Cannabis News DrugSense
  Afghanistan to Pay Farmers for Uprooted Poppies
Posted by FoM on April 05, 2002 at 08:42:17 PT
By Dexter Filkins 
Source: New York Times 

justice With this country's vast fields of poppies ready to flower soon, Afghan officials said today that they would embark on a novel plan to pay farmers to destroy their crops, whether they want to or not.

Ashraf Ghani, a senior adviser to Hamid Karzai, the chairman of the interim government, said that agents of the Afghan government would fan out across three Afghan provinces thought to produce about 90 percent of the country's opium.

The undisclosed cost will be borne by the United States, Britain and other Western countries, which have been pressuring the Afghan government to crack down on poppy production. In recent months, there have been some suggestions that Western nations would condition aid pledged to Afghanistan on efforts by the Karzai government to attack poppy cultivation. Mr. Ghani said this was not the case.

Under the plan, the Afghan officials will offer poppy farmers around $500 per acre to destroy their plants. If the farmers refuse, Mr. Ghani said, the officials will destroy the crops anyway.

The initiative represents a last-ditch effort to forestall a big comeback for poppy production in Afghanistan, which had become the world's largest supplier of opium until the then-ruling Taliban cracked down on production, which led to a sharply reduced harvest last year.

After the collapse of the Taliban in the fall, many of the farmers who had successfully cultivated poppies rushed to plant again, and this year's crop is now expected to be as large as some of those in the mid or late 1990's, when the Taliban was encouraging poppy production, apparently to raise money.

The initiative announced today is designed to blunt the economic impact of curtailing the crop. One proposal is to provide jobs for farm laborers who would ordinarily harvest the poppies.

Racing to beat the harvest, which would otherwise begin within weeks, government officials will begin handing out cash later this month in Badakshan Province in eastern Afghanistan, Helmand Province in the south and Nangarhar in the northeast, the three centers of poppy production here. The payments, which will be made on the spot, are designed to pay the farmer slightly more than what he would have made had he grown wheat, not opium poppies.

The initiative raises the possibility of a confrontation between the fledgling government and the poppy farmers, who are known for their sometimes violent resistance to attempts to prevent them from growing their prized crops.

Still, Mr. Ghani said that if the farmers refused to destroy their crops, the government was prepared to do the job for them. ``State power is based on the legitimate use of force,'' Mr. Ghani said. ``We hope it doesn't reach that point.''

In impoverished, drought-stricken Afghanistan, the crop has proved to be one of the few reliable sources of a decent income. Poppies also use far less water than wheat or corn.

For all these reasons, Western officials have largely abandoned hopes of eradicating Afghanistan's poppy crop this year. Even so, Mr. Ghani and Yunus Qanooni, the interior minister, said that the Karzai government was determined to eliminate poppy farming as a viable occupation. In a decree signed by Mr. Karzai earlier this week, the repayment of loans in opium was prohibited. The practice is widespread among poppy farmers and effectively imposes interest rates of as much as 500 percent per year on the farmer. Mr. Karzai also ordered the closing of opium shops.

Source: New York Times (NY)
Author: Dexter Filkins
Published: April 5, 2002
Copyright: 2002 The New York Times Company
Contact: letters@nytimes.com
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/
Forum: http://forums.nytimes.com/comment/

Related Articles:

U.S. Fears Afghan Farmers Can't End Cash Crop
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12413.shtml

Military Opposes Spraying Poppies
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12356.shtml

Crackdown Moves Opium Market Underground
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12256.shtml


Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help

 
Comment #5 posted by freddybigbee on April 05, 2002 at 12:46:49 PT:

Why indeed...
"I wonder why they taught us in school that the state's authority derives from the consent of the governed..."

Could it be...to create the unnatural beast known as "sheeple?"

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #4 posted by SpaceCat on April 05, 2002 at 11:18:02 PT
Power Uber Alles
Karzai is hanging on by a thread to the Afghan leadership, so his already-acknowleged inability to police the country is enhanced by this press release... how?

``State power is based on the legitimate use of force''

Unfettered authoritarian thinking; and of course the state defines what is legitimate! I wonder why they taught us in school that the state's authority derives from the consent of the governed, instead of this "application of power" thing, which certainly seems more like the way things actually work?



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #3 posted by masscrusader on April 05, 2002 at 10:24:07 PT
Crops
Too bad dug testing kits cant be planted. Thats good business. Maybe they can grow cocoa leaves instead.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #2 posted by overtoke on April 05, 2002 at 09:29:52 PT:

They tried this before...
In Columbia they decided to pay farmers to destroy their coca crops. This resulted in a 25 percent increase in crop acerage.

This action will actually benefit the Afghan Poppy Farmer in many ways.

This will insure that every poppy plant regardless of opium production will be of value. Farmers will have incentive to cull non-producing plants for instant profit while at the same time increasing the yeild of their remaining plants.

Also, at the end of the growing season, plants can be pulled up, their pods harvested and dried, and the remaining (uprooted) poppy plant can be sold!

What an excellent idea!

Another good idea was carpet bombing Afghanistan. I'm sure their soil will benefit from all that extra Nitrogen!

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #1 posted by Jose Melendez on April 05, 2002 at 08:52:57 PT
supply and demand
from:
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n646/a12.html?10911
Supply and demand balance at a price. No government any where ever has been able to beat this law of human nature for very long. In fact if you say that life and death balance at a certain rate of energy flow you have the essence of biological relations. If cats can't deploy the energy to run fast enough there will be more rabbits. If the rabbits get too slow there will be more cats. For a while. Until it all comes back into balance.

Just so with the market for prohibited substances. Government can disrupt the markets for a time. But they always come back into balance. Which is why fighting drugs spreads them. This is how markets destroyed the Soviet Union. Markets can be understood. They can be to a certain extent regulated. Information can be gathered and disseminated. Good suppliers can be separated from the bad. But the one thing you cannot do is to prevent supply and demand from meeting at a price. I put this misunderstanding down to the lack of economics training in school. If more people understood economics fewer would fall for the illusion of prohibition.



[ Post Comment ]

  Post Comment
Name:        Password:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comment:   [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]

Link URL:
Link Title:


Return to Main Menu


So everyone may enjoy this service and to keep it running, here are some guidelines: NO spamming, NO commercial advertising, NO flamming, NO illegal activity, and NO sexually explicit materials. Lastly, we reserve the right to remove any message for any reason!

This web page and related elements are for informative purposes only and thus the use of any of this information is at your risk! We do not own nor are responsible for visitor comments. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 and The Berne Convention on Literary and Artistic Works, Article 10, news clippings on this site are made available without profit for research and educational purposes. Any trademarks, trade names, service marks, or service names used on this site are the property of their respective owners. Page updated on April 05, 2002 at 08:42:17