Solving the narco-state problem
By Libby Spencer
The UK is warming up to what I think is the most practical solution to Afghanistan's poppy problem -- effectively buying the crops outright. The Senlis Council has been advocating for this for years of course, with the idea that the opium could be used to make legal morphine. I've seen various objections to the plan but I always suspect it's driven by the pharma corps who don't want a glut that would lower prices more than honest analysis by responsible experts.
The proposed UK scheme appears to be more in the nature of subsidies but the idea is still sound. Really, even if they bought the crops and burned them, it would still be the least expensive way to break the heroin chain. The farmers are at the bottom of the ladder and it would cost less to buy it, than eradicate it by force.
The failure of every eradication program has been that it didn't act as a deterrent so much as it bankrupted the farmers and forced them back into the business in order to survive. It's never been coupled with a decent alternative economy plan in recent history and that's clearly the case in Afghanistan. We're not spending the money wisely as evidenced by this quote.
To break the cycle the farmers need a crop they make a living on and a way to transport it. As Chris at Americablog points out, there is a successful model for this approach.
If our government had any intention of winning either the so-called war on terror or the war on some drugs, they would have done the same long ago.
(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)
The UK is warming up to what I think is the most practical solution to Afghanistan's poppy problem -- effectively buying the crops outright. The Senlis Council has been advocating for this for years of course, with the idea that the opium could be used to make legal morphine. I've seen various objections to the plan but I always suspect it's driven by the pharma corps who don't want a glut that would lower prices more than honest analysis by responsible experts. The proposed UK scheme appears to be more in the nature of subsidies but the idea is still sound. Really, even if they bought the crops and burned them, it would still be the least expensive way to break the heroin chain. The farmers are at the bottom of the ladder and it would cost less to buy it, than eradicate it by force.
The failure of every eradication program has been that it didn't act as a deterrent so much as it bankrupted the farmers and forced them back into the business in order to survive. It's never been coupled with a decent alternative economy plan in recent history and that's clearly the case in Afghanistan. We're not spending the money wisely as evidenced by this quote.
Critics in the British aid agencies claim that too little western aid is set aside to provide alternative livelihoods for opium farmers in Afghanistan, and comparatively too much going on building state structures or funding public sector salaries.
To break the cycle the farmers need a crop they make a living on and a way to transport it. As Chris at Americablog points out, there is a successful model for this approach.
A similar strategy was rolled out in northern Thailand in the late 1980's with reasonable success. Today the former poppy growing region is one of the nicest regions to visit in Thailand. The Thai royal family (the Princess Mother, in particular) took a leading role in the program that helped replace poppy fields with coffee and macadamia nuts.
If our government had any intention of winning either the so-called war on terror or the war on some drugs, they would have done the same long ago.
(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)
Labels: drugs
posted by Libby Spencer at
12:26 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home