Dilbert_X wrote:
Because its the Afghans best cash crop
This^Shahter wrote:
yes, i would prefer if they nuked the shithole. now, fuck off.
Give them other stuff to grow. Plant corn, grapes, olives, whatever will grow - make sure the afghani farmers know how to grow it, what it tastes like, and how to turn a profit from it.
Subsidies it for incentives.Pubic wrote:
Give them other stuff to grow. Plant corn, grapes, olives, whatever will grow - make sure the afghani farmers know how to grow it, what it tastes like, and how to turn a profit from it.
No no no no no!Cybargs wrote:
Subsidies it for incentives.Pubic wrote:
Give them other stuff to grow. Plant corn, grapes, olives, whatever will grow - make sure the afghani farmers know how to grow it, what it tastes like, and how to turn a profit from it.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
In order to make up for the difference in profit, you'd have to do that. The only major reason we allow Afghanis to grow opium is because of the profit factor. We know they'd rather grow opium than anything else. Unfortunately, they've been using the Taliban to distribute it.JohnG@lt wrote:
No no no no no!Cybargs wrote:
Subsidies it for incentives.Pubic wrote:
Give them other stuff to grow. Plant corn, grapes, olives, whatever will grow - make sure the afghani farmers know how to grow it, what it tastes like, and how to turn a profit from it.
I hate to say it, but the most expedient way to deal with this would be to exterminate the contested areas. Obviously, that would be rather Nazi-esque, but it might just be the only solution to dealing with one of the shittiest areas of the world.
Why force them to farm a crop that will rot? Afghanistan has no way to export any perishable crops that it would produce. Opium transports well. The problem isn't with the opium itself, it's with the idiots sticking needles in their arms. Supply and demand dictates what the Afghanis will produce. If there is no demand, they'll stop producing poppies. If you burn their fields it won't stop production, they'll just do it in more secluded areas.Turquoise wrote:
In order to make up for the difference in profit, you'd have to do that. The only major reason we allow Afghanis to grow opium is because of the profit factor. We know they'd rather grow opium than anything else. Unfortunately, they've been using the Taliban to distribute it.JohnG@lt wrote:
No no no no no!Cybargs wrote:
Subsidies it for incentives.
I hate to say it, but the most expedient way to deal with this would be to exterminate the contested areas. Obviously, that would be rather Nazi-esque, but it might just be the only solution to dealing with one of the shittiest areas of the world.
If we've learned anything from our own war on drugs it's that it's a complete waste of money. If people want to fuck up their lives they'll find a way to do so. Enough people dropping dead in the gutters and people will think twice before engaging in such stupid activity.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-12-19 10:47:32)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Normally, that argument works. In this particular case, it doesn't. Part of why it doesn't involves the fact that it's a contraband trade, admittedly.JohnG@lt wrote:
Why force them to farm a crop that will rot? Afghanistan has no way to export any perishable crops that it would produce. Opium transports well. The problem isn't with the opium itself, it's with the idiots sticking needles in their arms. Supply and demand dictates what the Afghanis will produce. If there is no demand, they'll stop producing poppies. If you burn their fields it won't stop production, they'll just do it in more secluded areas.
The reason why this argument is invalid for this market is because, currently, Afghanistan produces 15% more opium than the entire world demands. Yet, they still make huge profits. There is currently a massive stockpiling of opium going on.
I mostly agree. For the most part, it would be better to spend this money on rehabilitation efforts than on incarceration ones. Legalizing and regulating a substance makes more sense than banning it.JohnG@lt wrote:
If we've learned anything from our own war on drugs it's that it's a complete waste of money. If people want to fuck up their lives they'll find a way to do so. Enough people dropping dead in the gutters and people will think twice before destroying their own lives.
