Afghanistan: The Making of a Narco State(rollingstone.com)
rollingstone.com
Afghanistan: The Making of a Narco State
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/afghanistan-the-making-of-a-narco-state-20141204
3 comments
I don't see how that's even possible. A $3bil cash infusion is going to increase prices and create need for more product. The US can't just make a deal to buy opium at a fixed price every year.
It sounds like a slightly more practical version of your suggestion would be to just pay producers to stop producing, but that obviously creates a slew of other issues.
And if there is an upper limit to opium production, you're going to have to start a price war to get there, which just dumps more and more funding into the region.
It sounds like a slightly more practical version of your suggestion would be to just pay producers to stop producing, but that obviously creates a slew of other issues.
And if there is an upper limit to opium production, you're going to have to start a price war to get there, which just dumps more and more funding into the region.
> I don't see how that's even possible.
3 billion on fighting terrorism? Sounds pretty cheap to me, considering:
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/
> A $3bil cash infusion is going to increase prices and create need for more product.
Right, because there's an overproduction crisis hitting Afghanistan now, and that's why we see a natural trend in farmers choosing to not grow opium, and rather produce other cash crops?
If it was worked into a "sound" "hearts and minds" (not the: kidnap "suspicious" people for torture in the night kind, but something more in the spirit of the words, not the practice, born from British lessons on administrating terror in India), you could probably buy up the opium for below market value. I don't think most farmers prefer to grow opium.
On the other hand, it is hard to see how such a scheme would be possible, as it is probably against the real political motivations behind being in Afghanistan (which most certainly are not: help most of the Afghan people).
3 billion on fighting terrorism? Sounds pretty cheap to me, considering:
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/
> A $3bil cash infusion is going to increase prices and create need for more product.
Right, because there's an overproduction crisis hitting Afghanistan now, and that's why we see a natural trend in farmers choosing to not grow opium, and rather produce other cash crops?
If it was worked into a "sound" "hearts and minds" (not the: kidnap "suspicious" people for torture in the night kind, but something more in the spirit of the words, not the practice, born from British lessons on administrating terror in India), you could probably buy up the opium for below market value. I don't think most farmers prefer to grow opium.
On the other hand, it is hard to see how such a scheme would be possible, as it is probably against the real political motivations behind being in Afghanistan (which most certainly are not: help most of the Afghan people).
The US can't just make a deal to buy opium at a fixed price every year.
Why not? We don't seem to have any problem throwing money into a hole as things are. Why not just use it for medical morphine? Right now there are fields growing opium poppies in western countries, which is pointlessly duplicative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_morphine http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2667253/Not-Afghanis...
Why not? We don't seem to have any problem throwing money into a hole as things are. Why not just use it for medical morphine? Right now there are fields growing opium poppies in western countries, which is pointlessly duplicative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_morphine http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2667253/Not-Afghanis...
Supply will work to match the demand. The US buying as much as $3 billion would put a huge floor on the demand. The illicit buyers would add more demand on top of that. The resulting higher price would encourage poppy farming yet again. But while production is ramping up it'd work.
I think it is wiser to pay farmers not to grow poppies.
I think it is wiser to pay farmers not to grow poppies.
If we can't prevent farmes to grow poppies when it's "illegal" to do so, what's to prevent farmers from taking money to "not grow" and still grow opium?
I suppose, if one buys into the idea that this is mostly the result of a free marked (as opposed to an intricate web of political, economic and organized violent crime) -- one could offer to pay opium prices for food crops. But then you'd probably have to destroy that food, in order to prevent people from selling the food back, and collecting double payments on "not growing poppies"...
I suppose, if one buys into the idea that this is mostly the result of a free marked (as opposed to an intricate web of political, economic and organized violent crime) -- one could offer to pay opium prices for food crops. But then you'd probably have to destroy that food, in order to prevent people from selling the food back, and collecting double payments on "not growing poppies"...
And buying wheat or whatever that they need time and effort to produce from them at a golden price?
(I don't know, I'm just sending a random idea)
[deleted]
> It sounds like a slightly more practical version of your suggestion would be to just pay producers to stop producing
I seem to recall in south east asia this has been tried and is sort-of-working by moving people to the production of alternative plants (orchids, I think?), possibly something similar would work.
I seem to recall in south east asia this has been tried and is sort-of-working by moving people to the production of alternative plants (orchids, I think?), possibly something similar would work.
I have a better idea - Pay them $3 billion dollars to grow crops that ensure food security, and let them sell it for whatever they can get. Or, while we're spitballing - how about pay them $3 Billion to go to school, build roads, irrigation systems, etc...
What's the difference? The only difference between a $3bil drug purchase and a $3bil crop/infrastructure stimulus is that one assumes you can control spending.
Why wouldn't heavily funded drug dealers reinvest in their community? Or, how would crop/infrastructure funding not directly support the drug industry?
Why wouldn't heavily funded drug dealers reinvest in their community? Or, how would crop/infrastructure funding not directly support the drug industry?
The difference would be, that in addition to getting $3bil, they would also have peripheral local benefits - Food Security from the plentiful crops.
Crop funding is favored by policy wonks because it competes for the same inputs that drug production requires (namely, agricultural land and labor).
Amazing reporting. Sometimes Rolling Stone does good work.
The War on Terror provides the opportunity. The War on Drugs provides the rationale. Both these are levers controlled by the US and both cost it much in treasure and lives for little gain (I'm following standard US practice and ignoring the cost to the non-exceptional peoples of the world). Sadly most US politicians lack the bravery and/or integrity to even suggest touching those levers.
Now, it could be argued that Western Europe had more in common culturally with the US, as well as being motivated to make things work by Soviet expansion right after WW2. But obviously we're not getting the results we want.
I'm sure this has been proposed before, but how about this: we buy all the opium Afghanistan produces ($3 billion this year according to the article). We can use it for production (to the detriment of Western pharmaceutical industrial synthetic opiate producers, but too bad) or just destroy it. Expensive for sure, but we keep a large volume of opium and heroin off the market, deny the fat markup on its manufacture to professional drug dealers (some of whom fund terrorism), and degreade their supply chains.
This might increase production, but there's an upper limit on the amount of land that can be used for opium cultivation and it seems like we're already close to it.