cannabisnews.com: A War on Terror Meets a War on Drugs A War on Terror Meets a War on Drugs Posted by FoM on November 25, 2001 at 12:36:52 PT By Tim Golden Source: New York Times From the first days of the war in Afghanistan, United States officials have pointed to a dangerous weapon in the desolate Afghan countryside: the poppy fields that have spread over thousands of acres in recent years, turning the nation into by far the largest source of opium and heroin in the world.For the Taliban, American officials said, taxes on poppy farmers and opium dealers helped to finance the movement's rogue state. For Al Qaeda terrorists, the officials warned, the opium trade might also be a way to move money or fund attacks. At the least, Afghanistan's mix of political radicalism and diplomatic isolation had made for a drug threat that appeared to be well beyond America's reach.Now, with the Taliban's resistance faltering, the opium problem will soon be America's to solve. Even as the fighting continues, opium farmers are returning to their fields, tilling the ground for what had been their most reliable cash crop. Warlords of the Northern Alliance may supplant warlords loyal to the Taliban, drug experts say, but in the absence of a strong central authority it seems unlikely that the next regime will view the rewards of the drug trade differently than did the last."Nothing indicates that either the Taliban or the Northern Alliance intend to take serious action to destroy heroin or morphine-base laboratories, or stop drug trafficking," the State Department said last spring, pointedly spreading the blame.Since the start of their bombing campaign, allied officials have tried to link the new war on terror to the old war on drugs. In Washington, some officials have likened Afghanistan to Colombia, where drug money and terror tactics have both been essential to enemies of the American-backed government. In London, Prime Minister Tony Blair reminded his countrymen that their enemy in Afghanistan was also responsible for much of the heroin on British streets.But as the fighting in Afghanistan continues, battle lines in the two wars are only becoming more confused. The emerging political landscape, in which power may well be fragmented among rival groups, may actually prove better for traffickers than the Taliban was. Already, the flow of opium from Afghan stockpiles has risen sharply, with most headed north across the porous borders of America's new allies: Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan.If American officials have any cause for optimism, they probably owe it to the Taliban.Eighteen months ago, in an apparent bid for wider diplomatic recognition, the Taliban's supreme leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar, ordered the country's farmers to stop growing opium poppies. And they did. Within a year, C.I.A. figures show, estimated opium production plunged from 4,042 tons to 81.6 tons, with most of the remainder grown in the small corner of the country that was then under Northern Alliance control.Western law enforcement officials were initially skeptical; many said the ban, which was not accompanied by a crackdown on traffickers, was merely a ploy to drive up the value of Afghanistan's huge opium stocks. Indeed, drug prices remained stable in Europe, the Afghans' chief market.But more important than the Taliban's sincerity may have been the fact that drug production could be regulated at all. With little more than Mullah Omar's decree, poppy cultivation stopped virtually overnight with surprisingly few reports of repression against the farmers. Had such a thing happened almost anywhere else in the world, it would probably have been hailed as one of the greatest achievements in the history of drug enforcement.Taliban leaders could afford to speak softly, of course, given their reputation for brutally enforcing their will. But their effectiveness also owed something to the relatively compact dimensions of the country's poppy fields — a factor not likely to change much now. The United Nations estimates that Afghanistan produced more than 70 percent of the world's opium supply last year from barely 200,000 acres, a relatively tiny area, and with the labor of perhaps 50,000 families in a population of 27 million people. For several years, United Nations drug-control officials have said facetiously that they could probably buy up Afghanistan's poppy crop as cheaply as they could eradicate it. In 1998, a study by the United Nations International Drug Control Program concluded that poppy cultivation could be phased out over a 10-year period at a cost of about $25 million a year. "The price tag was extremely small," the head of the program, Pino Arlacchi, recalled. "But most member states thought it simply wasn't worthwhile to work inside Afghanistan."American officials considered the Afghan problem remote, if only because, as one official put it, "It wasn't our