Stockpiles rise enough and the price will drop precipitously making it an economically non-viable crop. It will work itself out.Turquoise wrote:
Normally, that argument works. In this particular case, it doesn't. Part of why it doesn't involves the fact that it's a contraband trade, admittedly.JohnG@lt wrote:
Why force them to farm a crop that will rot? Afghanistan has no way to export any perishable crops that it would produce. Opium transports well. The problem isn't with the opium itself, it's with the idiots sticking needles in their arms. Supply and demand dictates what the Afghanis will produce. If there is no demand, they'll stop producing poppies. If you burn their fields it won't stop production, they'll just do it in more secluded areas.
The reason why this argument is invalid for this market is because, currently, Afghanistan produces 15% more opium than the entire world demands. Yet, they still make huge profits. There is currently a massive stockpiling of opium going on.I mostly agree. For the most part, it would be better to spend this money on rehabilitation efforts than on incarceration ones. Legalizing and regulating a substance makes more sense than banning it.JohnG@lt wrote:
If we've learned anything from our own war on drugs it's that it's a complete waste of money. If people want to fuck up their lives they'll find a way to do so. Enough people dropping dead in the gutters and people will think twice before destroying their own lives.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
If opium is legalized, yes. Until that point, however, the market doesn't function that way. Contraband markets are often insulated from the normal effects of surpluses because of the fact that usually only a small group of suppliers are involved in the first place.JohnG@lt wrote:
Stockpiles rise enough and the price will drop precipitously making it an economically non-viable crop. It will work itself out.
For example, the drug cartels of Mexico make massive profits on marijuana because they are distributing a product with high demand and their small numbers allow them to essentially agree to limit supply even if they have stockpiles. The same is sometimes even true of legal commodities (like how OPEC deals with oil).
You have to wonder how much of the supply is being bought up by pharma companies. A new supply of cheap opium would maximize their profits on morphine if they kept their sources hidden.Turquoise wrote:
If opium is legalized, yes. Until that point, however, the market doesn't function that way. Contraband markets are often insulated from the normal effects of surpluses because of the fact that usually only a small group of suppliers are involved in the first place.JohnG@lt wrote:
Stockpiles rise enough and the price will drop precipitously making it an economically non-viable crop. It will work itself out.
For example, the drug cartels of Mexico make massive profits on marijuana because they are distributing a product with high demand and their small numbers allow them to essentially agree to limit supply even if they have stockpiles. The same is sometimes even true of legal commodities (like how OPEC deals with oil).
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Good point... I never really thought of that. That seems pretty believable, and it would make for a great movie.JohnG@lt wrote:
You have to wonder how much of the supply is being bought up by pharma companies. A new supply of cheap opium would maximize their profits on morphine if they kept their sources hidden.Turquoise wrote:
If opium is legalized, yes. Until that point, however, the market doesn't function that way. Contraband markets are often insulated from the normal effects of surpluses because of the fact that usually only a small group of suppliers are involved in the first place.JohnG@lt wrote:
Stockpiles rise enough and the price will drop precipitously making it an economically non-viable crop. It will work itself out.
For example, the drug cartels of Mexico make massive profits on marijuana because they are distributing a product with high demand and their small numbers allow them to essentially agree to limit supply even if they have stockpiles. The same is sometimes even true of legal commodities (like how OPEC deals with oil).
*writes script, makes millions.Turquoise wrote:
Good point... I never really thought of that. That seems pretty believable, and it would make for a great movie.JohnG@lt wrote:
You have to wonder how much of the supply is being bought up by pharma companies. A new supply of cheap opium would maximize their profits on morphine if they kept their sources hidden.Turquoise wrote:
If opium is legalized, yes. Until that point, however, the market doesn't function that way. Contraband markets are often insulated from the normal effects of surpluses because of the fact that usually only a small group of suppliers are involved in the first place.
For example, the drug cartels of Mexico make massive profits on marijuana because they are distributing a product with high demand and their small numbers allow them to essentially agree to limit supply even if they have stockpiles. The same is sometimes even true of legal commodities (like how OPEC deals with oil).
@ Galt & Turq: all your "theoriocraft" is pretty cool, but is has nothing to do with why russia wants opium production in afghanistan delt with and why usa won't allow that. as i already mentioned in my earlier post, russian population is very poor compared to the west, so by destroying crops and opium storages in afghanistan it might be possble to raise heroin prices high enough to make it economically unfeasible to distribute en-masse in russia - that's what russia wants and this is what usa & co do not want, because, among other things, it will result in more drugs being shipped to other courties. it's not a matter of "wars on drugs", terrorists, legalizing any of this shit or anything like that - it's much easier, really.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Can't blame them if they're doing it. Would be stupid not to take advantage of the situation.Turquoise wrote:
Good point... I never really thought of that. That seems pretty believable, and it would make for a great movie.JohnG@lt wrote:
You have to wonder how much of the supply is being bought up by pharma companies. A new supply of cheap opium would maximize their profits on morphine if they kept their sources hidden.Turquoise wrote:
If opium is legalized, yes. Until that point, however, the market doesn't function that way. Contraband markets are often insulated from the normal effects of surpluses because of the fact that usually only a small group of suppliers are involved in the first place.
For example, the drug cartels of Mexico make massive profits on marijuana because they are distributing a product with high demand and their small numbers allow them to essentially agree to limit supply even if they have stockpiles. The same is sometimes even true of legal commodities (like how OPEC deals with oil).
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
No offense, but Russia has bigger problems than opium to worry about. You can't really blame so much of your country's troubles on us. Iran has a much better argument regarding what you're talking about, because their addiction rate is much worse than Russia's.Shahter wrote:
@ Galt & Turq: all your "theoriocraft" is pretty cool, but is has nothing to do with why russia wants opium production in afghanistan delt with and why usa won't allow that. as i already mentioned in my earlier post, russian population is very poor compared to the west, so by destroying crops and opium storages in afghanistan it might be possble to raise heroin prices high enough to make it economically unfeasible to distribute en-masse in russia - that's what russia wants and this is what usa & co do not want, because, among other things, it will result in more drugs being shipped to other courties. it's not a matter of "wars on drugs", terrorists, legalizing any of this shit or anything like that - it's much easier, really.
you don't know the half of it, but it doesn't mean russia shouldn't worry about opium at all, right?Turquoise wrote:
No offense, but Russia has bigger problems than opium to worry about.Shahter wrote:
@ Galt & Turq: all your "theoriocraft" is pretty cool, but is has nothing to do with why russia wants opium production in afghanistan delt with and why usa won't allow that. as i already mentioned in my earlier post, russian population is very poor compared to the west, so by destroying crops and opium storages in afghanistan it might be possble to raise heroin prices high enough to make it economically unfeasible to distribute en-masse in russia - that's what russia wants and this is what usa & co do not want, because, among other things, it will result in more drugs being shipped to other courties. it's not a matter of "wars on drugs", terrorists, legalizing any of this shit or anything like that - it's much easier, really.
i can't? why? taliban brought opium production to almost complete halt. then usa blames them for 9/11, kicks their butt and opium production promptly... reaches the levels never seen before. who am i to blame for that?Turquoise wrote:
You can't really blame so much of your country's troubles on us.
and?.. usa doesn't give a damn about others' problems with drugs, apparently. why shoud russia?Turquoise wrote:
Iran has a much better argument regarding what you're talking about, because their addiction rate is much worse than Russia's.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Drug production was still huge before 2001. 2001 was the only year they halted drug production.Shahter wrote:
you don't know the half of it, but it doesn't mean russia shouldn't worry about opium at all, right?Turquoise wrote:
No offense, but Russia has bigger problems than opium to worry about.Shahter wrote:
@ Galt & Turq: all your "theoriocraft" is pretty cool, but is has nothing to do with why russia wants opium production in afghanistan delt with and why usa won't allow that. as i already mentioned in my earlier post, russian population is very poor compared to the west, so by destroying crops and opium storages in afghanistan it might be possble to raise heroin prices high enough to make it economically unfeasible to distribute en-masse in russia - that's what russia wants and this is what usa & co do not want, because, among other things, it will result in more drugs being shipped to other courties. it's not a matter of "wars on drugs", terrorists, legalizing any of this shit or anything like that - it's much easier, really.i can't? why? taliban brought opium production to almost complete halt. then usa blames them for 9/11, kicks their butt and opium production promptly... reaches the levels never seen before. who am i to blame for that?Turquoise wrote:
You can't really blame so much of your country's troubles on us.and?.. usa doesn't give a damn about others' problems with drugs, apparently. why shoud russia?Turquoise wrote:
Iran has a much better argument regarding what you're talking about, because their addiction rate is much worse than Russia's.
