Carl,
Agreed. Combine legalization with buying the crop and you've helped defeat the problem.
I don't think there are too many politicians willing to legalize opiates however.
I made this comment on another Afghan thread but it seems more appropriate here.
Nothing will work unless demand is eliminated. That is impossible. Too many people like the idea of feeling good the easy way and don't see anything wrong with it.
The demand combined with the illegal status of opium means big money; that mostly benefits the bad guys wherever they may be.
So, they thing to be done is remove the illegal part of the equation. That removes the big money from from the hands of the bad guys.
There will be social costs to this course of action. But on balance, I think the benefits outweigh the costs, both here and overseas.
Carl,
Agreed. Combine legalization with buying the crop and you've helped defeat the problem.
I don't think there are too many politicians willing to legalize opiates however.
Legalization is airy-fairy fantasy. I can't see the political capital mobilizing for it for another 20 years. It certainly will not happen because of a foreign war --- this is way too wrapped up in domestic politics.
Beyond that, there are quite lucrative markets to feed in Europe, China, Pakistan, Iran, etc. Most Afghan opium makes its way to Europe anyway --- I believe most of our heroin comes by way of Mexico and Colombia.
The ideal is for worldwide legalization, but that won't happen. The European countries are further along that road than we are. But if we were to do it, it would reduce the money available to the killers and at least it wouldn't be American troops thundering around the counryside upsetting the locals.
As far as Columbia goes, it would save the lives of a lot of Columbian officers who are going to get killed dealing with our problem.
For Afghan opium, the demand is predominantly in Russia, the former Soviet Republics, and into Western Europe. Pretty tough to eliminate demand in many of those areas.
I've read, with bittersweet irony, several accounts which said the Taliban in its final year of rule, under intense international pressure, was able nearly to halt opium exports. I suppose this was due to their ability to exercise authoritarian and draconian measures against farmers and traffickers.
Like Carl I see legalization as a solution--painful to be sure--that will ultimately come in one form or another. Fantasy when it comes to the "war on drugs" comes in programs like crop substitution using potatoes in Afghanistan or coffee in Columbia without addressing the demand (and the rewards for meeting that demand).
I know Slap: you think I am touched on this one. But add up the billions spent in the past couple of decades and then please balance the checkbook with a corresponding improvement that justifies that expenditure.
Tom
Tom, just a little touched. Awhile back I said almost the same words to the effect unless crop replacement pays the same it is futile. Me and I think it was Merv Benson talked about selling it (opium) to pharmaceutical companies for legal drug usage. There would be a tremendous benefit to that. But finally I said the Afgan drug war is not our war. How many times is the mission in Afgan going to change. 1st it was get OBL and AQ,then the Taliban, now we are going to start spraying round-up on their major cash crop with nothing to replace it long term. When does that new War czar start? He has some work to do.
Agree, mate, he does. But we are 5 years beyond where we should be formulating an answer to a problem we have largely ignored (or merely fervently wished would disappear). In those 5 years our answer has been that drugs in Afghanistan are a European problem; it was an expedient response to a problem that only grew until now when we cannot ignore it. The Taliban certainly did not ignore it as a source of funds. I mentioned potatoes above because I actually heard a brief some 2+ years ago that detailed the Brits' potato substitution effort. The briefer--and the audience around me--did not like it when I raised my hand and offered that "those must be some potatoes." Clearly I was supposed to keep drinking the Kool Aid. The War Czar indeed has his work cut out. First step: kick over the Kool Aid dispenser.
Tom
Tom, I should have sent or posted a reminder here but I forgot. Monday or Tuesday night on the National Geographic channel they had a great documentary on the drug war and how it worked very successfully in the early W's with what amounted to very effective "border control" what and idea!!! the only aggressive outside the country operations were extraditing major drug king pins to the US. Also had a lot of interviews with former drug dealers and users about how terrible this stuff is(designed to be addictive) this is not the regular stuff that it used to be!! which is why it should not be legalized in the US. I do believe if you are a user it should be decriminalized if you complete a 2 year in custody treatment program. Lou Dobbs talked about this the other night. If you sell the stuff to make money off other people's misery you need to go to jail!!!
