Legalising opium is the only way to save Afghanistan

Giving up the war on drugs will save lives and help farmers

FIRST POSTED DECEMBER 22, 2008

In northeastern Afghanistan I once saw a huge proclamation, painted on a wall in Dari and English, on the evils of growing opium.

The message was yet another feeble attempt by the United Nations' drugs control agency to stamp out the crop. Meanwhile abutting the wall - it almost goes without saying was a field of luxuriant purple-white opium poppies.

The 'War on Drugs' has lasted longer than the 'War on Terror' and has been even more of a failure in every part of the world it is being waged.

In Afghanistan, it costs $1bn a year, much of which is pocketed by corrupt officials and cowboy contractors. It ties up and kills British troops. It distracts from much-needed reconstruction and the urgent need to quash corruption. And it drives poor farmers, forced to watch their livelihoods ploughed up, into the arms of the Taliban who now control much of the countryside.

Some 14m Afghans are dependent on the income from opium. Thus it is hardly surprising that Afghanistan continues to produce 93 per cent of the world's opium - the tiny dip in production this year was thanks purely to bad weather. Not only do farmers receive far more for opium than other crops, but the illicit trade, which incidentally pays and arms Taliban troops, is also sponsored by high-ranking figures in the very government the United States expects to deal with the problem.

This Alice in Wonderland state of affairs begs the question: why are we doing it?

Two years ago, nine tonnes of opium was seized from the then Governor of Helmand, Sher Muhammad Akhunzada, who was promptly made an MP at the urging of American and British intelligence. The director of the government's anti-corruption wing, Izzatullah Wasifi, was arrested in Caesar's Palace, Las Vegas, with 600g of heroin, in the late 80s. And President Karzai's brother in law, Ahmed Wali Karzai, is notoriously involved with drug traffickers. As one counter-narcotics expert put it: "Narco kleptocracy, narco terrorism and narco politics rule Afghanistan."

Such a catastrophically Alice in Wonderland state of affairs begs the question: why are we doing it? Why, as America announces a surge of 20,000 to 30,000 more troops in the new year, and Britain looks like sending hundreds more to join them, do we continue to fight a lost war against drugs with its attendant costs in money, lives and goodwill?

Why not simply pull the carpet out from under the entire problem by buying up the crop for medicinal and prescription use? In other words, why not legalise it?

This argument has, of course, been made many times before and rejected, notably by the US and Britain, who would rather spray Afghanistan's opium fields. But there is a precedent.

Add to:

Comments

Hide comments

Good to see the sensible argument rehearsed again. The US failed to learn from alcohol prohibition that banning something leads to a black market run by crooks with attendant violence and corruption. Many other 'grower' countries are similarly suffering while not being graced with US and UK troops, Mexico for instance where civil society is almost broken down as a direct result of the money to be made supplying the affluent West's drug users. In the sixties, Afghanistan was a peaceful country where a young Western woman could hitch-hike unhassled, where the finest cannabis was grown in abundance, and there was little heroin production due to little demand. ALL drug laws should be abolished, there is already abundant supply everywhere, so what could possibly change for the worse? Chances are though that the profit would go out of the market for criminals - too much competition - and 'illegal' supply would gradually diminish to be replaced by regulation. With a worldwide shortage of diamorphine, it is doubly criminal to be burning poppy fields; removing people's livelihood and reducing stocks of painkillers. I have no optimism that those in power at the UN and in national governments, who could change it, have the necessary intelligence or comprehension to do what is necessary. This solution has been offered not just by a few British doctors, but by many people, both lay and medical, and including a large number of law enforcement people in the US, including judges, police chiefs, sheriffs, lawyers and prison officers. They even have a website.

Posted by Peter Simmons at 4:16pm on December 22, 2008

This arcticle should be sent to President elect Barak Obama

Posted by Richard Baker at 4:48pm on December 22, 2008

A small voice of sanity that is certain to be ignored. As I understand it, the only side effect of heroin (apart from addiction - like cigarettes, alcohol, anti-depressants etc. etc. etc.) is constipation. Not death, not AIDS, not hepatitis - those are the effects of heroin not being available through legal and controlled sources.

Posted by Jess D at 5:48pm on December 22, 2008

Other crack pot ideas that merit more consideration I think we should bring back the death penalty for stealing bread or sweets, certainly slavery is now essential we should all get issued 2 slaves when we are 18. Anyone committing a crime is to be executed no re offending in my state. Of course drinking a litre of whisky a day will be compulsory so that the Scottiush workers can work overtime and get paid a lot - we don't want unemployment to rise. Euthanasia will be introduced for the unemployed or for people who drop litter in the street. The trouble with crackpot ideas like growing or buying up illegal drugs that ruin lives is that other crackpot ideas just as daft could be introduced as well.

