Our foreign policy is retarded, part MMMMCXXV5billion

[Straybow]

Originally posted by PLATO
If the Taleban is currently taxing them, then haven't they already (de facto) choosen the Taleban as their sovereign?

What would you think of a buy and plant scheme for loyal areas (where we buy this years crop and assist in planting alternatives for next year) and an eradication effort (spraying...troops, etc...) for Taleban controlled areas?

The Taliban doesn't tax opium, they buy it cheap, at gunpoint, and move it across borders for sale to European and Russian distributors.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
You expect a lack of corruption in Afghanistan?

Step 1: Bribe govt. official.
Step 2:
Step 3: Profit

Why would there need to be strictly Afghan administration and oversight for a program distributing 100% American dollars? Does the Karzai government do UNICEF's work too?

[Berzerker]

I dont want the poppy harvest destroyed, it is immoral to deny people in pain an effective painkiller just because some people cant control their appetite for heroin.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Berzerker
I dont want the poppy harvest destroyed, it is immoral to deny people in pain an effective painkiller just because some people cant control their appetite for heroin.

Why couldn't pharmaceutical opiates be made with opium from other countries (such as Turkey), like they already were back when the Taliban had eliminated most Afghan opium crops?

Or are you being facetious?

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


That would stop the problem of them growing it how?

That's a problem we can solve once we finish off the Taleban. Right now, trying to solve that problem detracts from the main objective. That's the problem.

Why would there need to be strictly Afghan administration and oversight for a program distributing 100% American dollars? Does the Karzai government do UNICEF's work too?

And you think Westerners are 100% immune to corruption

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
And you think Westerners are 100% immune to corruption

Western aid workers' susceptibility to corruption is miniscule when viewed relative to that of the locals, yes.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


That would stop the problem of them growing it how?

Them growing it isn't the problem, per se. It's turning it into heroin that's the problem. Actually, it's probably more accurate to say that "the problem" is people using heroin - and thus creating the demand for the drug.

Anyway, the buy it and destroy it or otherwise use it for some "good" purpose approach is short-term, and obviously doesn't fix (what we perceive to be) the problem.

Fine, so couple it with incentives to do something else. But that's not going to happen overnight. The idea that you can switch over all the poppy farmers to something else by snapping your fingers (or threatening them) is absurd. As we've discussed, destroying the crops is both ineffective and counterproductive to the ours other goals in the country.

Supply and demand. People want heroin. Poppies are thus a good cash crop. Unless we can either:

a) reduce the demand for poppies; or
b) increase the demand for some other crop to the point where it's better than growing poppies. Probably by subsidizing them.

They're not going to stop. And they'll be pissed when we try and stop them.

-Arrian

[MikeH]

Brilliant!

The War on Drugs vs The War on Terror

[DinoDoc]

Shouldn't you be mad at the US destroying your dope?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Well Afghan heroin goes to Europe not the US, IIRC. Why are we paying to destroy Europe's drug supply?

Like all standardized commodities, reducing or eliminating that source of supply will affect supply and demand all over the world. It's not like European addicts will go without - they'll create a more lucrative market for the people who supply our addicts.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Like all standardized commodities, reducing or eliminating that source of supply will affect supply and demand all over the world. It's not like European addicts will go without - they'll create a more lucrative market for the people who supply our addicts.

I'm not thinking that your statement is really in tune with the theory of supply and demand.

Certainly a reduction in supply from one source will cause an increase in profitability to other sources as scarcity will drive the price up, but equally certain is that a decreased supply will result in decreased consumption. Eithier addicts will get by on less, consume the same and create further scarcity among other addicts, or will be priced out of the market.

Additionally, higher entry cost will be a barrier to entry for at least some segment of the emerging market.

The conclusion is, obviously, that decreased supply will cause some to "do without".

[Kuciwalker]

MtG was arguing that it's a fungible commodity with a global market, therefore a supply change in one place affects demand everywhere equally.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by PLATO


I'm not thinking that your statement is really in tune with the theory of supply and demand.

Certainly a reduction in supply from one source will cause an increase in profitability to other sources as scarcity will drive the price up, but equally certain is that a decreased supply will result in decreased consumption. Eithier addicts will get by on less, consume the same and create further scarcity among other addicts, or will be priced out of the market.

Additionally, higher entry cost will be a barrier to entry for at least some segment of the emerging market.

The conclusion is, obviously, that decreased supply will cause some to "do without".

Or other producers will increase production because it's more profitable.

At any rate, I'm more of a believer in demand-side solutions. Lower demand, and price goes down and suddenly the risks of production don't seem to be worth it.

[Berzerker]

Why couldn't pharmaceutical opiates be made with opium from other countries (such as Turkey), like they already were back when the Taliban had eliminated most Afghan opium crops?

I dont know, why not?

Or are you being facetious?

never but I am serious, it is immoral to destroy an effective pain killing drug because some people over imbibe. And that doesn't even get into the immorality of destroying the crops of poor folks while letting fat cat corporations grow the stuff.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Arrian


From a certain PoV, that might be true.

Not that spraying fields in Afganistan is really going to help, of course.

-Arrian

I'll second that view.

Heroin is far more dangerous to my life and far more likley to impact me then the taliban or alqueda. No that is not a joke.

I don't think the odds of me being killed by a terrorist are very high. The likelihood of me being impacted in some negative way by someone high on Afghani poppies is much, much higher.

That said, why the hell do we have the right to tell other countries what to grow and what not to grow :?

Afghanistan is a third world country, it can use all the money it can get, even drug money.