dope." Surveys by the Drug Enforcement Administration showed that most of the heroin in American drug markets came from Colombia and Mexico. The State Department was wary about working with the Taliban on any issue, given its poor human rights record and its hospitality toward Osama bin Laden. So too were officials in northern Europe, even though their cities were awash in Afghan heroin.The problem that Afghanistan posed under the Taliban was not an isolated one. Over the last decade or so, as anti- drug campaigns have advanced in relatively coherent states like Pakistan, Iran, Thailand and Bolivia, more of the world's drug supply has begun to come from so-called rogue states, or from regions that government authority simply doesn't reach. After Afghanistan, the world's biggest opium producer these days is Burma. Most of the world's supply of coca, the raw material for cocaine, comes from regions of Colombia dominated by leftist rebels and right-wing paramilitary forces.American hands-off policies toward these producers have often confounded law-enforcement officials, who make a habit of dealing with criminals in order to solve crimes. But drug-enforcement officials are more accustomed to seeing their plans subordinated to other diplomatic goals. It was in Afghanistan, after all, that C.I.A. officials looked the other way in the 1980's while anti-Soviet guerrillas smuggled opium out of the country on the same convoys that brought in American-bought arms.These days, the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, Asa Hutchinson, has been calling Afghanistan "a rare opportunity" for antidrug efforts to take advantage of successes in the war on terror. With a friendlier government in Kabul, there will be chances to try some obvious measures to help Afghanistan's farmers: crop-substitution programs, development aid, and rebuilding irrigation systems that were destroyed after the 1979 Soviet invasion.But however they proceed, efforts to curtail opium production will almost certainly cut into the livelihood of military commanders, village leaders and others whom the United States needs as allies against terror. American drug enforcement officials can expect a long struggle. And they will be lucky to replicate the Taliban's success.Source: New York Times (NY)Author: Tim GoldenPublished: November 25, 2001Copyright: 2001 The New York Times CompanyContact: letters nytimes.comWebsite: http://www.nytimes.com/Forum: http://forums.nytimes.com/comment/Related Articles:Our Friends in Afghanistan http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11375.shtmlDrug Trade Resurgent in Afghanistan http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11147.shtml Afghan Ban on Growing of Opium Is Unraveling http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11140.shtmlThe New Heroin - San Francisco Examinerhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11366.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #27 posted by Rambler on November 27, 2001 at 00:14:30 PT Zero G Thank you.That missing stat is indeed ,of the utmost importance. [ Post Comment ] Comment #26 posted by dddd on November 27, 2001 at 00:11:30 PT I must agree FoM... ...people say alot of "tongue 'n cheek" stuff here,,,,,and many times it is hard to recognize,,,but even though we all have been duped by mischeivious posts,and commentarys in the past,,,,,,,that's a good thing,because it knocks the cobwebs and fuzz off of the bewildering locales,and inner caverns of our bashful intellects,,and wandering opinions of these nebulous realities....... ...I am envious of your nom de plume, SirReal.............d.d..d...d [ Post Comment ] Comment #25 posted by Zero_G on November 26, 2001 at 23:08:27 PT: Rambler's stats - Of dying in an auto accident: 1 in 7,000 - Of dying of heart disease: 1 in 400 - Of dying from cancer: 1 in 600 - Of dying in a terrorist-caused shopping mall disaster if you shopped two hours each week and terrorists destroyed one mall per week: 1 in 1,500,000 - Of dying in a terrorist caused plane disaster if you flew once a month and terrorists hijacked one plane a week: 1 in 135,000 - Chance of dying of as a result of the current anthrax attacks: 1 in 55,000,000Left out one important one:Chances of a lethal dose of cannabis...ooops hasn't happened yet, undefinable term.But, we all knew that. Hope all had a nice thanksgiving. [ Post Comment ] Comment #24 posted by FoM on November 26, 2001 at 21:41:00 PT Sir Real Let me only jump in here to say that was nice of you. Most people that frequent Cannabis News are nice people. Different opinions and ways of expression but nice people none the same. I find that if I wondered about a comment I look and read some of the persons other comments and I know then where they are coming from. I once called a friend a drug warrior. I didn't know that was negative either and boy I felt bad. [ Post Comment ] Comment #23 posted by SirReal on November 26, 