Apparently there will be a sharp increase in opium production in Afghanistan this year: Link

The trade is worth over $4 billion in exports (altho only $1 billion of this goes to the actual farmers, the remainder goes to the drug traffickers): Link

The opium trade employs 12% of the Afghan population who rely on the trade to provide them an income. And the opium produced in Afghanistan amounts to over 90% of all world production: Link

Now when we think about the cost of the Afghan War, to all its participants, and add to that what each of those countries spends on combating illegal drugs each year, we're talking literally trillions of $$$s.

So my question: Why couldn't we just spend $4 billion on paying the farmers to carry on growing opium poppies (or to not grow it, as is traditional when implementing these kinds of subsidies) where the coalition gets the product to either use for medicinal purposes or simply to burn.

That way, you keep the Afghan's who need an income happy, and you might take 90% of the world's heroin off the street, all for a fraction of the price these conflicts and anti-drugs policies use.

Anyone think this idea is feasable? Any problems you can see with it?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Apparently there will be a sharp increase in opium production in Afghanistan this year: Link The trade is worth over $4 billion in exports (altho only $1 billion of this goes to the actual farmers, the remainder goes to the drug traffickers): Link The opium trade employs 12% of the Afghan population who rely on the trade to provide them an income. And the opium produced in Afghanistan amounts to over 90% of all world production: Link Now when we think about the cost of the Afghan War, to all its participants, and add to that what each of those countries spends on combating illegal drugs each year, we're talking literally trillions of $$$s. So my question: Why couldn't we just spend $4 billion on paying the farmers to carry on growing opium poppies (or to not grow it, as is traditional when implementing these kinds of subsidies) where the coalition gets the product to either use for medicinal purposes or simply to burn. That way, you keep the Afghan's who need an income happy, and you might take 90% of the world's heroin off the street, all for a fraction of the price these conflicts and anti-drugs policies use. Anyone think this idea is feasable? Any problems you can see with it?

Two solutions are possible.

Legailze it, tax it (heavily), and develope re-hab, research, and public awarness campaigns.

Or

Buy it all.

Unfortunately this will increase the price of black market Opium / heroine as the demand is not going away (pesky addicts). And if the price goes up the addicts need more money to get the same high = more crime ... AND the profits from smuggling increase astronomically which means the people who are in charge of buying + disposing of the "product" are going to be able to reap huge rewards from selling into the black market.

The fact of the matter is that Opium is being grown and sold because there is a demand for it. The more difficult the stuff is to grow and get to market the higher the price, which means higher profits for the people who do it, which means more violence to keep control of the market.

Decreasing demand would be the best way to cut down on Opium production, if no one wanted the stuff it would be worthless and then no one would want it. ... good luck with that option.

1. Decriminalize all drugs.
2. Use the taxes from the sale of these drugs to fund rehab clinics, public health awareness drives, etc.
3. Drug proceeds could be used to fund "alternative income" programs for the Afghans to make a living thru' legitimate means.

Three things (and more) will happen.
1. The price of illicit drugs will decline.
2. Profits for drug cartels will decline.
3. The criminal element will be greatly diminished by government regulation of the trade. (Remember the Taliban)




The end goal is drive the price of opium down to minimalize the excess profits that come from the risk in doing business in illegal drugs.

Well my main aim of starting this thread wasn't actually to discuss the domestic effect of drugs on our countries, but to discuss the effects on stability in Afghanistan (not that you should not mention the effects on oru countries as of course that is an important factor to consider)

The fact is, we are paying billions to combat drugs, be it the trafficking of, or the production of. Our governments seem to think ending the production would be a good idea, rightly or wrongly. So would it not make more sense to buy 90% of the world's opium for $4billion and destroy it, rather than the billions we currently spend on other unsuccessful policies?

(and of course, the price goes up, possibility of users simply finding other drugs etc with all the associated problems, but those problems need addressing at some point in some way or another)

Trying to eliminate production in a commodity in a capitalist system is akin to introducing the anti-thesis of capitalism, socialism, which in essence is government control of the economy. The basic profit motive will never be eliminated, and there will always be someone who will take on the business risk of illegal drugs. So when they say, "We want to eliminate opium production in Afghanistan, unless they use Taliban style tactics, or radical policy changes in the current drug laws to reform the market, it's just a dream that will never occur. It's BS. The USA can't even stop its own black market in drugs, so how the hell is Afghanistan supposed to do it, especially when foreign forces occupy the country.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Trying to eliminate production in a commodity in a capitalist system is akin to introducing the anti-thesis of capitalism, socialism, which in essence is government control of the economy.

