

Afghanistan: The Making of a Narco State - pmcpinto
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/afghanistan-the-making-of-a-narco-state-20141204

======
anigbrowl
We've spent more on Afghaistan than on Europe after the Marshall plan, in
inflation-adjusted terms: [http://www.latimes.com/world/afghanistan-
pakistan/la-fg-afgh...](http://www.latimes.com/world/afghanistan-pakistan/la-
fg-afghanistan-us-aid-outlook-20140731-story.html)

Now, it could be argued that Western Europe had more in common culturally with
the US, as well as being motivated to make things work by Soviet expansion
right after WW2. But obviously we're not getting the results we want.

I'm sure this has been proposed before, but how about this: we buy all the
opium Afghanistan produces ($3 billion this year according to the article). We
can use it for production (to the detriment of Western pharmaceutical
industrial synthetic opiate producers, but too bad) or just destroy it.
Expensive for sure, but we keep a large volume of opium and heroin off the
market, deny the fat markup on its manufacture to professional drug dealers
(some of whom fund terrorism), and degreade their supply chains.

This might increase production, but there's an upper limit on the amount of
land that can be used for opium cultivation and it seems like we're already
close to it.

~~~
maxmcd
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
_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-
Afghanis...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2667253/Not-Afghanistan-
Hampshire-How-opium-poppies-grown-UK-make-morphine-NHS.html)

~~~
trynumber9
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
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
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)

------
ghshephard
Amazing reporting. Sometimes Rolling Stone does good work.

------
firstprimate
The War on Terror provides the opportunity. The War on Drugs provides the
rationale. Both these are levers controlled by the US and both cost it much in
treasure and lives for little gain (I'm following standard US practice and
ignoring the cost to the non-exceptional peoples of the world). Sadly most US
politicians lack the bravery and/or integrity to even suggest touching those
levers.