2001 at 21:33:01 PT To Goneposthole Sorry, I just dip in and out and that post of yours was my first exposure to you, a person who chose a nic that might reflect the mindset of an emotional thinking prohibitionist.The reason I thought you weren't kidding is because I've actually read similar posts from others that were actualy serious.At the first read around here, ya gotta sqint hard [ Post Comment ] Comment #22 posted by goneposthole on November 26, 2001 at 20:05:37 PT Sitting Bull A Lakota Sioux medicine man. Had a lot to say because he had learned a lot. He earned good money with the Buffalo Bill "Wild West Show" and sent most of it back to his people.Definitely worth reading. I'll let him do the teaching, you will learn. http://www.powersource.com/gallery/people/sittbull.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #21 posted by dddd on November 26, 2001 at 16:44:21 PT Toker00...Goneposthole I am also one who is proud to be included in the 30 year club.. ....I_rule;I myself,am now going to finish up a job involving postholes,,I dont think goneposthole has much to do with actual "postholes",,,but he/(she?),is cool nonetheless....dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #20 posted by goneposthole on November 26, 2001 at 15:27:44 PT 30 years not yet near retirement, either. [ Post Comment ] Comment #19 posted by Toker00 on November 26, 2001 at 15:02:13 PT goneposthole Nice to meet another 30 yr. veteran. I will be goingposthole tomorrow at work. Setting posts for a building I'm building. : ) It's amazing when you think about it. The drug war has been going thirty some years, BILLIONS have been totally wasted, millions incarcerated with a life long criminal record, you can STILL get any drug you seek, any time you seek it, bigher grade than ever, cheap as ever, and a fabulous plant that never killed anyone, is kept from the very people it could help the most, the sick and suffering. And they call Cannabis evil? They refuse to reschedule Cannabis, with all the reputable scientists being totally ignored about their medicinal Cannabis studies? What is EVIL? I'll spell it out for you.DEAFBICIACORPORATECONSPIRACYONCANNABISCOMPETITIONNow THAT, is EVIL!Peace. Realize, then Legalize. [ Post Comment ] Comment #18 posted by Rambler on November 26, 2001 at 14:57:52 PT Terror war perspective - Of dying in an auto accident: 1 in 7,000 - Of dying of heart disease: 1 in 400 - Of dying from cancer: 1 in 600 - Of dying in a terrorist-caused shopping mall disaster if you shopped two hours each week and terrorists destroyed one mall per week: 1 in 1,500,000 - Of dying in a terrorist caused plane disaster if you flew once a month and terrorists hijacked one plane a week: 1 in 135,000 - Chance of dying of as a result of the current anthrax attacks: 1 in 55,000,000 [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by dddd on November 26, 2001 at 14:42:09 PT Evil Detection "Evil Detected in Somalia, Sudan and Yemen",,,,,but we know,that the evil detectors will also be sensing evil in Colombia very soon.Now that the US war machine has gotten away with unleashing the military monster in Afghanistan,,I'm sure that laws have already been passed that negate previous laws that limit US military presence in Colombia........I predict,that within a year from now,the US military will be deployed in Colombia,as part of the carte blanche, "war on terror"......The remarkable symbiosis between the media,and the government/military,will lull the Sheeple into thinking that God blesses the united we stand against terror,and further military intrusions around the globe will get about as much visible dissent,and critism, as the Patriot Act did.......dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by FoM on November 26, 2001 at 08:05:18 PT goneposthole I know you were using sarcasm in your post. I never thought otherwise. [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by Lehder on November 26, 2001 at 07:10:18 PT Evil Detected in Somalia, Sudan and Yemen http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/article/0,,9002-2001544397,00.htmlhttp://www.antiwar.com/ [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by goneposthole on November 26, 2001 at 05:08:31 PT sarcasm it is No, i'm not that damn dumb. We need to legalize. I just see the futility of trying to reason with idiots. i was just providing an example of what one is up against.I've smoked pot for over thirty years. I hope it is safe to use. [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by Lehder on November 26, 2001 at 03:47:21 PT Drug War Revolt in Bolivia Bolivian government cedes to farmers' road blocks and popular demands for and end to coca eradication. The subplot is that the US embassy is hopping mad at the decision to suspend eradication, has begun behind-the-scenes pressure tactics against the democratic institutions of Bolivia, and that President George Bush has called Bolivian president Jorge Quiroga to Washington on December 6th to reiterate the US position that, when democracy conflicts with drug policies imposed by the US, democracy must be stopped at all costs.http://www.narconews.com/boliviasuspends.htmlThis popular revolt could become a contagion and spread to Peru, Colombia and Mexico. And from there.... [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by fixjuxa on November 26, 2001 at 00:47:47 PT he was kidding wasn't he? SirReal, wasn't goneposthole being sarcastic? The post certainly sounded sarcastic to me. [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by E_Johnson on November 25, 2001 at 22:54:58 PT Here's a test all reporters should have to take Most of the world's supply of coca, the raw material for cocaine, comes from regions of Colombia dominated by leftist rebels and right-wing paramilitary forces.Okay now quick, in 50 words or less, tell us how to tell for certain the difference between a Colombian paramilitary leader and a Colombian military leader.These days, the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, Asa Hutchinson, has been calling Afghanistan "a rare opportunity" for antidrug efforts to take advantage of successes in the war on terror. With a friendlier government in Kabul, there will be chances to try some obvious measures to help Afghanistan's farmers: crop-substitution programs, development aid, and rebuilding irrigation systems that were destroyed after the 1979 Soviet invasion.For an extra 50 points, describe in writing the likely political and diplomatic implications of dropping herbicides on Afghan peasants. For an extra 100 points, explain why we have been able to get away with dropping herbicides on Colombian peasants. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by SirReal on November 25, 2001 at 22:44:03 PT 03To: Goneposthole Hope you return to read the following [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by SirReal on November 25, 2001 at 22:38:00 PT To Goneposthole First of all Einstien, we are under prohibition. Secondly, what we have to lose (we've lost most of them already) are our constitutional rights.Thirdly...boy you really know how to win arguments by warming people up and mentioning things like the final solution.Whats next after you lock up and gas the users?What group don't you like next.Why don't you concentrate on those that kill others before you go after the poor souls who choose to harm themselves.Prohibitionists make me sick.Their "Holyer than thou" and "There ought to be a law" mentality makes me sick. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by goneposthole on November 25, 2001 at 19:47:31 PT man oh, man ohm, an, ohm, an ohm, an ohm, an ohm and another thing that really pisses me off. We really have to do something about all of these drugs that are coming into this country. Passing through our borders and nobody is doing anything about it, especially our government. With such an everyday presence of drugs in our daily lives, you woud think that the government would outlaw them or something. Holy smokes, this is really getting more than we can handle. You would think that it is a government program. Gee willikers, and to think that this stuff is going on everyday, my oh, my.I say pass some prohibition laws in Congress and get to the bottom of this deep rooted problem. What else can we do? Punt? Also, if we would increase our law enforcement efforts and put a couple of million of these drug users in prison, then the rest of them would get the message and quit. How else can we teach them not to use drugs? Throw their fannies into a hoosegow and watch them wriggle. It will be good for them. What have we got to lose? A war or something?I say do this: Prohibit, police, and imprison. It is the only solution, kind of a "Final Solution." [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by Tim Stone on November 25, 2001 at 17:52:01 PT Interesting Article The "New York Times" tends to be distinctly prohibitionist in its coverage - and non-coverage - of drug war newsworthy events. This article actually is somewhat informative, while it still throws in a prohibitionist bone to keep anti drug wolves from its door. However, as always in drug war reporting, there are glaring inconsistencies.Do you recall the pro-drug war hoopla about six weeks back that the Taliban, while officially outlawing opium growing, had stockpiled mass quantities of heroin and when the bombing started, those tons of soil were about to be flooded into the illicit international drug market, producing lower prices, more drug deaths and more addiction of young innocents? And therefore to fight the drug war was to fight the terrorism war? It's been six weeks now and I haven't read any news articles of the alleged flood of heroin trickling down to Anytown, U.S.A. Now what I'm reading is that the Northern Alliance is hip and thigh deep in poppy cultivation. My local Sunday news rag