Well, we sorta brought democracy. Let's bring the drug war, too.

[erislover]

As I may have mentioned before (to all my adoring fans who dote on every word I say), I am signed up on a pro-legalization mailing list. I try and take some of what they say with a grain of salt, but in this case I think the stupidity is fairly obvious.

We are pushing the war on drugs in Afghanistan harder. Gotta kill those poppies! (Maybe we should plant hemlock instead as a nice, safe alternative?) Heroin! Bad stuff!

Too bad, like South America, a large portion of the population makes a living off this plant. I guess they’ll just vote themselves rich, instead?

There are conflicting reports that aerial spraying has already commenced (http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/365/afghanistan.shtml), but what is certain at this point is that manual eradication of the opium crop is already underway – and that it is leading to a bitter harvest indeed. According to a report in the Pakistan Tribune datelined Jalalabad – not Washington – farmers in Nangahar whose crops have been destroyed have been reduced to selling their daughters to opium dealers who financed their crops. “I cannot pay you in any other way – take my daughter,” said Gul Miran, 42, to the dealer who had lent him $1,000 to start his plot. But the government had ploughed over his fields, leaving him with no way to repay the loan.

“I accepted the girl in return for my loan,” said dealer Haji Naqibullah. “We had an agreement. He would pay me back regardless of whether his crops were wiped out by the weather or the government. In a year or 18 months, I will marry her off to my youngest son,” he said. “He is 19 years old and has been married to his first wife for two years, but has not had a child yet.”

Now, I don’t know if this is supposed to be characterisitc of the results, or a “worst of the worst used for emphasis.” Frankly, I’m going with the latter. But in any case, a different article makes what I think is the salient point:

But if we care about Afghanistan’s political stability – and that is one of the primary state goals of administration policy – chopping down the poppy crop would be a supremely bad move, let alone burning it down with chemical poisons dropped from the air. What better way to push the vast numbers of Afghans who are economically dependent on opium into the arms of our enemies? What better way to foment social instability? That is the effect it has had, after all, in nations where it has been tried with coca. The difference in Afghanistan is that the number of people doing the growing is even larger. More importantly, they are hardened by decades of war, and they’re not hesitant about accepting what they perceive as an invitation to a fight.

Say what you like about the morality of drugs, about the costs we pay as a society. At least it is our society. How many other countries do we have to screw with before the rest of the world reacts negatively? When are American political leaders going to put all the law enforcement officers currently combatting the war on drugs to something useful, like preventing real crime? I don’t know. Rhetorical questions not meant for debate.

But what is up for question here is: what will we see happen in Afghanistan from this? What lessons could we have learned (or did we learn) (or are we learning) from South America? Is this a move that will help America and Afghanistan both, or hurt us both, or some other combination?

Last estimate put the worldwide drug industry at 150 billion dollars. It was expected that Sony would sell 100 million PS2s in 2003, for comparison, which would put the video game industry overall probably around 7-10 billion. Think about that next time you’re looking at the shelves in Target.

It should be clear that we simply cannot combat that kind of market force without the costs being enormously high. And as we can see, the costs–for us in the US and others around the globe–have been high. We’ve taken the fight to Afghanistan for an unrelated reason, but hey, now that we’re there, might as well tackle that opium problem, right? But I think we will be creating a problem as well, as the articles roughly outline. We are definitely messing with forces we have not shown any sign of being able to control with force: terrorism, and drugs. They meet in Afghanistan. What will the outcome be?

Even as a best case, where Afghanistan moves on to produce soy or plastic flowers for mass consumption and gives up its wicked ways for a life of dutiful worship of… whatever, street price of heroin increases here in the US, and crime increases correspondingly in order to pay the price. But if we can’t control heroin users here in the states (or marijuana, or meth, or…), what on earth makes us think we could do anything in a significanly less friendly environment like, oh, another country?

Will this foster more hatred of America?

[SentientMeat]

I remember reading an Economist (?) article which tried to assess the viability and economic cost associated with the US or its Allies simply buying every last poppy direct from the farmers and supplying its own addicts with cheap, unadulterated heroin on prescription for $2 a dose in a registered clinic and burning the rest. I think the conclusion was that this would be many, many times cheaper than the current policy.

