Afghanistan Drug Problem

[dwarfy]

Unfortunately though the drug barons (guys at the top) make huge amounts of money. They need their crop and all they would do is up the money they pay the farmers, and you,d have to assume they would win in any bidding war. It,s the top dogs that need to be removed.Whilst they are still around, its likely the farmers will stick with them.

dwarfy

[Tab]

The more money we make them pay the less profit that they will get, so in time they could turn to other things

[Nickosx]

On the subject of Afghanistan, there is a program on the sky history channel(561) tonight. The program is called shootout and is on at 2100. It will be repeated throughout the next week. the program focuses on the hunt for Bin Laden. 'Shootout' is a running series on the history channel and is usually well worth a watch each week.

Nick

[Ruth]

It,s the top dogs that need to be removed.Whilst they are still around, its likely the farmers will stick with them.

dwarfy

Especially with the reports of intimidation coming from the farmers. They aren't likely to argue too much if they and their families are threatened.

[gkayesem]

I think the emphasis should be on reducing drug problems in this country. Tackling the trade in Afghanistan will do more harm than good. But I doubt sending troops into British cities would be a popular policy.

[dwarfy]

I think the emphasis should be on reducing drug problems in this country. Tackling the trade in Afghanistan will do more harm than good. But I doubt sending troops into British cities would be a popular policy.

where do think much of the drugs produced in Afghanistan ends up?

Quotes suggest 90 per cent ends up in europe, and therefore much will end up in Britain. Tackling the drugs flow out of afghanistan restricts the drugs flow into Europe and hence it is in effect attacking the problem in this country. Around 90 per cent of the heroin in this country originates from the poppy fields in Afghanistan.

[harry hackedoff]

They aren't likely to argue too much if they and their families are threatened.

We should threaten them more.
"Grow coffee or you’re toast" Pay`em more to grow coffee and ruthlessly make examples of those who don’t.
I don’t really care about the sensitivities/ sensibilities of Afghan warlords. Get on board or get farked. Fifteenth century meets twenty first century. Hard but fair and it`s a win win situation in the end. No Opium gets out.
Stop treating these people like we are a bunch of left wing lesbians because they aren’t used to it.
Sometimes the end really does justify the means. Look at the problem from the perspective of a prisoner on a crime ridden inner city estate in UK.
They are the people who I have sympathy for.

Stop the problem at the source. Grow coffee, marigolds or cabbage, I really don`t care which.

Grow poppys and hear the thunder,

"Magic, this is Fortune, I have you visual, lazing now"
"Fortune, this is Magic, got your laze, good spot good spot"
"Roger Magic, negative friendlys five thousand"
"Rog,"
"Clear Hot, Clear Hot"
"Rog, clear hot,.....stores away"


Works for me.

[Sprey]

There are two options here, one the crop could be purchased by the British Army. Second is that that they could pay them for what they normally get for the poppies on the understanding that they grew food rather than poppies., and that they could keep the difference. From the amount the drug barons pay these people it would cost very little

A reasonable suggestion.
However,since these farmers were financed by the Coalition after the onslaught which supposedly disposed of the Taliban,
in order that they would be able to re-establish their farms.
for food, which of course became poppy farms.
It seems to me that we should get first choice of this purchase at a fair price.

It is worth considering thatther are plenty of drug producers in south American countries all waiting in the wings for new drug markets.

[gkayesem]

I think the emphasis should be on reducing drug problems in this country. Tackling the trade in Afghanistan will do more harm than good. But I doubt sending troops into British cities would be a popular policy.

where do think much of the drugs produced in Afghanistan ends up?

Quotes suggest 90 per cent ends up in europe, and therefore much will end up in Britain. Tackling the drugs flow out of afghanistan restricts the drugs flow into Europe and hence it is in effect attacking the problem in this country. Around 90 per cent of the heroin in this country originates from the poppy fields in Afghanistan.

I completely agree mate. But the fact is that if there is a market in this country, then drugs will always come into this country. Simply removing the fields in Afghanistan will not sort out the problems here. Look at the US War on Drugs? Massive amount of aid to the colombian military that could be used to treat drug addicts or prevent abuse in the US.

The simple truth is that sending in the army is more effective in convincing the public that anti-drugs policies work. The public might support sending in the military to burn crops, kill producers and dealers and destroy factories, but would they support bombing drug dens in British cities or imprisoning or even killing british civilians for abusing drugs?

[Nickosx]

Simply removing the fields in Afghanistan will not sort out the problems here.


The simple truth is that sending in the army is more effective in convincing the public that anti-drugs policies work. The public might support sending in the military to burn crops, kill producers and dealers and destroy factories, but would they support bombing drug dens in British cities or imprisoning or even killing british civilians for abusing drugs?

Whilst I agree with you that just removing the fields in Afghanistan will not sort out all the problems here, if there are less or no drugs coming out of afghanistan then surely thats a good thing, no?

I dont quite understand why you keep refering to the army bombing british cities, where did this come from. But i do think a lot of the british public would support bringing back the death penalty for drug dealers etc, we are too soft on them in my opinion, in places like thailand the drugs dealers are afraid of the police and over here they seem to think they are above the law.

[Doc]

Ive read this thread with alot of interest

Afghanistan hasnt got a drug problem as its toppers with the stuff.

I was hoping to spot a few spelling mistakes and order you all to do a few lines......but in the context of the thread you may get the wrong idea and last be seen heading for the Shell garage to get some munchies.

Doc

[Paratrooper01]

Afghanistan hasnt got a drug problem as its toppers with the stuff.

Your right doc....its us that has the problem.

I just hope they are sweating a bit over there knowing that we are coming over with a hell of alot of fire power and anyone who wants to dance is going to get some

[gkayesem]

What I meant about that bombing british cities malarky is that any anti-drugs campaign is always defensive, yet any drugs problems in Britain are problems of some Brits. We should confront the problem here rather than shiting the blame onto others, and burning thier livelihoods (talking about famers and producers here not the lords).

Take the American anti-drugs campaign in Southern America - massive amounts of aid, troops on the ground (whether they be private contractors or special forces), the destruction of the livelihoods of cocoa farmers. All that to prevent American drug users from gaining a drug that they choose to use. It would be far better for the US - and any other nation for that matter - to sort its own problems rather than directing the blame (and thus resources) onto another country.

But I suppose that if all you have in your toolbox is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Such problems in the long term can not be controlled with military force although the perception may be that the use of force brings the best results.

Its been said, but the priority should not be preventing the export of drugs. It should be the preventation of the produciton of illegitimate drugs. Thier are a lot of legal and beneficial uses of these drugs and it is the drug lords that need taking care of, not the farmers and thier dependancies.

[anglo-saxon]

One of our WO's just got back from a humint stint in A'stan. Down at the P'stan border, he was talking to the local police at their border station. While asking them if there was a local drug problem they all answered "no" as as two of them were busily sticking little lumps of oily hash on the tops of their cigs as they smoked.

I realise hash is not as big an issue, although some of it is actually "opiated".

[gkayesem]

Our problem is not necessary theres. Same with cocoa in Bolivia.

I reckon we should allow dealers to buy the opium and then take care of the dealers after the money has changed hands, give the opium back to the farmers and let them sell it again. and then repeat.

Like Jimmy Bond in The Living Daylights!