this
         "What a coincidence, eh?" (snip) I am hoping that this is just idle speculation. But I found the link somewhere on cannabisnews, read it and wondered again if the debate on September 10th had something to do with September 11th...I hope not.
Drug War is Treason
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by lookinside on March 07, 2002 at 13:20:29 PT:
sooner or later...
The majority of people are going to realize that O'Reilly stands for nothing. He's making big bucks talking out his A$$ and shouting down his guests. When his ratings start to fall because he will not allow his guests to make their points, he'll try to backtrack and change his tune. And it will be too late.The fact that his style has become popular at all is a sad commentary on the level of thinking going on in this country.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by Jose Melendez on March 07, 2002 at 12:50:38 PT:
and the wall comes tumblin down...
I don't care about the pot. I'd decriminalize pot. FoxNews' Bill O'Reilly
Sounds like a breakthrough to me...
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by kanabys on March 07, 2002 at 11:34:18 PT
o'reilly wants a society like singapore or china?????
*hit, he's a freakin' communist!!!!  Or an idiot or both.
Live in either of those countries and spitting on the sidewalk will get ya MAJOR punishment. I'd leave the ol' 
US of A if it came to that. It's bad enough now without that kinda stuff.
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment