01 Mar 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzCould this have something to do with the fact that the Taliban were doing their best to stamp out opium production and the Afghan forces that the US allied with (and put in power) were in fact opposed to the Taliban partly on the grounds that they derived their income from opium?
Opium production in Afghanistan is at it's highest levels ever under the current US occupation.
This has been linked with increased incidences if drug overdoses in Europe and the Middle East.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6410263.stm
Originally posted by scottishinnzHeh. Never would have imaged there was an upside to opium.
Opium production in Afghanistan is at it's highest levels ever under the current US occupation.
This has been linked with increased incidences if drug overdoses in Europe and the Middle East.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6410263.stm
02 Mar 07
Originally posted by XanthosNZPerhaps, but the US have been on an anti-drug jihad too. Obviously, they are just less effective than the Taliban were.
Could this have something to do with the fact that the Taliban were doing their best to stamp out opium production and the Afghan forces that the US allied with (and put in power) were in fact opposed to the Taliban partly on the grounds that they derived their income from opium?
In biology we have what is called the C-S-R triangle, pioneered by a guy called Phil Grime. The CSR theory predicts, based upon environment, what types of organisms will hold sway over the ecosystems. For example, in a particularly nutrient deprived environment "stress tolerators" (the S component) will evolve, along with thorns, toxins etc. In nutrient replete conditions competitors (the "C" component, with "R" being "ruderal", referring to species which live in highly disturbed environments) will dominate, with high growth rates etc. In these harsh environments (Afghanistan / Iraq / Iran) do we see the emergence of "stress tolerator" cultures, who are willing to do anything to survive? And does this requires a Taliban or a Saddam Hussein to keep the population in order, by any means necessary?
02 Mar 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzI was a little depressed after reading the first sentence, but the second one picked me right up.
Opium production in Afghanistan is at it's highest levels ever under the current US occupation.
This has been linked with increased incidences if drug overdoses in Europe and the Middle East.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6410263.stm
That's good news!
02 Mar 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou still cant beat good old Yankee knowhow when it comes to the commercialization of outdated slightly out of fashion commodities.
Opium production in Afghanistan is at it's highest levels ever under the current US occupation.
This has been linked with increased incidences if drug overdoses in Europe and the Middle East.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6410263.stm
02 Mar 07
Originally posted by MerkLet's open up the drug trade to the free market. Flood the world with drugs...If kids die, too bad...It's their personal responsibility.
The nice thing about not believing in personal responsibility is that when a drug addict in Europe overdoses, you can blame it on American military action in Afghanistan.
02 Mar 07
Originally posted by Bosse de Nageoooooo, that's like sarcasm isn't it.
Let's open up the drug trade to the free market. Flood the world with drugs...If kids die, too bad...It's their personal responsibility.
There needs to be age limit, but when it comes to adults, it aint your business what they do with their bodies.
02 Mar 07
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaI'm wearing jammer's mouldy old socks. Something seems to have rubbed off.
oooooo, that's like sarcasm isn't it.
There needs to be age limit, but when it comes to adults, it aint your business what they do with their bodies.
Of course you're right, above the legal limit it's nobody's business, I support the right to shoot up in privacy...But there's an awful lot of under-age drug abuse, which has a tendency to increase if there are more and cheaper drugs around. (Should Afghan poppy farmers care that their products are instrumental in forming children into crack-whores, or should they smirk along with Merk?)
You are no fan of government control--how'd you go about regulating drug trade? The usual solution proposed is the government sets the price--would you follow that course?
02 Mar 07
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNo, but if there were to be guvamint price control they should send the price all the way down, make drugs as cheap as possible. Threason they grow opium in Afghanistan is because that's the most lucrative crop, at the moment guvamint control is keeping the price artificially high.
I'm wearing jammer's mouldy old socks. Something seems to have rubbed off.
Of course you're right, above the legal limit it's nobody's business, I support the right to shoot up in privacy...But there's an awful lot of under-age drug abuse, which has a tendency to increase if there are more and cheaper drugs around. (Should Afghan poppy farmers care ...[text shortened]... e usual solution proposed is the government sets the price--would you follow that course?
02 Mar 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe source says "possibly" increased deaths- it hasn't happened yet.
Opium production in Afghanistan is at it's highest levels ever under the current US occupation.
This has been linked with increased incidences if drug overdoses in Europe and the Middle East.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6410263.stm
As the Taliban suppressed production, does this mean they are losing influence?
We should simply buy up the opium for medicine, then everyone wins (unless it goes to fund the taliban) and it gives producers a reason for stability.