If there is a War Against Drugs, the first rule of war is to do that which your enemy least wants you to do. The thing which scares drug-dealers most is not the Law, but Legalisation.

[Ravenman]

@erislover

Will this foster more hatred of America?

As a liberal, I get tired of hearing about the “blame America first” crowd, but isn’t this exactly what the OP is doing?

Did it ever occur to you the AFGHANISTAN has laws against opium production? Why are you blaming the US for Afghan laws?

[erislover]

Did it ever occur to you the AFGHANISTAN has laws against opium production?

Frankly, the thought of Afghanistan enforcing its laws in the state it is in is, to me, a little absurd. Apparently, the money we’re redirecting to combat opium poppy in Afghanistan shows the facts are with me, not some scribbles on paper that warlords just happen to overlook when it is convenient for them.

As to the prior question:

As a liberal, I get tired of hearing about the “blame America first” crowd, but isn’t this exactly what the OP is doing?

Yes, I blame America for the stupid American drug war. Who should I be blaming?

[Ravenman]

@erislover

Who should I be blaming?

Afghanistan maintains the laws against opium cultivation that have always been on the books. Not America’s fault.

Farmer makes decision to violate Afghan law to grow opium. Not America’s fault.

Opium dealers come to collect and farmer can’t pay. Not America’s fault.

Farmer offers daughter instead of money. Not America’s fault.

Funds from opium sales used to support warlords and Al Qaeda to fight a legitimately elected Afghan government. Not America’s fault.

That bit you posted in the OP about the US should intervene to legalize opium in Afghanistan to make more farmers happy with the Afghan government is exactly the sort of Big Brother Knows Best attitude that makes Americans think they should have full run of other countries. I see no difference between the proposition that the US should intervene to make opium legal in Afghanistan and the idea that the US should invade countries solely for the purpose of installing a new government. People should have the right to run their own country the way they want it run; not the way that Americans want them to run it. The suggestion made in the OP is nothing more than pro-drug imperialism.

[Jake_the_Plumber]

@Ravenman

Afghanistan maintains the laws against opium cultivation that have always been on the books. Not America’s fault.

Farmer makes decision to violate Afghan law to grow opium. Not America’s fault.

Actually, it is America’s fault. We failed completely to provide Afghanistan with a functional government capable of enforcing its laws outside of Kabul after overthrowing a previous regime. This kind of thing did happen under the Taliban, but it is now much more widespread, since we never really got the country under control in the first place. The anarchy there is our responsibility.

[David_Simmons]

@Jake the Plumber

Actually, it is America’s fault. We failed completely to provide Afghanistan with a functional government capable of enforcing its laws outside of Kabul after overthrowing a previous regime. This kind of thing did happen under the Taliban, but it is now much more widespread, since we never really got the country under control in the first place. The anarchy there is our responsibility.

Yes, as I said in a post (that was criticised and maybe rightly so) I expected a kind of mini-Marshll Plan for Afghanistan to help them get back on whatever feet they have. Instead we got rid of the government they had, managed to police Kabul and a few other places so they could install something to replace it and left to go chasing after “democracy in Iraq.”

And, if we urge the Afghan government to destroy the crop and provide the means to do it then yes, we do bear some responsibility for the outcome.

[erislover]

@Ravenman

Afghanistan maintains the laws against opium cultivation that have always been on the books. Not America’s fault.

Which government was that? We’re talking about a country that had no control of itself. I can hardly blame anyone for engaging in rational behavior… in Afghanistan. Money? Easy crop? I consider that a no-brainer. Grow it. Like mad. Better than starving.

That bit you posted in the OP about the US should intervene to legalize opium in Afghanistan to make more farmers happy with the Afghan government is exactly the sort of Big Brother Knows Best attitude that makes Americans think they should have full run of other countries.

The US should stop its war on drugs–I believe that without a moment’s reservation. It is a war that cannot be won. Period. Obvious by inspection. We go to that country, wage a war, fail to instate a government capable of defending these laws, and… but I see that point has already been made.

