U.S. : Afghan poppy production doubles

[zimv20]

link (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/28/afghanistan.drugs.reut/index.html)


WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Poppy cultivation in Afghanistan doubled between 2002 and 2003 to a level 36 times higher than in the last year of rule by the Taliban, according to White House figures released Friday.

The area planted with poppies, used to make heroin and morphine, was 152,000 acres in 2003, compared with 76,900 acres in 2002 and 4,210 acres in 2001, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy said in a statement.

The Taliban was cracking down on poppy production in the year before the U.S. military drove the movement out of office in late 2001 in response to its friendship and cooperation with the al Qaeda organization of Osama bin Laden.

The new Afghan government, led by President Hamid Karzai, has not been able to impose its will in many areas of the country, which remain under the control of warlords.

(more)


i find it interesting that the taliban were WAY more effective at limiting opium output than the US is (not that that's the US' main goal in afghanistan, but there supposedly _is_ that War on Drugs).

should i assume that, in order to "win" a war on drugs, the US must resort to a taliban style of government?

or does a certain level of drug use go hand in hand w/ an open society?

[toontra]

Originally posted by zimv20 or does a certain level of drug use go hand in hand w/ an open society? [/B]

I doubt whether the US care too much about drug use in Afghanistan, open society or not.

What should worry them very deeply though is the impact this huge amount of exported heroin will have on the youngsters of the west, specifically the US & UK.

This could have been predicted. It's issues like this that should be weighed before invading countries, especially if there is any doubt as to whether you are prepared to stay "for the long term" to ensure destabilization caused by war is brought under control.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by toontra
I doubt whether the US care too much about drug use in Afghanistan, open society or not.


i'm afraid i was being vague in my post.

what i meant was -- there's supposedly this War on Drugs going on. part of that effort includes reducing the supply in foreign countries, but in afghanistan there's been a stunning increase in production.

the taleban, for all their faults, was able to minimize production. i'm wondering if, in order to secure that much control of drug use in the US, the US would have to resort to taleban-like levels of control.

if so, does that then imply that, in order to enjoy the current freedoms americans currently enjoy, does that necessarily imply a certain amount of drug use?

the 'open society' in my first post still referred to the US, not afghanistan.

[yamabushi]

Opiates have been a major source of revenue in Afganistan for a long time. The Taliban was in the odd position of both benefiting from the exports and attempting to reduce cultivation and sales.

[mactastic]

Opium traffiking also funds terrorism and the drug smugglers use the same routes that the weapons smugglers use, so allowing it to flourish is detrimental to those efforts. Problem is, how do we convince opium farmers to switch to less profitable crops?

[jonapete2001]

The war on drugs is a joke. It is a losing battle that can never be won. Even to classify it as a "war", is wrong. Watch the movie traffic and one will realize that the war on drugs is a war on ones children, brothers, parents, neighbors and general comunity.

I say they just make drugs legal and controlled. Then the government could collect huge taxes on them just like tobacco. What a great idea.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
The war on drugs is a joke. It is a losing battle that can never be won.

the only way, imo, to make headway is to remove / reduce the reasons people use. i've noticed that drug use (and crime) are inversely proportional to the strength of the economy.

iow, concentrate on improving people's standard of living.

and i'd make the same argument for the unwinnable "War on Terrorism"

[Ugg]

Originally posted by zimv20
the only way, imo, to make headway is to remove / reduce the reasons people use. i've noticed that drug use (and crime) are inversely proportional to the strength of the economy.

iow, concentrate on improving people's standard of living.

and i'd make the same argument for the unwinnable "War on Terrorism"

I'd go a step further and say that much of the drug use in this country is due to the phenomenal pressure to succeed that our society places on us. In addition to poorly thought out social programs that are in place to solve the problem instead of prevent it. We all know that Headstart is one of the most successful programs ever to come out of DC, yet gw has decided to "unleash" it and force those 3 and 4 year olds to become accountable for their places. Next thing you know the "anti-government" republican party is going to require means tests before anyone can become pregnant. If you can't support your child then you can't have one with no exceptions and accidents don't count.

Drug use is a product of a fractured society, not the other way around.

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by Ugg
I'd go a step further and say that much of the drug use in this country is due to the phenomenal pressure to succeed that our society places on us. In addition to poorly thought out social programs that are in place to solve the problem instead of prevent it. We all know that Headstart is one of the most successful programs ever to come out of DC, yet gw has decided to "unleash" it and force those 3 and 4 year olds to become accountable for their places. Next thing you know the "anti-government" republican party is going to require means tests before anyone can become pregnant. If you can't support your child then you can't have one with no exceptions and accidents don't count.

