^^^Yes.

___________________
The thing about money? It makes you do things that you don't want to do

quote:

Originally posted by atbell Who was talking about domestic effects of drugs on our country. I didn't get into how it they wreck lives, pull out mental illness in people who otherwise would have been fine, or contribute to the creativity and relaxation of countless people. The effects of drug production on stability in Afgan (or Columbia) are directly related to our domestic policies. The profit is what funds the violence, the legal status of drugs affects the profit. The problem is that buying all the opium or cocaine that is produced has the same effect as a prohibition. The product does not reach the demanding customers which means there is still a highly profitable black market. It's even possible that this type of policy would increase production as the "legal" portion increases to the size of funds earmarked in the government buy back and the "black market" portion continues at the same pace it is at today. The only insentive to grow and sell to the government is that the government is less likely to steal your product at gun point. Of course the competition for the cushy government sales contracts would be fierce and corupt.

You have to completely forget about cocaine production, that has nothing to do with Afghan production of opium. It's a completely different situation. This thread was about the stability of Afghanistan, and how their economy (and the livelihoods of its population) is dependent on the production of a commodity NATO forces would like to decrease. This option allows for production to continue but also to achieve the aims of NATO countries in removing the product from their domestic markets (and along with it some of the social ills it causes - not that that would be a solution in itself by any means)

Please try and understand the concept of farming subsidies in this...

quote:

Originally posted by atbell So the government should become drug dealers? I agree. They already peddle booze, cigaretts, and perscription meds. At least government heroine would be a known purity, which might actually decrease the amount of deaths related to the drug.

Think you're missing the point here. Opium production would be allowed to continue as it is, ensuring the farmers income is not eradicated and therefore cause problems to the NATO forces trying to help rebuild the country. The opium that is produced would be purchased by those countries with an interest in seeing production eliminated. They then have a number of options, including the production of cheap medical products, using it to treat addicts, or simply destroying it

quote:

The farmers may not be producing it to get rich but the war lords are selling it to do just that. Heavy ordinance is expensive and in Afgan. that's what these war lords are packing. We are talking about howitzers, rocket propelled granade launchers, and armoured vehicules here, not simply desert egals, and ak47's. The war lords in Afgan are just that WAR lords. They aren't petty thugs pushing around dime bags.

Well the $4billion covers there costs as well if need be. Only $1billion of the trade finds its way back to the farmers (who are the most crucial aspect of opium production who need to grow it just to make a living), the other $3billion is earned by the drug traffickers (the war lords). However, if they wish to continue, in defiance of the Afghan government or NATO, then that is who should deal with them

quote:

Thinking on Afgan and even northern Pakistan (possibly the norther 'stan countries too) must be aproached quite differently then with other nation states. These area's are more closely related to medeival political organizations where a king rules a region by force of a standing army of "knights" and a conscript contingent of armed mercenaries. This group of people extract payment from the farmers of the region in the form of crop yeilds which are in effect exchanged for minimal food stuffs and the more important "security" It's a very different reality over there.

I don't see the relevance of what you've written hear...?

quote:

Armies tend to be good at fighting armies. That's why the west has been stuck in Iraq and Afgan. Crime bosses operate within a civilian population. If we knew how to effectively co-opt crime lords you'd think the Sicilians would have a much differnt reputation then they do.

So now the drug traffickers have transformed from heavily armed war lord militias into common Mafiosos? Make your mind up! You're thoughts are all over the place in this post because in your quote above, for whatever reason, you talked about the need to treat Afghanistan differently than other places, yet now you seem to be drawing parallels between the fight against organised crime in America...?!

I agree with purchasing for legitimate morphine production or making another crop viable; hemp <-- also a very rugged crop

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Our puritanical attitude is what got organized crime jump started in this country in the 1920's with Prohibition, and it is what is going to be the ruin of us in Afgan...only it's worse;

You cannot use prohibition in 1920s America as an analogy to the production of opium in Afghanistan today. The market for the final alcohol product was in America, the same country as production. The market for Afghan opium products is not in Afghanistan. Afghan farmers grow it, not to get rich (which were the motives of the organised crime gangs selling alcohol in America), but simply to put meals on their families tables. You might say the war lords are similar to the American gangs, but if they are only concerned about money then what difference does it make to them whether it comes from selling opium abroad or whether it comes in the form of a cheque from the NATO countries?

quote:

That group of organized criminals is using their drug profits to wage war on us!