I see no difference between the proposition that the US should intervene to make opium legal in Afghanistan and the idea that the US should invade countries solely for the purpose of installing a new government.

I see no one suggesting that. I do see an OP suggesting that we shouldn’t spend money to torch crops that are people’s livelihood. If Afghanistan wants to fight the war on drugs, let them fight it. I did see an OP ask whether this activity would increase hostility towards America, whether it would cause more problems like a similar policy has in South America. Sure you’re in the right thread?

The suggestion made in the OP is nothing more than pro-drug imperialism.

I see.

[Ravenman]

@erislover

I can hardly blame anyone for engaging in rational behavior… in Afghanistan. Money? Easy crop? I consider that a no-brainer. Grow it. Like mad. Better than starving.

And I suppose losing one’s daughter to drug lords is just the cost of business, too. Oh, right, but that’s the fault of the United States. Those farmers can’t possibly bear any responsibiity for getting mixed up in an illicit enterprise and having bad things come about because of that. :rolleyes:

We go to that country, wage a war, fail to instate a government capable of defending these laws… If Afghanistan wants to fight the war on drugs, let them fight it.

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. You blame the US for not establishing an Afghan government that is fully capable of governing its whole territory, and then you blame the US for contemplating about doing something about the drug trade that funds the warlords that keep the Afghan government out of much of its territory. I can’t tell if you think the warlords involved in the drug trade are a good or a bad thing for Afghanistan? Which is it, let the opium fields and the warlords flourish? Or support the Afghan government by helping them crack down on these criminals?

I did see an OP ask whether this activity would increase hostility towards America, whether it would cause more problems like a similar policy has in South America. Sure you’re in the right thread?

Seems like that question is based upon a whole lot of faulty – or at least debatable – propositions. In any case, I’m not overly concerned about what criminals think about the foreign policy of the United States.

[erislover]

@Ravenman

And I suppose losing one’s daughter to drug lords is just the cost of business, too. Oh, right, but that’s the fault of the United States.

Who said that?

Those farmers can’t possibly bear any responsibiity for getting mixed up in an illicit enterprise and having bad things come about because of that. :rolleyes:

Who said that?

You blame the US for not establishing an Afghan government that is fully capable of governing its whole territory, and then you blame the US for contemplating about doing something about the drug trade that funds the warlords that keep the Afghan government out of much of its territory.

I didn’t blame anyone for anything in the OP. I asked, quite directly, if spending money in Afghanistan to further the US’s war on drugs was going to cause more problems than it solved.

Or support the Afghan government by helping them crack down on these criminals?

Would that I lived in such a black and white world.

In any case, I’m not overly concerned about what criminals think about the foreign policy of the United States.

When a farmer’s son takes his idle time to support terrorism because he perceived his situation is caused by US interference, I hope you raise your concern level a hair.

Did you think the Taliban were great for enforcing this law? Or is this evidence that the issue is actually a bit more complex than that?

For the record:
US’s drug war: US’s fault
Extreme profitibility of drugs in US markets: result of US’s drug war: US’s fault
Actively interfering in what little economy a country has in order to support some law which has no economic benefit: downright silly.

None of which was really related to my OP. But at least we’re clear on where I stand on such tangential issues. My favorite movie is “True Romance,” by the way, and I like to eat pie after seeing it.

[Ludovic]

I don’t really see what’s so wacky about taking the extra step of interceding in the production of opium poppies. After all, if opiates were fully legal in the United States, opium would be worth far less as a cash crop to the Afghanis: in effect, our drug laws are subsidizing their incomes.

If we were to legalize opiates, it would have the opposite effect of outsourcing: destroying jobs overseas and moving them back to the U.S. (granted, at the same time as eliminating drug enforcement positions.) The same would also be true of marijuana, but not cocaine as it has specific climate needs (but would greatly reduce the cost farmers would gain from it.)

When taken just from a drug war perspective, I don’t see how we are harming or hurting poppy-growing Afghanis in the balance.

[Ravenman]

@erislover

Who said that?

