Spook,
All the things you listed as objectionable - while undoubtedly immoral - have a huge distinction from the topic in question - from our american point of view.
The distinction is that those bad things are not directed against us like drug-subcidised anti-US terrorism is.
That is why our attitude is different and it's just dirty insinuation on your part that we are doing it from some high moral principles.
We do not care if some politicians sell their countries to our oil companies. We do not care if some savages mutilate their women. We do not care if some eastern brat spends 14 hours in Nike's sweatshop instead of his father's field for ten times the money. We do not care to stop those things. We do not care to fight against those things - they do not threaten us.**
We only care to stop the flow of money into coffers of people who are after us.
When americans made alcohol legal, organised crime went into illegal gambling, illegal drugsm, illegal prostitution and politics. They did not go into soap manufacturing.
If we de-criminalise those three so called "concentual" activities (or at least drugs - everything else is easily accessible and located in US unlike drug production), I cannot think of anything else that americans want and do not have so that crime can provide that as alternative to drugs.
Your statement "Legalising Drugs will have as much impact on fighting Terrorism" is completely against common sence and any economic theory. It will cut the major source of money.
-----------------
** That statement is not entirely true - any american who cares is free to buy a ticket and go anywhere and fight any evil he/she wants. There are plenty of americans among world's wandering missionaries, mercenaries, volunteers, jihad fighters, plestinian intifaders, israeli defence forces, Taliban, Al-Qaeda - you name it...
But we are talking about the state policy here.
P.S. There seems to be a major misconception about all americans supporting our oil companies in getting us free oil at any moral cost. While we make no bones about moral part, getting cheap oil is against most american's interests and oil companies, while big, are a tiny minority compared to anti-oil interests.
Cheap oil siphones our money out of the country - money that could be invested in our economy to pay american workers and american shareholders. If oil intake is limited, the oil companies will just raise prices and make similar profit. But to compensate for missing oil we would have to substitute new modern technologies and american labour in many areas - chemistry, metallurgy, car manufatcure, materials, energy, research, etc. If oil is cut off, we are likely to experience as great a boom as one caused by introduction of computers. There would be so much work for everyone our GDP would take off for many years.
P.P.S. You may have noticed that I left out politics as an area where organised crime can apply itself - profiting through rigged contracts etc. We do have a solution for that - libertarian agenda.
Once government is out of everything but military and few other essential things that cannot be possibly provided by private sector, the politicians would not have any influence to sell.
miko
