RSS Feed MenuMuch has been written about the “poppy eradication” efforts mounted by the US government, urged on the Karzai government, and opposed by just about everyone else – from our NATO allies in the theater, to most of the Afghan people.
Indeed, poppy cultivation is a problem. While Afghanistan has been growing the stuff for centuries, cultivation exploded after the 1979 Soviet invasion. Sales of the cash crop on the international heroin black market were used to finance the war. Naturally, once the warlords got used to the income stream, they were loath to give it up once the war was over. With the rise of the Taliban, much of that money ended up in our enemies’ hands, where it still flows today. For, though the Taliban are out of power in Kabul, its influence is strong in much of the country, in particular the Pakistani borderland area that has become Terrorist Central since the fall of the Taliban government and the defeat of al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia.
So even if you think the war on drugs is a pointless waste, you should be concerned that poppy cultivation is financing our enemies and may well finance another 9/11.
But is eradication the way to go? It greatly angers the local population, of whom by no means all are in league with or sympathetic to the Taliban. The Karzai government is publicly ambivalent but privately opposed, though it is loath to contradict an American government on which it depends for vital support. It certainly does not help the eradication effort, which means we have to do the dirty work ourselves, chiefly aerial spraying of the herbicide glyphosate. Spraying, critics argue, impoverishes farmers with no alternative ways to make a living, drives people into the arms of the Taliban, and reminds them of the (reported but never confirmed) Soviet chemical weapons sprays of the early 1980s.
And in return we get … an end to the heroin trade? Right.
Maybe it’s time to think of another solution. Opium has a legitimate use, after all, in medicinal morphine used by hospitals all over the world as a pain killer. Why not set up a program that makes Afghanistan the world’s preferred producer of medicinal opiates. They don’t even have to learn to refine the stuff to our standards, although that would be nice – for them. Just agree to sell us the crop. Let Karzai administer the program and dole out the cash. He can use it to make friends, influence people, and increase the sway of his administration. All things he desperately needs.
Now, it may well be – perhaps it is even inevitable – that this will distort the opiates market, and that we will end up buying far more than we need. Well – so what? Let’s take a cue from US agricultural policy. The USDA pays American farmers billions every year not to grow food, but to grow food that gets destroyed, or to grow food that is warehoused and never eaten. Why can’t we do the same for Afghan opiates? Who cares if we don’t need it. We could store it or bin it, whatever. That’s not the point. The point is that for a very nominal cost we could remove a major irritant between our forces and the Afghan people.
I realize this is an idea so obvious that it must be wrong. I just want to know why.
MSheridan // Jan 27, 2009 at 12:12 pm
It sounds reasonable to me. I’m sure the warlords make huge profits off it by paying the farmers minimal prices for their crops. However, if their profit margin is big enough that they could afford to outbid what we’re willing to pay (and I have no idea if that is possible), then all we’d be doing is further encouraging poppy cultivation. I’d be interested to hear from someone with detailed (outside) knowledge of the trade.
R.E. Munn // Jan 27, 2009 at 1:24 pm
This is so obvious that I have often wondered why it wasn’t done long ago. But it is also obvious to me that if we decriminalized drugs in the US, we would be way ahead of the problem, which many, maybe even most, do not see as a viable option, usually based on some morally founded misconception.
Dave in NYC // Jan 27, 2009 at 1:27 pm
I have always thought the war on drugs has been farcical. It alienates local impoverished populations against the USA and on our side of the border makes the product ever more valuable with an every ready group of folks who will risks thier hides to get a piece of the action. It is an idea that is worth a try. The mindset regarding the war on drugs has been too brittle and puritanical. Our interest in interrupting the Taliban’s source of income from heroin production should override our priggishness against being seen as condoning narcotics. Besides, with the extra opium on our hands we could put it Congress’ oatmeal—sure wouldn’t do any harm.
JoetheVeep // Jan 27, 2009 at 3:00 pm
First government cheese, now government heroin. Somehow the idea of government warehouses full of heroin has great comic appeal. I agree with the policy, and the product is legal some places. The politics require a little thought. Opium subsidies seem easily demagogable at first blush. MSheridan, I’d be more interested to hear from someone with inside knowledge.
MSheridan // Jan 27, 2009 at 3:15 pm
JoetheVeep, I think the original poster was suggesting using the opium to make legal medicinal opiates rather than heroin. As for the outside/inside knowledge thing, I figured someone with truly inside knowledge of the drug trade might lack credibility. [smile]
suey // Jan 27, 2009 at 4:19 pm
End the war on drugs.
jmshendricks // Jan 27, 2009 at 5:37 pm
I think this is a great idea but I have never seen it mentioned anywhere before. It splits the difference between legalizing drugs (not a good idea) and continuing doing things they way they are now, which has a lot of room for improvement.
hopita // Jan 27, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Glad to see that Buckley’s ability to find fresh solutions hasn’t died out entirely. Why not do the same with Colombia?
sinz54 // Jan 27, 2009 at 6:57 pm
What’s wrong with it is the law of supply and demand, something every conservative should know. If the U.S. shows itself willing to purchase most of the existing poppy crop from Afghanistan, the Afghans will simply treat America as one more customer. They will grow even more poppy, hiding the rest away and continuing to sell this to organized crime and narco-terrorists. This will lead to a vicious spiral, in which America will have to buy even more of this expanded poppy supply, and the Afghans will produce yet more. The reason that the USDA can successfully pay U.S. farmers not to grow food, is that the overwhelming majority of U.S. farmers are law-abiding. If they sign an agreement not to grow any more in exchange for a subsidy, they will abide by the agreement, thus keeping the supply fixed. There is no such guarantee with the tribes in the wilds of Afghanistan.
manton // Jan 27, 2009 at 7:11 pm
sinz: I thought of that, but I guess my response is “We have that now.” I am not convinced either way on the wisdom or unwisdom of the drug war. I am sympathetic to the Buckley/Friedman position, but also concerned that legalization would lead to massive increases in usage. However, this strikes me as a much easier case. Even if we got gamed by a lot of warlords — as surely we would — wouldn’t the net effect on the global herion trade be marginal? And wouldn’t that be outweighed by the security gains in Afghanistan?
Egli Ha // Jan 27, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Your suggestion is not just sensible, it’s absolutely essential and should be one of our highest medical priorities.
The Baby-Boom is reaching the age of chronic pain. We will need every microgram of every kind of pain killer we can raise.
We should be paying Afganistan not just to grow poppies, but to export seeds as well.
gospelance // Jan 27, 2009 at 8:29 pm
we use poppy-based products already in meds; Maybe the Afghans would enjoy becoming a major trader with the West. They could feel like a “player.”who knows where it could lead.
HHomer // Jan 28, 2009 at 7:04 am
How refreshing to have some new thinking on an intractable problem. Alongside a legal poppy trade could be a subsidy for other crops – paying an Afghan farmer to grow wheat would be al of a lot cheaper than trying to stop heroin traffickers. This has several advantages – the wheat would help feed the Afghan population, give farmers a reliable income and if the farmers grew more wheat to get more subsidy it would remove the acreage available for poppy cultivation.