Will opium production EVER drop?

[deconstruct911]

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/592/afghanistan_US_stops_opium_poppy_eradication#comment-50956

Old news but take a look because it gets so little attention in the big spotlight.


Thousands of US Marines poured into Afghanistan's southern Helmand province this week to take the battle against the Taliban to the foe's stronghold. But in a startling departure from decades of US anti-drug policy, eradicating Helmand's massive opium poppy crop will not be part of their larger mission.

"Eradication is a waste of money," Holbrooke told the Associated Press during a break in the G-8 foreign ministers meeting on Afghanistan. "The Western policies against the opium crop, the poppy crop, have been a failure. It might destroy some acreage, but it didn't reduce the amount of money the Taliban got by one dollar. It just helped the Taliban, so we're going to phase out eradication," he said.

"The farmers are not our enemy; they're just growing a crop to make a living. It's the drug system," Holbrooke continued. "So the US policy was driving people into the hands of the Taliban."

"The Taliban insurgents are estimated to earn tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars a year from the opium and heroin trade, which generates multiple streams of income for them. Taliban commanders tax poppy farmers in areas under their control, provide security for drug convoys, and sell opium and heroin through smuggling networks that reach around the globe.

As late as last year, US policymakers supported intensifying eradication efforts, with some even arguing for the aerial spraying of herbicides, as has been done with limited success, but severe political and environmental consequences in Colombia. That notion was opposed by the Afghan government of President Hamid Karzai, as well as by the US's NATO partners, particularly Britain, which supports expanded manual eradication of the poppy fields."


"Feature: US Gives Up on Eradicating Afghan Opium Poppies, Will Target Traffickers Instead"

Will modern drug war efforts stop the Afghan drug trade?

Under the Bush admin some startling revelations came to light:


November 29, 2001: US and Pakistan Return Convicted Drug Warlord to Afghanistan
November 29, 2001: US and Pakistan Return Convicted Drug Warlord to Afghanistan Ayub Afridi, a well-known Afghan warlord and drug baron, is released from prison in Pakistan and sent to Afghanistan with the apparent approval of both the US and Pakistani governments. Afridi had just begun serving a seven year sentence after being convicted of attempting to smuggle over six tons of hashish into Belgium. The Pakistani government gave no explanation for his release nor pointed to any law allowing the release. The Asia Times claims, “Afridi was a key player in the Afghan war of resistance against the Soviet Union’s occupying troops in the decade up to 1989.” The CIA lacked the billions of dollars need to fund the Afghan resistance. “As a result, they decided to generate funds through the poppy-rich Afghan soil and heroin production and smuggling to finance the Afghan war. Afridi was the kingpin of this plan. All of the major Afghan warlords, except for the Northern Alliance’s Ahmed Shah Massoud, who had his own opium fiefdom in northern Afghanistan, were a part of Afridi’s coalition of drug traders in the CIA-sponsored holy war against the Soviets.” The Asia Times speculates that Afridi, an ethic Pashtun, was released to help unify Pashtun warlord support for the new US supported Afghan government. Afridi also served three years in a US prison for drug smuggling in the mid-1990s.
Entity Tags: Pakistan, United States, Ayub Afridi
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, War in Afghanistan
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a112901ayubafridi&scale=0#a112901ayubafridi


US' war on funding of terrorism -- Trailing the dirty money
Pratap Ravindran


THE Bush Administration, as part of its campaign against the funding of terrorism, has, with much publicity, initiated a series of measures to check the clandestine transfer of funds, and so on — but those in the know are inclined to be extremely sceptical about the eventual outcome of this campaign, as US and European banks are integral to global money laundering.

Thus, Senator Carl Levin has gone on record saying: "Estimates are that $500 billion to $1 trillion of international criminal proceeds are moved internationally and deposited into bank accounts annually. It is estimated that half of the money comes to the United States..." The other half is laundered through European banks.

It is important to note here that the "estimates" referred to by Senator Levin cover only the proceeds of criminal activities as defined under US laws. They do not take into account illegal transfers and capital flows related to corruption, especially in Third World countries and transitional economies. These, according to guesstimates, work out to $20-40 billion a year. Add another $80 billion or so representing flows from mis-priced trade — and you begin to get the picture.

There is extreme reluctance on the part of the US Government to take cognisance of these flows, as they are essential to sustain the US economy. According to a paper — Dirty Money - Foundation of US Growth and Empire: Size and Scope of Money Laundering by US Banks — by Mr James Petras, Professor of Sociology, Binghamton University — published in La Jornada, Mexico, on May 19, 2001, and subsequently posted on the Web by the Centre for Research on Globalisation on August 29, 2001 — it is clear that the combined laundered and dirty money flows cover part of the US deficit in its balance of merchandise trade which ranges in the hundreds of billions annually.

"As it stands, the US trade deficit is close to $300 billion. Without the `dirty money,' the US economy's external accounts would be totally unsustainable, living standards would plummet, the dollar would weaken, the available investment and loan capital would shrink and Washington would not be able to sustain its global empire.
http://www.blonnet.com/2002/02/11/stories/2002021100100900.htm

[LARED]

1. No, people like opium products

Have for thousands of years.

[deconstruct911]

2. So does prohibition and modern drug war strategy serve any purpose?

[hack89]

3. No. Legalization will solve many problems. nt

[LARED]

4. Of course it serves a purpose

The question what is that purpose.

The drug war is simply a waste of time. The simple economic model says no demand, no supply develops. It's present form mainly addresses supply; in light of the fact that thousands of years of human history show that people will always find a way to get what they want.

Does prohibition decrease demand. It must to some extent, and even if it is not wholly effective, it is proper in my view to keep addictive drugs illegal and socially unacceptable as it benefits society as a whole. So I would not be in favor of a lassie fair model for drug markets. For users; drug laws should be decriminalized. For large scale suppliers a death penalty is about what I have in mind.

As one that has seen the ravages of hard drug abuse on kids first hand I would recommend after executing large scale drug dealers we display their rotting corpses in the center of town as a warning.