No, of an industry, not of the economy, and there's nothing wrong with that

quote:

The basic profit motive will never be eliminated, and there will always be someone who will take on the business risk of illegal drugs.

The demand will still be there, but if 90% of the world's heroin is in the hands of Western governments, this could be used to treat domestic addicts. Of course, other areas will increase their supply, but apparently Afghanistan is the best place to grow it (it's more expensive elsewhere).

quote:

So when they say, "We want to eliminate opium production in Afghanistan, unless they use Taliban style tactics, or radical policy changes in the current drug laws to reform the market, it's just a dream that will never occur. It's BS.

The reason it is produced to the levels it is is because that 12% of the population NEED it for an income. If they don't need to produce it for an income then there is obviously less incentive for them to carry on production, so you have hope right there. Afghan farmers are not producing it to get rich, they are producing it to survive. This isn't Colombia. It's also the source of much instability and finding alternative means for Afghans to make a living would provide much needed stability to the country and that is my motive for starting this thread...

quote:

The USA can't even stop its own black market in drugs, so how the hell is Afghanistan supposed to do it, especially when foreign forces occupy the country.

Well, precisely because foreign forces occupy the country! Surely that'd make it a hell of a lot easier to fight the drug barons?

I heard the land in Afgha is so barren that the only thing they can grow is opium.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Apparently there will be a sharp increase in opium production in Afghanistan this year: Link The trade is worth over $4 billion in exports (altho only $1 billion of this goes to the actual farmers, the remainder goes to the drug traffickers): Link The opium trade employs 12% of the Afghan population who rely on the trade to provide them an income. And the opium produced in Afghanistan amounts to over 90% of all world production: Link Now when we think about the cost of the Afghan War, to all its participants, and add to that what each of those countries spends on combating illegal drugs each year, we're talking literally trillions of $$$s. So my question: Why couldn't we just spend $4 billion on paying the farmers to carry on growing opium poppies (or to not grow it, as is traditional when implementing these kinds of subsidies) where the coalition gets the product to either use for medicinal purposes or simply to burn. That way, you keep the Afghan's who need an income happy, and you might take 90% of the world's heroin off the street, all for a fraction of the price these conflicts and anti-drugs policies use. Anyone think this idea is feasable? Any problems you can see with it?

It wouldn't work. At first, many farmers will agree to such an idea. But as more farmers sign onto it, the less opium will be produced overall, boosting the remaining farmers' incentives for growing opium, only now at a higher price.

___________________

quote:

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

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Well my main aim of starting this thread wasn't actually to discuss the domestic effect of drugs on our countries, but to discuss the effects on stability in Afghanistan (not that you should not mention the effects on oru countries as of course that is an important factor to consider) The fact is, we are paying billions to combat drugs, be it the trafficking of, or the production of. Our governments seem to think ending the production would be a good idea, rightly or wrongly. So would it not make more sense to buy 90% of the world's opium for $4billion and destroy it, rather than the billions we currently spend on other unsuccessful policies? (and of course, the price goes up, possibility of users simply finding other drugs etc with all the associated problems, but those problems need addressing at some point in some way or another)

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.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley The demand will still be there, but if 90% of the world's heroin is in the hands of Western governments, this could be used to treat domestic addicts. Of course, other areas will increase their supply, but apparently Afghanistan is the best place to grow it (it's more expensive elsewhere).

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.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley The reason it is produced to the levels it is is because that 12% of the population NEED it for an income. If they don't need to produce it for an income then there is obviously less incentive for them to carry on production, so you have hope right there. Afghan farmers are not producing it to get rich, they are producing it to survive. This isn't Colombia. It's also the source of much instability and finding alternative means for Afghans to make a living would provide much needed stability to the country and that is my motive for starting this thread...

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.

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.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Well, precisely because foreign forces occupy the country! Surely that'd make it a hell of a lot easier to fight the drug barons?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Last edited by donnybrasco on Feb-06-2008 at 21:49

quote:

Originally posted by eROs.au It wouldn't work. At first, many farmers will agree to such an idea. But as more farmers sign onto it, the less opium will be produced overall, boosting the remaining farmers' incentives for growing opium, only now at a higher price.

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