[scott_s]

Saying "something is so because I can make an argument for it" is not enough. Just because something is possible does not mean it is. And there's still an enormous difference between constructing an argument for something and demonstrating that it is, in fact, possible.

So. If you can show it, then show it. If you can't, then don't say you can. Instead say "I have no actual evidence to backup this claim, but my theory is..."

[sliverstorm]

I think he knows that. I think he's just avoiding actually making his argument because nobody can counter his points if we don't know what they are.

Also, to White_N_Nerdy, before you go 'look at how much it's worth, they MUST want that and are therefore involved'- consider that the USA GDP is 15 trillion dollars. There's no way our government could control the entire drug trade, which means a fraction of 500 billion is the best they could do, and what's a chunk of 500 billion to the US gov't? Besides, is a chunk of 500 billion actually worth the risk of the ENTIRE WORLD discovering our government is the most evil and corrupt organization ever to walk the earth? (not that they are, but they would be if they were orchestrating the entire drug trade)

[alttab]

One could argue the US Government still is - but the list of reasons they would provide is long and may not contain any bullet points related to drugs.

America is the land of the free (for all). I consider the steady-state employment of government powers at the federal level nothing more than a score board on a death match server.