Drug use is a product of a fractured society, not the other way around.

I would even take it a step further and let people do what they want. If they want to use drugs let them. We let people use tobacco and tobacco. I would legalize drugs amoung adults.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
I would even take it a step further and let people do what they want. If they want to use drugs let them. We let people use tobacco and tobacco. I would legalize drugs amoung adults.

That's going a bit far. There are drugs that affect people in such a way that they become a serious danger to society.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
I would even take it a step further and let people do what they want. If they want to use drugs let them. We let people use tobacco and tobacco. I would legalize drugs amoung adults.

And yet you won't legalize marriage between two men. Let people do what they want only goes so far huh?

[K4NN4B15]

Did you watch the news in 2002? supply and demand....

lol

[SPG]

Just about everybody thinks they know why people use drugs. I don't. I have some ideas but since I've never been an addict I don't really know. Treating anyone who tries any kind of drug (except alcohol) as an automatic criminal definitely isn't the best method, look at the overcrowded prisons, look at the broken families. We should start by treating addiction as a health issue rather than a legal problem. I do not advocate legalizing all drug use, just decriminalizing some of it. Treat the addicts then start on reducing the reasons these same people become addicts. More opportunity for the less priveledged would be a start.

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by mactastic
And yet you won't legalize marriage between two men. Let people do what they want only goes so far huh?

Try to stay on topic. If you want to talk about gay marriage again, please do so in the other thread. These issues have nothing in common.

[SPG]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Try to stay on topic. If you want to talk about gay marriage again, please do so in the other thread. These issues have nothing in common.
You did say you'd like to let people do what they want. What does that include? What does that exclude? If you think it's okay for people to do whatever drugs they want regardless of the consequences to society, it's hard to not ask why other things that are far less damaging should be excluded.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Try to stay on topic. If you want to talk about gay marriage again, please do so in the other thread. These issues have nothing in common.

Deflection.

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by SPG
You did say you'd like to let people do what they want. What does that include? What does that exclude? If you think it's okay for people to do whatever drugs they want regardless of the consequences to society, it's hard to not ask why other things that are far less damaging should be excluded.

1. I do not believe drug use is bad for society.

I believe drugs are no different that tobacco and alcohol. If people want to use them, then they should be able to.

You see when i respond to something, the response is for that topic only. If you want to know my thoughts on gay marraige look in that thread. If you want to stay on topic and talk about drug use in america then that would be relavant to this thread!!!

Two different issues will usually get 2 different responses from me.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
1. I do not believe drug use is bad for society.


you should come live in a big city for a while.

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by zimv20
you should come live in a big city for a while.

Well I used to live in Milwaukee, if that counts. I just dont think drugs are a public problem. If they were legalized they could be controlled and taxed.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Well I used to live in Milwaukee, if that counts.

to be honest, chicago is starting to feel pretty small to me.

i disagree w/ your assessment. to use your legal example, alcohol has destroyed countless lives, both directly and indirectly. if that doesn't fulfill your definition of a 'public problem,' maybe we should discuss what you mean by that term.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Try to stay on topic. If you want to talk about gay marriage again, please do so in the other thread. These issues have nothing in common.

Oh I'm sorry Mr. High and Mighty. Have you been promoted to moderator lately?

And when I see a logical inconsistency in your arguement I'm going to point it out, on topic or not.

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Just a bit off topic, but do you ever get the sense that there are about 4 conservatives that visit this board and most of the time the liberals here are preaching to the choir

Looks like I'm not the only person who has wandered off-topic before. But did I order you around and tell you to post that drivel in your own thread? No. Please afford me the same respect.

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by mactastic
Oh I'm sorry Mr. High and Mighty. Have you been promoted to moderator lately?

And when I see a logical inconsistency in your arguement I'm going to point it out, on topic or not.



Looks like I'm not the only person who has wandered off-topic before. But did I order you around and tell you to post that drivel in your own thread? No. Please afford me the same respect.

**** you. You are some kind of arogant man. Just because you are an idiot dont let it bring you down.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
**** you. You are some kind of arogant man. Just because you are an idiot dont let it bring you down.

Well at least you are going out in style.

[Judo]

You crack me up jonapete2001.
How old are you?

Originally posted by jonapete2001
**** you. You are some kind of arogant man. Just because you are an idiot dont let it bring you down.

Hmmmm you seem a little angry. I think someone needs a hug.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Judo
You crack me up jonapete2001.
How old are you?

Ummm.... I don't think we'll be hearing from him anytime soon. Unless he goes the Ovi/San Felipe/G5Man route of course.

[Judo]

I found him quite entertaining.

Awwwwwww, can we keep him Arn can we.