While I have no doubt some people connected to the Taliban dabbled a bit in the trade, don't forget that the Taliban banned production. I just read they successfully decreased production by 80% one year (which is what NATO countries want to do!). One of the negative results of removing the Taliban from power was the mass increase in opium production by the war lords opposed to the Taliban (the Northern Alliance for example). These war lords are on "our side" in the fight against the Taliban, one reason NATO is prepared to turn a blind eye to production. But these war lords and their actions are the precise reason the Taliban came to power in the first place. Ultimately, they will need reining in if Afghanistan is to make any progress. So what you said above is wrong

quote:

Since we're a long, long way from legalizing drugs in this country (unfortunately), and since the U.S. Government can't be seen to be directly involved in the drug business (like buying and selling it, even if it was to legitimate customers for medicinal purposes), the best I think that we can do is tax it's export from Afgan., with the profits being used to fund the war there as well as public works programs, etc. The tax cost will just be passed on to the users anyway, so who cares? And the terrorists are already benefiting from the sale, so it's high time our allies in Afgan. got their cut.

America, or any other country, has no legal or moral right to tax any exports from Afghanistan! And again, you have a very poor understanding of the situation when you say "our allies" should get their cut because they're the ones growing it in the first place! You also still don't seem to understand what I'm proposing. I'm not saying our countries should buy opium so that they can sell heroin! I'm saying that the trade is worth $4billion to Afghans so why not give that money directly to those involved and do as you please with the product, that way everyone's happy and Afghanistan can look forward to some stability. This is no different to any other kind of farming subsidy (you've heard about food mountains right?)

quote:

EDIT: Although I know what will happen; Our government won't support governments that deal in drugs in any way, shape, or form. So in the end, there really is no solution. All one can do is watch the whole stupid mess for the sidelines and just shake your head in disbelief.

Or you could try and comprehend what I'm suggesting and you won't get so stressed out!

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN has anyone suggested buying the poppies for legitimate morphine production?

Yes, in the original post!

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r I agree with purchasing for legitimate morphine production or making another crop viable; hemp <-- also a very rugged crop

$4billion buys you 90% of the world's opium. You can make as much morphine as you need (at a fraction of the cost it would otherwise cost you). With the surplus, you can simply burn it to prevent it from being used to create heroin

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Sorry you've missed the point completely. I'm talking about simple farming subsidies. Opium production would not decrease, it would remain constant. The difference is it would end up in allied forces hands (who would either destroy it or sell it on for medicinal/drug rehabilitation uses). Like I said before, Afghan farmers are not growing it to get rich, they are growing it to put food on their tables - that is their motivation. I don't think they necessarily care about how they make a living, just as long as they are able to survive. Sure, some people would see a gap in the market and aim to exploit it, but that's where the government/allies can use force to control it. This does not happen today as most of the opium barons are war lords in the Northern Alliance who the allies use for intelligence and also to fight the Taliban

If the drug lords don't get their opium, they will entice the farmers to sell it to them by offering higher prices.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN dont argue with the yanks nutter, they know best!

quote:

Originally posted by eROs.au If the drug lords don't get their opium, they will entice the farmers to sell it to them by offering higher prices.

And the farmers will sell at higher price than the stte is offering them..

Also he is assuiming that it costs trillions of dollars in afghanistan which is paid directly from government coffers.. the sum is over-exaggerated. On the other hand 4 billion dollar cash payment upfront directly from government coffers is a big amount though.

quote:

Originally posted by eROs.au If the drug lords don't get their opium, they will entice the farmers to sell it to them by offering higher prices.

And why do the drug lords want opium?

quote:

Originally posted by rewind_plz And the farmers will sell at higher price than the stte is offering them..

The "state" (I assume you mean Afghanistan) would not be offering them anything, NATO countries would. What difference does it make to the farmers who they sell it to as long as they sell it to someone?

quote:

Also he is assuiming that it costs trillions of dollars in afghanistan which is paid directly from government coffers.. the sum is over-exaggerated. On the other hand 4 billion dollar cash payment upfront directly from government coffers is a big amount though.

I have no idea what you're saying here, can you simplify it? What costs "trillions of dollars" and what do you mean about $4billion being a big amount?