featured a prominent picture in the A-section of a presumed Afghani in a field of waist-high poppy plants. Excuse me, but as an old Minnesota boy, I'm wondering if that picture actually shows actual present time growth of a crop in an environment that is at least as cold as Minnesota. Inotherwords, all the pics you see of the Tali..., er, the Alliance growing waist high poppies in November are suspect. I don't know poppy cultivcation. Maybe you plant the seeds in the fall, rather than the spring as normal. , But in no case do you get waist-high poppy plants, ready for harvest, in Afghanistan in November. And did you notice the quote in the above article: "American officials considered the Afghan problem remote, if only because, as one official put it, "It wasn't our dope." Surveys by the Drug Enforcement Administration showed that most of the heroin in American drug markets came from Colombia and Mexico." This directly contradicts the recent yowlings of drug warriors that we must kick-butt on the Taliban to keep the heroin flood from "poisoning our children."To reduce lengthy blather to an essence, everybody grows opium in Afghanistan, been doing so for a thousand years and more. And as far as the Good Guys, and the Bad Guys, the media are tripping over their bias schlongs in an attempt to hope people won't notice their inconsistencies in their good guy - bad guy reporting. Bottom line: There is so far no published evidence of a flood of heroin as a result of the Taliban stockpiles. In any case, the heroin wouldn't have gone to the U.S. Inotherwords, your government, with the connivance of the media, have once again been caught out lying their collective butts off to the citizens of America...once again. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on November 25, 2001 at 16:16:52 PT Your tax dollars at work >>For several years, United Nations drug-control officials have said facetiously that they could probably buy up Afghanistan's poppy crop as cheaply as they could eradicate it. In 1998, a study by the United Nations International Drug Control Program concluded that poppy cultivation could be phased out over a 10-year period at a cost of about $25 million a year. Yet another article which makes it sound like Mullah Omar just decided, after generations of growing poppies, that it was "wrong" and should stop... No mention of the $43 million in assistance that little stunt helped pry out of the USA? I wonder why not? Perhaps because it proves the above paragraph to be true? And no mention of the tactic of drying up the market to drive up prices, and then flooding the market to make a killing. No mention of that simple economic principle which can only be used when one is in control of a monopoly, which is illegal - but hey, so is opium... Yes, we really did send them $43m in May 2001... [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by null on November 25, 2001 at 14:24:07 PT good point FoM can you imagine paying opium prices for wheat!? the economics don't work. legalize. tax. the farmers keep growing what they know best. those that want their product get it. the governments all get a cut via taxes and don't have to dump billions into crop-substitution programs. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by FoM on November 25, 2001 at 13:38:21 PT My 2 cents You can't solve this problem with crop substitution. They just don't get it. No matter what another crop would bring in price growing poppies will always bring more. They would offer them more money then any crop so how could it possibly work! I wish they'd think this through. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by null on November 25, 2001 at 13:11:49 PT call me jaded These days, the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, Asa Hutchinson, has been calling Afghanistan "a rare opportunity" for antidrug efforts to take advantage of successes in the war on terror. With a friendlier government in Kabul, there will be chances to try some obvious measures to help Afghanistan's farmers: crop-substitution programs, development aid, and rebuilding irrigation systems that were destroyed after the 1979 Soviet invasion.Crop-substitution aye? I guess we are eventually going to fund both Plan Colombia and Plan Afghanistan for $1.3 Billion each. I am relieved that our Columbian interdictions have been so effective and environmentally friendly. Plus now we'll be able to shoot down missionary planes over Afghanistan too! Go team!! This entire comment is dirpping with my bitter sarcasm. Honestly: Of course I think it is a good idea to help them rebuild their irrigation systems and such. With the power and finances in the world today there is no excuse for the vast amounts of hunger and suffering among humankind. It just infurriates me to know the means by which the American "helping hand" will be implemented: brute arm twisting. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment