3 ms·

I'm not so sure that enforcement-led mechanisms won't work, at least, if there is global coordination focused on production. The Taliban, for all its faults, w

by lmg643 12y ago

I'm not so sure that enforcement-led mechanisms won't work, at least, if there is global coordination focused on production. The Taliban, for all its faults, was able to effectively eliminate opium production back in 2001, and Afghanistan is 80% of world supply: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/20/world/taliban-s-ban-on-poppy-a-success-us-aides-say.html http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/20/world/taliban-s-ban-on-pop... After 14 years of US intervention in Afghanistan, we have succeeded on at least one metric - all-time record opium production: http://time.com/3580627/opium-afghanistan-record-high-united-nations/ http://time.com/3580627/opium-afghanistan-record-high-united... It stands to reason - if our foreign partners are able to resist local corruption, we could stamp out production. (So far, only religious fanatics seem to be able to resist.)

jaredhansen 12y ago
Maybe the fact that the Taliban ("for all its faults", indeed) is one of the only regimes on record to significantly reduce opium production should tell us something?
- jerf 12y ago
  That if we use the same tactics as the Taliban we too could stomp out drug use? I'm not sure you're going to get a lot of support there; it sounds like a cure worse than the disease. http://abcnews.go.com/International/taliban-behead-17-singing-dancing/story?id=17084797 http://abcnews.go.com/International/taliban-behead-17-singin...
netcan 12y ago
Production can be reduced locally, but that doesn't mean much. The world is big and the market is global. Most of the cost (value add?) is in consumer country transit not production costs. If the price of crude opium in Afghanistan tripled wouldn't affect the street price in Denver or Berlin much. The best understood and studied market for ilicit drugs is the South America to North America cocaine trade. The markups are huge. The reality is that political problems imperfect systems non cooperation of belligerent or dysfunctional countries is part of the package. Even if it wasn't the price of precursors in poor countries is so inelastic that this kind of enforcement is pissing in the wind. Even if it wasn't the substitute for drug A not non-consumption, it's a different drug. Synthetics are impossible to put a dent in with enforcement. You don't need fields for meth. There has been 40 years of incredible effort put into enforcement, the war on drugs. An unfathomable amount of resources all over the world. More international cooperation than on any other issue. The results suck. On one hand we have very dubious benefits in terms of the availability of drugs. Basically, quality suffers. Price increases. If consumption is lower than it otherwise would be, it's not by much. On the other hand we have clear and inarguable costs. The financial cost of the actual war is immense. Drugs are impure and more dangerous. More dangerous and addiction-prone delivery methods are more common, injecting. People are in jail. Criminals control enormous markets. If drugs were legal, revenue from crime would drop by a huge amount. This money creates dangerous criminal empires big enough to endanger whole states. Mexico is in danger of failing as a state. Body counts in the hundreds of thousands. Poorer treatment for addicts (it's hard to treat and prosecute simultaneously). I would also argue that there's a basic violation of human freedom too. IE, if you choose to take drugs and don't harm anyone, that should be your right as an adult. Locking you up for it is immoral. Not all drugs a heroin, but even heroin is a choice. We know the costs (huge) and the benefits (eery small) of prohibition. To think that after 40+ years of failure the war on drugs will improve its performance is insane. I really don't see how people can fall on the other side of this debate.
bigbugbag 12y ago
I thought this was the point of US going to war in Afghanistan. US went in Irak to build the infamous oil pipeline and Afghanistan to restore opium production after the reserves that lead to a drop in price were depleted. At least this is what was reported here in Europe by the alternative medias.

by lmg643 12y ago

jaredhansen 12y ago

Maybe the fact that the Taliban ("for all its faults", indeed) is one of the only regimes on record to significantly reduce opium production should tell us something?

jerf 12y ago
That if we use the same tactics as the Taliban we too could stomp out drug use? I'm not sure you're going to get a lot of support there; it sounds like a cure worse than the disease. http://abcnews.go.com/International/taliban-behead-17-singing-dancing/story?id=17084797 http://abcnews.go.com/International/taliban-behead-17-singin...

netcan 12y ago

Production can be reduced locally, but that doesn't mean much. The world is big and the market is global. Most of the cost (value add?) is in consumer country transit not production costs. If the price of crude opium in Afghanistan tripled wouldn't affect the street price in Denver or Berlin much. The best understood and studied market for ilicit drugs is the South America to North America cocaine trade. The markups are huge. The reality is that political problems imperfect systems non cooperation of belligerent or dysfunctional countries is part of the package. Even if it wasn't the price of precursors in poor countries is so inelastic that this kind of enforcement is pissing in the wind. Even if it wasn't the substitute for drug A not non-consumption, it's a different drug. Synthetics are impossible to put a dent in with enforcement. You don't need fields for meth. There has been 40 years of incredible effort put into enforcement, the war on drugs. An unfathomable amount of resources all over the world. More international cooperation than on any other issue. The results suck. On one hand we have very dubious benefits in terms of the availability of drugs. Basically, quality suffers. Price increases. If consumption is lower than it otherwise would be, it's not by much. On the other hand we have clear and inarguable costs. The financial cost of the actual war is immense. Drugs are impure and more dangerous. More dangerous and addiction-prone delivery methods are more common, injecting. People are in jail. Criminals control enormous markets. If drugs were legal, revenue from crime would drop by a huge amount. This money creates dangerous criminal empires big enough to endanger whole states. Mexico is in danger of failing as a state. Body counts in the hundreds of thousands. Poorer treatment for addicts (it's hard to treat and prosecute simultaneously). I would also argue that there's a basic violation of human freedom too. IE, if you choose to take drugs and don't harm anyone, that should be your right as an adult. Locking you up for it is immoral. Not all drugs a heroin, but even heroin is a choice. We know the costs (huge) and the benefits (eery small) of prohibition. To think that after 40+ years of failure the war on drugs will improve its performance is insane. I really don't see how people can fall on the other side of this debate.

bigbugbag 12y ago

I thought this was the point of US going to war in Afghanistan. US went in Irak to build the infamous oil pipeline and Afghanistan to restore opium production after the reserves that lead to a drop in price were depleted. At least this is what was reported here in Europe by the alternative medias.