Problem: Canadian forces in Afghanistan, who are there at America's request, are doing most of the fighting in the Kandahar region in the south. Their task is not being helped by the poppy eradication program. Americans have long had a hate on for opium and its derivative, heroin. Afghan opium production is a major source for the world's consumption. So, Westerners are plowing poppy crops under, thereby taking bread from the mouths of poor Afghan farmers and supplying recruits to the Taliban. Canada is now at war with the Taliban. Solution: Buy the poppy crop. Give the required amount of product to legitimate pharmaceutical firms for production of morphine and other medical products. This would be a very small percentage of the crop. Burn the rest. Ensure that payment for the crop goes to the actual farmers. Send in a team of agronomists to determine the best possible crop substitutes. Start a program of crop substitution and ensure that Afghan farmers are paid for the new, substitute crop, whatever that may be. Since the heroin addiction problem is worldwide, funds to buy up the crop should be solicited from countries which have the most addicts. The United States comes to mind. Results: Fewer dead and wounded Canadian and allied soldiers. (News flash: getting killed or wounded in battle is painful.) Fewer dead Afghans. Less fear and hate in the region. Increased likelihood of non-military, negotiated solutions to Afghan problems. Fewer dollars spent. Less opium product available for the world's heroin refiners. Less income to Cosa Nostra and friends.
western europe doesnt come to mind? 80% of Afghan heroin ends up there. Pakistan an Iran have the highest rate of addicts, somewhere close to 10%. Russia isnt far behind them.
Why are we there? Canada is in Afghanistan at the request of the democratically elected government, along with 36 other nations, and as part of a UN-sanctioned mission to help build a stable, democratic, and self-sufficient society. About 2500 members of the Canadian Forces (CF) are currently serving as part of Joint Task Force Afghanistan (JTF AFG). They play a key role in the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mission whose goal is to improve the security situation in Afghanistan and assist in rebuilding the country. Canada’s continued engagement in Afghanistan helps create the conditions for longer-term reconstruction. All CF operations in Afghanistan are conducted with the consent and at the request of the Afghan government to:http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1703#athena
I find it interesting (actually contradictary), that other countries say are trying to support the "democracy" in Afghanistan but yet they then tell them what they can grow and what they can't, and enforce it with their military. Obviously if the majority of farmers choose to grow opium over other crops, how can that be called democratic?
PEOPLE... the US is totally involved in the illegal drug trade in Afghanistan. That is one of the many reasons we invaded. After we invaded Afghanistan, the poppy production rose by 25-50%. All this stuff about poppy eradiction is simply PROPAGANDA to divert your attention from what's really going on! There is tons of money being made by the CIA there. Seriously folks, if they were serious about this so-called "poppy eradication" program, how come were are seeing the production increase with every passing year?
Why should the product be given to the parmaceutical firms, they are the ones that have been supporting it's production for years. Sell it to them at an inflated cost. Price it like they do their vaccines... based on the number of lives their vaccines save every year...not balanced against their actual costs of pennies per dose. I am sorry that Canadian and other coalition troops are being lost. I really am. This was something that was orchestrated by America's rich and it should be fought and lost by them soley.
It was the Taliban that was against the opium and hash production in Afghanistan. Growing them is part of their culture, and has been for a least centuries.
It won't work like that. Say an acre of poppies, sold to heroin producers, makes a farmer a hundred dollars (hypothetical). To reduce heroin, the American government, rather than simply destroying the field, offer to buy it at a higher price (say one hundred and fifty dollars). This in turn will decrease the supply sold to heroin producers, simply driving up the price until it is higher than one hundred and fifty dollars - simply resulting in poppies being more expensive. It would a) encourage more farmers to grow them (which is a problem in and of itself, similar to other cash crops such as coffee) instead of more necessary but less valuable agricultural productsa and b) raise the price of heroin, hurting addicts. Substance abuse problems such as this need to be treated on the demand-side (such as increased education and harm-reduction programs) rather than on the supply-side.
I agree, spooner. Look at the entire history of prohibition of drugs in the U.S.(or anywhere else), going after the supply side almost never makes a difference in what drugs people want and do. If there was no demand there would be no supply.
Your are assuming that demand is a constant independent of price, and that supply is an elastic function of price. Economics is not that simple. First, the demand side: The addicts hurt. Big deal. They'll hurt more when they get that hot shot, the hit that ends the ball game. My heart bleeds. Also, demand is not a constant independent of price. Look at how tobacco addicts are forced to pay for their fix. If government taxes were removed, we'd have a lot more sick nicotine addicts around. Second, the supply side. We can say to the farmers, we'll pay you for your opium crop for the next three years, but we'll be paying you less each year, and if your uncle is caught transporting poppies for sale to anyone else we'll shoot all his camels. At the same time, we will provide barley (for example) seeds free of charge, and we will provide irrigation water for barley growers only. We will also buy barley at a guaranteed rate. These are only some rough ideas of mine, and I don't have any degrees in sociology or economics. But is what we're doing now, working? Seems to me there's a war on.
About the 36 other nations and the UN-sanctioned mission: Are you trying to tell me that if Uncle Sam pulled out of Afghanistan, these other 36 nations (other than the U.S.) would be there 24 hours later? Give me a break. Canada is the puppet of the United States in this region. It will continue to do whatever the U.S. wants as long as Mr Harper is in office. As for the Afghan government, it is in office as a result of the JTF effort. If it could remain in office and function without the JTF (U.S. and puppet) mission, the JTF mission wouldn't be there, would it?
Except that addictive drugs, similar to alcohol and cigarettes, are highly price inelastic. ie: the demand for the end product is inelastic, so the demand for intermediaries tends to be similar. Hence the harm-reduction policies. There are relatively few health risks associated with heroin that do not arise from an addict life-style. Despite your judgements, these are still people. Simply cutting them off without treating them is an archaic notion of drug policy. So you're suggesting a combination of temporary incentives for alternatives, and increased supply-costs for opium. It will probably only push supply down slightly. The fact is, if there is lots money to be made supplying heroin producers, people are going to fill the gap. Until you can deal with that problem, people are to ignore alternatives.
Yes, they would be there, they would all be dead, but there. i doubt they would last 24 hours tho Canada has been in Afghan, way before Harper came into office.
Any suppression of supply of opium/heroin, just doesn't work, it always just pops up somewhere else (and usually bigger then before), as evident throughout the history of the trade. What is needed is a new approach, which would be to address the demand side, as Spooner mentioned. And if it makes any difference, most heroin in the U.S. comes form Mexico and South America, so anything done in Afghanistan would make little or no differnece to U.S. addicts/users.
Ever wonder why it just pops up somewhere else. It's profitable. Not to the user, think again. Hey and now we are working towards making transportation even easier for illegal trade through Mexico with the formation of the SPP. We have taken out the Taliban and their restrictions on it's cultivation. Who's profitting? And who's bolstering the trade?