lulz, no the reason they dont want to burn the crops is because they already learnt the hard way that burning ppls supply of money pisses them off, enough for them to go join the taliban. Burning the crops is incredibly counter productive.Shahter wrote:
@ Galt & Turq: all your "theoriocraft" is pretty cool, but is has nothing to do with why russia wants opium production in afghanistan delt with and why usa won't allow that. as i already mentioned in my earlier post, russian population is very poor compared to the west, so by destroying crops and opium storages in afghanistan it might be possble to raise heroin prices high enough to make it economically unfeasible to distribute en-masse in russia - that's what russia wants and this is what usa & co do not want, because, among other things, it will result in more drugs being shipped to other courties. it's not a matter of "wars on drugs", terrorists, legalizing any of this shit or anything like that - it's much easier, really.
If russia wants to solve this problem they need to do it themselves.
sure. will usa allow russia to napalm bomp opium plantations?Vilham wrote:
If russia wants to solve this problem they need to do it themselves.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
When the UN leaves I see no reason why Russia can't make that decision for themselves and face any backlash from it. While the UN is in afghanistan it is obviously out of the question because it will be the UN that takes the brunt of any backlash.
i see. it's UN now.
/facepalm
/facepalm
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Well yes, it is the UN.Shahter wrote:
i see. it's UN now.
/facepalm
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgur … start%3D40
The Taliban currently is distributing much of the opium exiting Afghanistan. We're fighting the Taliban. I may not agree with our occupation there, but actually, our presence somewhat stifles the flow of opium because of this. We're not doing as much as we should by stopping the crops from being grown in the first place, but you can't say we're doing nothing.Shahter wrote:
i can't? why? taliban brought opium production to almost complete halt. then usa blames them for 9/11, kicks their butt and opium production promptly... reaches the levels never seen before. who am i to blame for that?Turquoise wrote:
You can't really blame so much of your country's troubles on us.
We care about Colombia's problem with drugs, apparently.Shahter wrote:
and?.. usa doesn't give a damn about others' problems with drugs, apparently. why shoud russia?Turquoise wrote:
Iran has a much better argument regarding what you're talking about, because their addiction rate is much worse than Russia's.
whatever you are doing - that is if you are doing anything at all - it doesn't work. whatever taliban were doing it did work. the rest, quite frankly, i do not give a shit about.Turquoise wrote:
The Taliban currently is distributing much of the opium exiting Afghanistan. We're fighting the Taliban. I may not agree with our occupation there, but actually, our presence somewhat stifles the flow of opium because of this. We're not doing as much as we should by stopping the crops from being grown in the first place, but you can't say we're doing nothing.Shahter wrote:
i can't? why? taliban brought opium production to almost complete halt. then usa blames them for 9/11, kicks their butt and opium production promptly... reaches the levels never seen before. who am i to blame for that?Turquoise wrote:
You can't really blame so much of your country's troubles on us.
"Colombia's problem"? /facepalm.Turquoise wrote:
We care about Colombia's problem with drugs, apparently.Shahter wrote:
and?.. usa doesn't give a damn about others' problems with drugs, apparently. why shoud russia?Turquoise wrote:
Iran has a much better argument regarding what you're talking about, because their addiction rate is much worse than Russia's.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
It's good to know that you're open-minded....Shahter wrote:
whatever you are doing - that is if you are doing anything at all - it doesn't work. whatever taliban were doing it did work. the rest, quite frankly, i do not give a shit about.
You recognize that the drug trade in Afghanistan is a problem, so logically, you should be able to see that it is a problem in Colombia as well.Shahter wrote:
"Colombia's problem"? /facepalm.