

Drug money saved banks in global crisis - jakarta
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2009/dec/13/drug-money-banks-saved-un-cfief-claims

======
j_baker
"Costa declined to identify countries or banks that may have received any
drugs money, saying that would be inappropriate because his office is supposed
to address the problem, not apportion blame."

...since when did saving us from economic collapse become a problem? If this
isn't an argument for at least partially decriminalizing drugs, I don't know
what is.

~~~
fuzzmeister
If drugs were legalized, this money would have never been outside the system
in the first place, as gangs would be largely removed from the equation.

------
philwelch
Here's an idea for a one-time stimulus: legalize drugs and offer amnesty to
drug dealers who put their money in the bank. No questions asked, you can
bring in hundreds of thousands of dollars of cash and open a bank account
today.

------
metra
How trusted is The Observer and guardian.co.uk?

I ask because dailymail.co.uk seems to be a very untrustworthy source.

~~~
jakarta
It is my understanding that The Guardian is a highly regarded newspaper in the
UK.

according to Wikipedia:

Awards Received

The Guardian has been awarded the National Newspaper of the Year in 1999 and
2006 by the British Press Awards, as well as being co-winner of the World's
Best-designed Newspaper as awarded by the Society for News Design (2006). The
guardian.co.uk website won the Best Newspaper category three years running in
2005, 2006 and 2007 Webby Awards, beating (in 2005) the New York Times, the
Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and Variety.[103] It has been the
winner for six years in a row of the British Press Awards for Best Electronic
Daily Newspaper.[104] The site won an Eppy award from the US-based magazine
Editor & Publisher in 2000 for the best-designed newspaper online
service.[105] The website is known for its commentary on sporting events,
particularly its over-by-over cricket commentary.

In 2007 the newspaper was ranked first in a study on transparency which
analysed 25 mainstream English-language media vehicles, and which was
conducted by the International Center for Media and the Public Agenda of the
University of Maryland.[106] It scored 3.8 out of a possible 4.0.

