Shelley and Martin,

I disagree that domestic producers of marijuana can be considered terrorists of any kind. To assert this is symptomatic of the problem; our government spends money and exerts resources to battle this domestic trade which is far less dangerous than either the tobacco or alcohol industry, instead of doing what it has done with the two latter drugs and regulating marijuana.

Doing so, in turn, would allow federal focus to shift to the far more serious problem you've both mentioned, namely, the lack of security on our borders. I believe that the government needs to take a page from the Soviet border guards and shut down cross-border traffic, except at pre-determined, easily controlled locations. This can effectively be done with intensified patrols, ground sensors, aerial observation and fencing. All of the previously mentioned measures could easily be paid for with money saved on the "war on drugs".

Narco-terrorist operations in foreign countries, on the other hand, need to be addressed through a bottom-up approach. The success of drug production overseas invariably depends on corruption throughout the agencies charged with enforcement. This is not an area where the United States can hope to exert direct influence. Rather, we must help by offering training and education to local law enforcement and civilians, while at the same time pressuring the host government to prevent, at the very least, the export of narcotics.

I couldn't agree more with respect to your definition of a terrorist as well as the varied links among them, including international crime. The drug industry was a favorite tool in Latin America for the Soviets in former times, so it's not surprising to know that ideological terrorist groups or the Russians, or the Chinese, are just as fond of that resource today.

As for illegal drug use and similar vices (as well as organized crime) being common to every society, this is quite true. However, some countries have been more beset than others. Colombia is an example of a state on the mend; Mexico seems currently to be moving in the opposite direction. regardless of the source, however, it is merely a matter of common sense to better regulate state borders to slow the flow of such criminal factors, while allowing legitimate commerce. Just as many internet service providers now routinely scan their networks for viruses and other hostile threats, while allowing legitimate traffic to continue, so too must a responsible policy be established not just in the United States, but internationally; it requires for greatest efficacy, of course, a team effort. Failure to follow such a policy will at the end of the day harm legitimate traffic for two important reasons: it will create a climate in which legitimate traffic is pushed out and becomes unwilling to risk exposure to dangerous elements and a general public backlash could force total closure of borders, as well as other internal problems. This is actually also analogous to the spirit of the laws that govern use of our public roadways.

Hi Martin,
First I want to say thank you for commenting towards the issues this article presents.

We have a continuum of illicit, illegal, and profane activities being induced on a populace that satiates criminal and terrorist economic activities and their other endeavors. This tree has many branches at many different levels involving not just independent individuals, but many national and transnational criminal organizations, terrorists and extremist groups, and other criminal groups. The United States does not stand alone in these types of problems, nor does the U.S. discard other global states that are riddled with the same persistent illicit and illegal criminal and terrorism activities.

There are those individuals who like to separate the growing of marijuana from that of supporting terrorism or criminal organizations, or other. When a grower/seller/dealer/distributor, has planted booby traps or bombs, uses guerrilla style tactics, and small or large weapons to protect marijuana crops that can and have harmed, maimed, and killed law enforcement or innocent civilians; while contributing towards damaging or disrupting a social infrastructure through breaking laws, corruption, using violence, and inducing addictions. I believe this fits into the category of terrorism.

These activities are not assigned to just one area or one type of people, for that would designate a certain profile type. Drugs have infiltrated into all status and backgrounds of societies and have contributed towards the weakening and destruction of many people and families around the world, for the purpose of wealth, control, and power.

One does not see illicit and illegal drug activities as trying to define these activities as a political movement. Nor can one no longer exclude the fact that Al Quaida and other terrorist organizations and criminal groups have turned illicit and illegal drug activities towards supporting terrorism amongst their other illegal activities.

Each state, jurisdiction, and county is affected by budget problems, so the drug problem can not be defined as being solely a government problem. The government, military, law enforcement, and the other agencies place as First Priority above all other priorities; national security, protecting our citizenry, and protecting the United States Constitution.

If they indeed are terrorists, it would seem to me a matter of common sense to take action that would cut off at least 90% of them from the U.S. market, and that is to control the border, since only a tiny fraction of illegal drugs are produced domestically. Such action would drive the price of such domestic drugs up so high, only the usual suspects in Hollywood and, dare I say, inside the Beltway, would be the prime consumers. Regardless of whether fellow readers agree that those growing illegal crops are terrorists, it seems equally vital that we do something to block entry of the other terrorist: the sort who are ideologically motivated to blow things up and do harm.

It is really unfortunate when politics becomes more important than homeland security.

-Martin Kite-Powell
APUS '08