You’ve quite clearly blamed the effects stemming from a crackdown on the Afghan drug trade on the United States. As in, if the farmers have trouble getting paid for their cash crop of opium, they’ll blame the United States and forment more tumult. The only reasonable conclusion I can draw from those premises is that the United States is responsible for the woe of opium farmers.

However, if I’ve got your position wrong, and you agree with me that the United States should not be held responsible for this farmer turning over his kid to drug lords, feel free to state that.

I didn’t blame anyone for anything in the OP.

Then you wrote in a subsequent post that you blamed the US for not establishing an Afghan government that had control over the entire country, did you not?

I realize that you’d rather debate a very narrow question of the US and the war on drugs, but when you raise this issue in the context of Afghanistan, it would be ignoring the elephant in the room if one does not acknowledge the intimate link between drugs and the warlords who are the direct and unquestioned cause of the limited power of the Afghan government. Why is it that you failed to make even a passing mention of the warlords in your OP? How can you have any discussion of drugs and Afghanstan and ignore those who are most responsible for, and profit the most from, an illicit opium crop?

[erislover]

You brought up blame. In response, I talked about blame. Now I’m regretting that choice.

I want to debate the rather less than narrow topic of what good or bad effects this will have on the stability of the region and the impression it will leave about the US. This can be done without assigning blame. It can also be done by taking pot-shots at a policy I think is stupid, to wit, the war on drugs.

From the article I linked to:

After three years of relative inaction on the Afghan opium front, the US government announced a little over two weeks ago it was preparing to attack the trade.

From a seperate article,

According to “officials” cited by the [Washington] Post, the plan calls for shifting $700 million from other programs into Afghan anti-drug efforts next year.

[erislover]

And if you’d like alternative sources to help regain your focus, you can look at

@http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15641-2004Nov26.html

[The week prior to Nov 27th, 2004, the Bush administration] asked Congress to fund a $780 million offensive against Afghanistan’s opium trade.

The Afghan challenge is tougher by some measures than the Colombian one. In the Colombian case, drug revenue amounts to about 3.5 percent of legal economic output; in Afghanistan the share is more than 50 percent. The opium trade has boomed since the fall of the Taliban regime three years ago, generating payments to farmers of $2.2 billion in 2002-03, 15 times more than in the two years leading up to the Taliban’s departure. A determined counternarcotics offensive, particularly one that focuses on crop eradication, risks generating a backlash against the fragile democratic government.

Also, if the Cato Institute is more to your liking:

@http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2607

There is a growing tension between two U.S. objectives in Afghanistan. The most important objective is—or at least should be—the eradication of the remaining Al Qaeda and Taliban forces in that country. But the United States and its coalition partners are now also emphasizing the eradication of Afghanistan’s drug trade. These antidrug efforts may fatally undermine the far more important anti-terrorism campaign.

Like it or not, the growing of opium poppies (the source of heroin) is a huge part of Afghanistan’s economy—roughly half of the country’s annual gross domestic product. As long as the United States and other drugconsuming countries pursue a prohibitionist strategy, a massive black market premium exists that will make the cultivation of drug crops far more lucrative than competing crops in Afghanistan or any other drugsource country.

But why think about this issue when we can just label the farmers “criminals” and move on to the next debate. :rolleyes:

[Hamlet]

@erislover

But why think about this issue when we can just label the farmers “criminals” and move on to the next debate. :rolleyes:

There are many Afghans who do not want their countries economy to be dependant on the drug trade. Many of them think that the creation of a vast black-market economy will not only strangle the creation of a legitimate economy, but also have the end impact of enriching, not your poor little farmers, but violent warlords. These Afghans want a real, legitimate, legal economy, not one based on crime, violence, and terror.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@Jake the Plumber

Actually, it is America’s fault. We failed completely to provide Afghanistan with a functional government capable of enforcing its laws outside of Kabul after overthrowing a previous regime. This kind of thing did happen under the Taliban, but it is now much more widespread, since we never really got the country under control in the first place. The anarchy there is our responsibility.

The Taliban did manage to stop opium production near the end of their rule, and IIRC this resulted in kudos and backslapping from high officials in the U.S. government–which left a bitter taste in my mouth. One can only wonder how many more public executions in the Kabul Sports Stadium were the result.