Posted by Philip Gosling at 7:04pm on December 22, 2008

Legalising sale of opium in Afghanistan prima facie looks a good idea but has far reaching ramifications and repercussions. The areas, in which opium is being cultivated, nowadays are under effective control of the Taleban. In 2007, the Taleban made an estimated $100 million by imposition of taxes on the poppy growing farmers. The major area of Afghanistan, in which opium is grown, is under effective control of the Taleban. So, in order to legalise opium growth, USA, UK and other states have to negotiate with their enemies (the Taleban) Furthermore, there is no assurance, whether the Taleban would come around to negotiating table, agree to such an arrangement and then proactively pursue it. Of foremost importance is the point, that if such an understanding succeeds at all, the major beneficiary will again be the Taleban, who will use the money for buying more arms and ammunitions, so as to utilize them against the NATO and other forces engaged in combating them. Therefore, if at all opium growth is provided a legal cover, though for humanitarian cause such as for production of medicines, it will for certain, result in strengthening the Taleban. The Taleban who are unwilling to negotiate and who want to impose their thinking on rest of the world and moreover their philosophy threaten, our very way of life and peaceful coexistence.

Posted by Qamar Sabzwari at 10:56am on December 23, 2008

Philip Gosling: What does any of the tripe you wrote have to do with this article? If you knew just a little bit about the subject of heroin you wouldn't write such crass nonsense. For your information, just in case you are intellectually capable of taking it in, heroin is the source of diamorphine, the most effective pain killer ever known and most widespread in the world today, but in short supply so many have to suffer appalling pain because there are no pain killers available. Got it? Understand that? Qamar Sabzwari: You are confused. The Taleban once banned all opium production, but that was when they were in power. Then the US and UK invaded and opium production soared, now they use it to raise funds to buy arms. If the opium was legally grown and purchased for the international pharmaceutical trade, there would be no illegal profits to be made, no illegal supply, addicts would get their 'medicine' from doctors rather than pushers. Your argument is confused and deranged, illogical and meaningless. You seem a trifle obsessed with the Taleban, get over it.

Posted by Peter Simmons at 2:42pm on December 23, 2008

Ive been trying to preach this for years I worked in a drug and alcohol unit and I saw that crimes were being committed purely so that addicts could get their fix I researched this and actively promote it as do my fellow colleagues in the Libertarian party www.lpuk.org We state in our manifesto that we will legalise it all and we will probably buy the afghan crop seen as production here is limited to one ( just one for the whole country) factory for diamorphine for pharmaceutical use

Posted by Henry North at 5:50pm on December 23, 2008

I think the idea of legitimising the use of heroin is the only way in which we bring under control this ghastly trade and its vast criminal financial interests which are spawned by it. Peter Simmons is right in saying there's a world-wide shortage of diamorphine for pain relief and the crop would have to be bought in by government agencies. But the Taliban reaction is a serious problem, although possibly not as serious as the reaction of the criminal empires that thrive on the illicit trade - I imagine they will simply murder anyone who gets in their way. It will be a brave politician who stands up for legitimising the heroin trade. Peter Simmons - how would you implement the policy of legitimising poppy growing? We don't want a situation in which Taliban acquiescence is bought at the price of removing Western forces and leaving Taliban richer to finance, train and equip violent Islamic extremism world-wide.

Posted by Peter at 6:14pm on December 23, 2008

Peter: I wouldn't legitimise poppy growing, that's up to the Afghans, who, despite the colonial attitude of so many commentators and the US and UK governments, are quite capable of running their own country as they have done for thousands of years. You seem to think we have the RIGHT to be there and to decide how Afghans should live and how they should order their society, we don't. What I'm suggesting is that the West legalises drugs including heroin; then supply will automatically be legitimate by definition just as all other commodities are. The illegal profits come about because of OUR laws not theirs. I doubt there is even a law in Afghanistan that says growing poppies is illegal. Out anti-drug laws have destabilised a number of countries simply because supply could not be achieved legally so was left to criminals to organise. Remember prohibition of alcohol in the US, it gave the mafia a perfect product from which to make huge profits, once legalised again, normal commercial enterprises like Budweiser, took over, and no one suggests they are funding terrorists or organised crime. Once the idiotic 'moral rectitude' attitude towards mind-altering substances is abandoned, the so-called problem of drugs will disappear, and they will be just another product. I'm not saying there will be no problems, there are plenty of problems with alcohol abuse, but these problems are not solved by banning but are mediated by legislation and social controls.

Posted by Peter Simmons at 12:41pm on December 29, 2008

APART FROM THE FARMERS OF AFGHANISTAN GAINING WE NEED TO USE THE DRUGS WE BUY TO DISTRIBUTE FREE IN THIS COUNTRY AND HELP TO GET RID OF THE CRIMINAL ELEMENT SELLING THEM AND THE CRIME COMMITTED BY THOSE BUYING THEM . TO BE ABLE TO RECEIVE DRUGS THE PESON WOULD NEED TO REGISTER AND RECEIVE SOME FORM OF TREATMENT OR COUNSELLING. IT MAY SOUND SILLY BUT GIVING DRUGS AWAY TAKES A LOT OF THE EXCITEMENT OUT OF IT AND WOULD HELP TO BREAK UP THE DRUG RELATED GROUPS. WORTH A TRY AND IT HAS BEEN DO BEFORE HERE ADMITTEDLY WITH A SMALLER NUMBER OF ADDICTS.

Posted by DEREK HANLIN at 6:25pm on December 30, 2008