Defoliation was the main point, whether of a particular crop or of other plants. The result of the destruction of many hundreds of square miles of plantings by violence, whether using a bomb or a herbicide, will be enormous damage to everyone on the ground. The principle is identical.
I think this is a good idea, but - and this isn’t something I know a whole hell of a lot about, so correct me if I’m wrong - I think there is quite a complicated process in getting international approval for growing poppies legally, as is required by treaty. IIRC, the only country where poppies are grown for legal drug use is India. I’m not sure that Afghanistan has the infrastructure to ensure that their poppies would all be used for the legal market, which I believe is necessary.
ivan astikov, I’m not sure where the Taliban gets its weapons, but I would hesitate to say that it would be easy to cut off their supply. The borders with Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, in particular, are extremely porous, and both of those countries have loads of random weapons floating around. (Especially Tajikistan, which had a bloody civil war in the 1990s, complete with many, many weapons, and is controlled in large part by warlords who are part of the heroin smuggling route.) I’m in the middle of something right now, but I’ll look into it when I’m done later this afternoon.
Why isn’t this a popular solution? It seems like everybody wins here. Less illegal drugs on the market, the farmers get paid, and we get to make legal drugs
But we’re richer than the drug smugglers. Why can’t we use this method to bankrupt them? Just pay more for the poppies than the drug lords can afford. Hell, we’ve already sunk billions into the country, a few billion more can’t be too bad especially if we can get rid of the smugglers
Drug smugglers and cartels don’t go bankrupt. They just charge more. If you’re addicted to heroin already, you’re desperate enough to pay any price. The cartels might prefer high volume/moderate price for maximum profit, but they’ll still be rich on low volume/high price. Since its easier to smuggle small amounts of expense material, it’s actually to their advantage to limit supply.
But on the issue of paying people in Afghanistan anything… I think even that is more complicated than you think. I seem to recall reading that experts were pleasantly surprised that only 25% of the aid sent to Afghanistan has been gobbled up by corrupt government officials and warlords. These are people who may live a day away from the nearest road, have no plumbing or electricity, no bank accounts and no real connection to the government. Even if money got to people, there are plenty of folks who will happily extort it from them.
The bottom line is that it took Afghanistan decades to get this bad, and it will (optimistically) take them decades to get better. Nothing happens overnight.
What makes anybody think that U.S. money would actually get to individual farmers? Are we going to send soldiers house to house to run surveys on acreage?
What would happen is exactly what happens today. Huge amounts of the money would be siphoned off at higher levels. If we suddenly decided to pour in more pure money, then the skimming rate would soar proportionally. There is simply no realistic chance that we could get enough money directly to the people growing the opium to disrupt the overall market.
That’s why these simplistic plans have never worked. The plans that do work are more subtle, take much longer, and are harder to sell to the public. Find alternate sources of income that are outside the criminal revenue stream. Build up infrastructure like schools and roads. Make life safer. Increase foreign trade. None of them are sexy and simple and they will take a decade and lots of dedicated personnel willing to work in Afghanistan.
It’s not anything I’d volunteer to do. But pouring money on a problem like this doesn’t work even in the U.S. Why would anybody think it would work in Afghanistan?
Actually, it’s my understanding that heroin isn’t especially destructive on a purely physical level. It’s all the garbage that the smugglers/dealers cut it with that does the damage. Medical quality heroin made in a real lab doesn’t do the kind of damage street drugs do, because you aren’t injecting concrete dust or whatever along with the heroin.
In the late 1970s the U.S. sprayed herbicides in Mexicoto kill drug crops and eliminate the trade.
Look how successful that was.
But there are loads of negative social consequences associated with doing heroin.
I’ll also add that the large majority of incidences of HIV/AIDS in Russia are caused by needle sharing - injecting heroin from Afghanistan.
Meh. Heroin addicts don’t want to do anything, ever again, but lie around high. They’re pretty completely removed from society until they waste away.
No, Tasmanian Alkaloids, in Australia and owned by J&J, claim to be the worlds largest exporter of Thebaine and Oripavine. Which, in turn would infer they aren’t the largest producer.
Thanks for the correction! BTW, I googled, and Wikipedia has an interesting little subsection on the legal production of opium, including some info on the potential of legalizing Afghanistan’s poppy cultivation.
Isn’t there a level where prices are too high for them to make any profit? Just simple math tells us that at a certain point, supply and demand switch and profit is no longer made. No matter how much the smugglers pay for their drugs, the US government can pay 10 times more. Sell it to us, then we turn the drugs into garbage or make it into something useful. Eventually, the smugglers will have to sell their product at such a high level they won’t have enough people who can afford them, or they’ll cut the prices and lose money on every sale. Why can’t it work? The government, not just the US, but everyone who has an interest in seeing the drug trade stopped can pay much higher prices for the same thing than the smugglers can ever dream of
The argument is that people who are addicted to a drug won’t stop because they can’t afford it. They’ll just move on to more creative methods of getting financing/drugs, like stealing and threatening people.
I would expect that if the U.S. were to buy the existing opium crop for medical use, the farmers would just grow more of it - some to sell to the U.S. and the rest to sell to the Taliban.
Most of that is just a consequence of the illegality and consequent high price of the drug. It’s perfectly possible to be a morphine/heroin/opiate addict and function in society, as long as you can get opiates safely and cheaply. Of course it’s also perfectly possible to drop out of society and die, but it’s not inevitable.
It’s tougher to be a functioning heroin addict than it is to be a functioning methadone addict. The heroin high is just so intense that it tends to stop all other goal-oriented activity from occurring. And once habituation to the high kicks in and the dose escalates, heroin’s half-life is short enough that most of the time is spent getting the next dose.
Legal heroin/syringes would mitigate this somewhat, but having someone clock out of the job every 2-4 hours to shoot up, then be on the nod for about 20-30 minutes, would be disruptive.
Methadone, on the other hand, can be dosed as infrequently as once a day, and the high is not nearly so euphoria-inducing as heroin.
There’s also a proposal to license the farmers to produce opium legally. An argument advanced in favor of this is that opiates are therapeutically underutilized in many countries due to local expense, scarcity or whatever. I imagine though that they would still need to lower the crop price to one considerably below the black market level.