3 ms·

I don't see how that's even possible. A $3bil cash infusion is going to increase prices and create need for more product. The US can't just make a deal to buy o

by maxmcd 12y ago

I don't see how that's even possible. A $3bil cash infusion is going to increase prices and create need for more product. The US can't just make a deal to buy opium at a fixed price every year. It sounds like a slightly more practical version of your suggestion would be to just pay producers to stop producing, but that obviously creates a slew of other issues. And if there is an upper limit to opium production, you're going to have to start a price war to get there, which just dumps more and more funding into the region.

anigbrowl 12y ago
The US can't just make a deal to buy opium at a fixed price every year. Why not? We don't seem to have any problem throwing money into a hole as things are. Why not just use it for medical morphine? Right now there are fields growing opium poppies in western countries, which is pointlessly duplicative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_morphine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_morphine http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2667253/Not-Afghanistan-Hampshire-How-opium-poppies-grown-UK-make-morphine-NHS.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2667253/Not-Afghanis...
- trynumber9 12y ago
  Supply will work to match the demand. The US buying as much as $3 billion would put a huge floor on the demand. The illicit buyers would add more demand on top of that. The resulting higher price would encourage poppy farming yet again. But while production is ramping up it'd work. I think it is wiser to pay farmers not to grow poppies.
  - e12e 12y ago
    If we can't prevent farmes to grow poppies when it's "illegal" to do so, what's to prevent farmers from taking money to "not grow" and still grow opium? I suppose, if one buys into the idea that this is mostly the result of a free marked (as opposed to an intricate web of political, economic and organized violent crime) -- one could offer to pay opium prices for food crops. But then you'd probably have to destroy that food, in order to prevent people from selling the food back, and collecting double payments on "not growing poppies"...
    - nraynaud 12y ago
      And buying wheat or whatever that they need time and effort to produce from them at a golden price? (I don't know, I'm just sending a random idea)
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
e12e 12y ago
> I don't see how that's even possible. 3 billion on fighting terrorism? Sounds pretty cheap to me, considering: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/ https://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/ > A $3bil cash infusion is going to increase prices and create need for more product. Right, because there's an overproduction crisis hitting Afghanistan now, and that's why we see a natural trend in farmers choosing to not grow opium, and rather produce other cash crops? If it was worked into a "sound" "hearts and minds" (not the: kidnap "suspicious" people for torture in the night kind, but something more in the spirit of the words, not the practice, born from British lessons on administrating terror in India), you could probably buy up the opium for below market value. I don't think most farmers prefer to grow opium. On the other hand, it is hard to see how such a scheme would be possible, as it is probably against the real political motivations behind being in Afghanistan (which most certainly are not: help most of the Afghan people).
riffraff 12y ago
> It sounds like a slightly more practical version of your suggestion would be to just pay producers to stop producing I seem to recall in south east asia this has been tried and is sort-of-working by moving people to the production of alternative plants (orchids, I think?), possibly something similar would work.

by maxmcd 12y ago

anigbrowl 12y ago

The US can't just make a deal to buy opium at a fixed price every year. Why not? We don't seem to have any problem throwing money into a hole as things are. Why not just use it for medical morphine? Right now there are fields growing opium poppies in western countries, which is pointlessly duplicative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_morphine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_morphine http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2667253/Not-Afghanistan-Hampshire-How-opium-poppies-grown-UK-make-morphine-NHS.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2667253/Not-Afghanis...

trynumber9 12y ago
Supply will work to match the demand. The US buying as much as $3 billion would put a huge floor on the demand. The illicit buyers would add more demand on top of that. The resulting higher price would encourage poppy farming yet again. But while production is ramping up it'd work. I think it is wiser to pay farmers not to grow poppies.
- e12e 12y ago
  If we can't prevent farmes to grow poppies when it's "illegal" to do so, what's to prevent farmers from taking money to "not grow" and still grow opium? I suppose, if one buys into the idea that this is mostly the result of a free marked (as opposed to an intricate web of political, economic and organized violent crime) -- one could offer to pay opium prices for food crops. But then you'd probably have to destroy that food, in order to prevent people from selling the food back, and collecting double payments on "not growing poppies"...
  - nraynaud 12y ago
    And buying wheat or whatever that they need time and effort to produce from them at a golden price? (I don't know, I'm just sending a random idea)
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

e12e 12y ago

> I don't see how that's even possible. 3 billion on fighting terrorism? Sounds pretty cheap to me, considering: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/ https://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/ > A $3bil cash infusion is going to increase prices and create need for more product. Right, because there's an overproduction crisis hitting Afghanistan now, and that's why we see a natural trend in farmers choosing to not grow opium, and rather produce other cash crops? If it was worked into a "sound" "hearts and minds" (not the: kidnap "suspicious" people for torture in the night kind, but something more in the spirit of the words, not the practice, born from British lessons on administrating terror in India), you could probably buy up the opium for below market value. I don't think most farmers prefer to grow opium. On the other hand, it is hard to see how such a scheme would be possible, as it is probably against the real political motivations behind being in Afghanistan (which most certainly are not: help most of the Afghan people).

riffraff 12y ago

> It sounds like a slightly more practical version of your suggestion would be to just pay producers to stop producing I seem to recall in south east asia this has been tried and is sort-of-working by moving people to the production of alternative plants (orchids, I think?), possibly something similar would work.