I cannot refute your conclusion, but realistically, it would never socially be allowed. A workable alternative is that they could throw much more money towards stopping drug use, effectively fighting both battles at the same time.

>Premise 1: the US federal government spends half of a TRILLION dollars more than it has to spend
>
>Premise 2: the US federal government thinks stopping terrorists is important, and spends the appropriate resources to do so
>
>Premise 3: the US federal government thinks stopping drug use is important, and spends a fraction of the appropriate resources to do so, which is still a incredible amount of money, but ultimately ineffective
>
>Premise 4: terrorists are funded by drug trade, and thus benefit by the smuggling of illegal drugs into the US
>
>Does anyone disagree with these premises?
>
>Conclusion:
>
>The US would fight a more effective war on terror, spend nothing on an ineffective war on drugs, allow its adult citizens to make their own recreational choices, and after all of that, produce an incredible income that just might put our budget on a path toward a workable reality, if it were to grow, produce, and sell marijuana, cocaine, and herion.
>
>For those who agree with the premises, does anyone disagree with the conclusion?