I wanted to put this in GQ, but I figured it might turn into a debate since I guess there really is no way to tell what the truth is.
Up until 9/11 the only two “good” things I had heard about the Taliban, were that they had cut down on rape and signifigantly reduced the poppy fields. It seems to me that the Taliban has instantly been turned into drug traffickers as well as terrorists now.
So what’s the Straight Dope? Is the Taliban anti-drug or are they dealing?
The Taliban are extremely conservative Muslims. They seem to want to take back Islam and Afghanistan to a purer time, perhaps somewhere in the middle ages. They institute very strict interpretations of the Koran into secular laws (this would assumably preclude drug dealing).
I’ve also been told that the largest cash crop of Afghanistan is (and has been for some time) the poppy.
Yes, it is a bit of a contradiction. I’m frankly amazed that the GWB administration and the press haven’t talked up the “Taliban==drug dealer” angle more (at least as far as I’ve seen).
They’re apparently still dealing. Although this year’s poppy crop was halted, they apparently still have stockpiles that are still being refined in storage around the country. Those stockpiles are what the military is thinking about going after, according to the CNN report I saw a few days ago. Since it’s coming up on winter in Afghanistan, I don’t think there are any opium fields to go after right now. Besides, they’d be a bitch to take out with cruise missiles anyway. 
Hmpph. Yep, those Taliban joes are Really Pious Muslims: Women can’t show thier ankles, thieves get thier hands chopped, and so forth. Gotta follow all the strict-Islamic-Koran interpretations to the letter.
But selling heroin to the infidel is okay. Interesting moral values over there.
During a CNN interview with a semi-Muslim extremist, the interviewee revealed that it was a sin to sell heroin only if one is selling to Muslims.
It’s not as off-base as it may seem. Muslims arn’t supposed to spend their days lounging around opium dens because it is forbidden, not because opium in inherently evil. So it follows that it is okay to do anything you want with opium as long as you don’t do what is forbidden (smoke it). Makes sense to me.
IIRC, the Taliban was actually receiving money from the US government to help them fight poppy farming, but that has since gone away.
In view of the extreme economic isolation that Afghanistan is now undergoing, I find it almost impossible to believe that the Taleban will not find some convenient excuse to resume production of opium and the heroin therefrom. The flow of hard cash this generates will be sorely needed as soon as they run low on ammunition. I would bet the farm on them temporarily rescinding or “de-emphasizing” enforcement of the ban. We’re talking about the millions of dollars needed to run a war machine. Nothing else in the entire country produces that sort of revenue.
If we (the U.S.) is at War with the Taliban because they are harboring Public Enemy No. 1, why do we even care if they deal drugs? Personally, I don’t think we need any more moral judgements about what they do, since they are already seen by us as low on morals (Harboring terrorists, vicious treatment of people in general, etc.).
It may be of strategic importance to cut off their source of funds, but I hardly think we should care on moral grounds about their drug deals, especially since many Americans disagree on legality of drugs, and most Westerners do as well.
Just my 2 dimes, minus eight pennies.
Supposedly Afghanistan represents 75% of the world’s Heroin production. The Taliban claimed to have started cutting back on production but still claims over 50 million dollars in taxes received from poppy growers.
The sad thing is, they forsake prime farm land which could be used for feeding their own people, and instead use it to grow poppies.
No doubt part of the “rebuilding” process if and when we overthrow the Taliban will be to reclaim that land for food for the people … which will mean we’ll probably see a large number of heroin addicts joining the ranks of the “anti-war” protestors. 
I have a cite for what I am about to write but unfortunately my wife is the one with the link and I can’t get ahold of her right now. I will provide it once I get it.
I believe it was in May (this year) when the Bush administration promised $43 million to the Taliban to aid it in its fight against drugs.
What really gets me about this is what price we place on our totally ineffective war on drugs. Obviously this was long before the WTC attacks but the US knew UbL was hanging out in Afghanistan with at least the tacit approval of the Taliban.
Worse, in my eyes, is supporting government that is almost as hideous and oppressive as they come. Afghanistan’s strict interpretation of Islamic law even makes the Iranians cringe and worry about them and Iranians are a pretty devout lot. Think of a Christian fundamentalist that would make a Quaker think they were off their rocker and you have a sense of this.
But hell…anything must be ok in the name of the War on Drugs.
If their is a silver lining to this whole WTC/Afghani war I hope it is a more reasonable and consistent approach to what foreign governments should NOT get support no matter how convenient they are to a US political issue du jour.
This was discussed in this thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=88156
Your statement is phrased in a way that’s a little strange. The Bush admin did give $43 million in humanitarian aid, not to “aid in its fight against drugs”, but rather to provide assistance to the people of Afghanistan. Here’s the CNN article: http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/05/17/us.afghanistan.aid/
Note that the US didn’t give them any cash, but rather food and medicine.
Also note that, according to this site: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/af.html
We gave them $70 million (once again, I assume in food) in 1997.
Please note that I’m not arguing with that. But the situation is not as simple as “we gave money to scum”.
Just as a quick weigh-in: its my understanding that opiates have been historically popular with Moslems due to the fact that alcohol is strictly forbidden. After all, gettin’ high is a pretty basic human desire.
I’m not sure what the official Taliban line is on opiates, though.
Here’s an article
Um, no comments of my own to add here, but it’s an interesting article, and part of an interesting series.
Yes, it was food aid. No, it was not unrelated to (Paragraph 7) the War on Drugs. This explains the hyperbole about the aid which has flashed across the internet like California wildfire. I have read the “Bush Buddies With Taliban!!!” story dozens of times. Note: Mr Carnell is wrong in assuming the aid has nothing to do with the War on Drugs.
This strange connection of two seemingly unrelated things is called “linkage” in the foreign policy business, it happens all the time. It does not mean the aid was given without any supervision, or directly to the Taliban.