The War on some Drugs in general is a waste of time, money and people.
The situation in Afghanistan seems superficially similar to the Peruvians dealing with the Shining Path. Army sweeps into control because the peasants generally want to grow their drugs in peace and the army lets them. Government brings in anti drugs operations and the Shining Path sweep back into power. Rinse and repeat.
The stuff was always addictive. If it is more so now, to be brutal about it, it is only a market response to consumer demand. The old unimproved version was just as effective a tool for a person to ruin their lives as the new improved model.
2 years in custody is a jail term by any other name. If we would jail users, it would have to be a certainty in their minds, that might, or might not work. How do you square "decriminalization" with a 2 year term in the pokey?
I don't feel sorry for the people who chose to ruin their lives via drug (or alchohol) use. They ones I've seen who did were never worth saving. To be brutal again, the people we are trying to save aren't worth all the money we are spending, lives we are losing and misery we are enduring trying to save them.
carl,decriminalization means you want have a felony rap sheet following you for the rest of your life if you complete the program. The difference in this program and what you might call regular prison was you were either in a job training program or school program during the day and returned to lock up at night. You had to have demonstrated job skills and life supporting skills before you got out of the program.
One of the biggest myths I saw as a cop was this so called magic demand that is built into Americans. It doesn't work that way. Usually happens when a friend gives you free samples and then you become hooked!! Then your friend will start charging you for it and that leads to the long downward spiral.
Right now, simple possesion is effectively decriminalized. If I remember correctly, a felony charge was associated with some indication of intent to sell. Job skills training for dealers doesn't seem like it would be effective.
I think the "magic demand" is built into human nature, especially the human nature of people with weak characters. It is very human to to want to feel good, right now, easy. Weak characters don't see next month or even tomorrow, they see the next hour or so and they want to feel good for that hour. For some it leads to a downward spriral; for others, the rich ones, it doesn't.
The demand is inately human and those who succumb to it are losers in any event so why are we running so hard to get nowhere?
If we were to heavily and immediately penalize simple use, that, I think would be very effective. You get caught with a rock, you go to jail the next day for 3 months guaranteed. Get caught with a joint, 1 month starting now, no exceptions. That sort of thing would get the attention of the user because there would be a very real possibility that his next hour will get fouled up.
A program like that would address the core issue, demand. But our society has not demonstrated a willingness to be that decisive. So since we aren't going to do anything about demand let's do something about the other part of the equation I mentioned, illegality.
part one:Not in all parts of the country, depends on the "type" of drug (which DEA schedule is the drug on) and "quantity" of drug in order to determine if it is felony possession or not. Possession with intent to sell or distribute is called Trafficking in my part of the Country.
Part two:job skills would probably not have any effect on drug dealers which is why I said they should go to jail.
Since illegal drug money runs heavily to the top of the pyramid, ideas of legalization won't work since the powers that be will manipulate the counter-political agendas to prevent legalization. For instance, if street drugs can be decriminalized, then prescription drugs should be availble as well to the exclusion of the medical middle men. Drugs are drugs. If it's ok to smoke opium, it then should be ok to take antibiotics at one's sole discretion too.
goesh, believe it or not it wasn't to long ago you could do that (in the south) as far as antibiotics were concerned if it was purchased as a veterinary drug. Used be able to by it at the feed store.
Triple agree about drug money running heavy at the top of the pyramid no make that quadruple agree.
No fair unslinging the "fallacy of the false alternative". It muddies the waters.
As far as your contention that drugs won't be legalized because the criminals won't let it happen; their political power is but a fraction of that of governments eager for tax money and legitimate companies eager for new market. I don't expect legalization to happen soon, if ever, but not for that reason.
Bookmarks