Should the U.S. have located and burned all opium poppy fields in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2014?
Posted by: Vox_VeritasVote
7 Total Votes
Fun fact: Afghanistan produces about 90% of the world's heroin.
Fun fact: lives and jobs (not those of the Taliban) depend on that dope.
3.3 million, if I'm not mistaken. However, wouldn't there only be 10% as much heroin available in the world if we did this?
Yeah, except the Taliban wouldn't just give up and go home. And the stream of Islamic refugees, attempting to reach the US, would be met by bigotry and resistance, and would be forced to stay in Afghanistan, where the Taliban would be them plant more opium. If you think an unwinnable campaign of burning, waiting, and burning again is worth the cost to the American wallet, go for it. Keep in mind that the ONLY job in some parts of Afghanistan is poppy growing.
Should we burn Pfizer factories down because of Oxycodone abuse? How about we destroy Tennessee. Lots of alcoholics use whiskey.
Whenever people realize that poppy growing is not a profitable source (that is, their year's investment is completely wasted because U.S. forces destroyed it) of income they'll start growing other stuff instead. Most of the negative repercussions of this would be short-term.
Locating and burning crops is a fraction as expensive as fighting a counter-insurgency, so yes the U.S. could afford to do it as many times as it'd take. The money saved in terms of worker productivity and medical expenses would probably make it worth it economically.
False analogy. I never said that we should destroy Afghanistan. Only the poppy fields in Afghanistan, virtually all of it being sold to the black markets if I'm not mistaken.
Why do you think we (as users of the product) have any right to destroy their crop? We don't own the damn world.
OK. So we destroy the manufacturing line and intellectual property of the drug company. We destroy all the casks in Lynchburg. Look. We don't get to tell everyone what to do in THEIR countries just because we have more guns.
Their drugs are destroying the lives of millions of our people. So yes, I think we should have a say in this.
We should work on our own drug problem, not go messing with other sovereign countries. Aren't you a conservative? Where is the personal responsibility? The problem with drugs of our own people is our problem. We don't have a right to tell other people how to structure their laws. Now. There are many other problems with your "burn it all" plan, but who cares? It's so far out that we get to do whatever we like just because we can invade on a whim.
If we want to be humane about this we can warn the Afghan people 15 months ahead of time, giving them enough time to to safely transition to a profession that isn't drug-related.
@Vox_Veritas - There are places where Heroin is perfectly legal. There is nowhere I am aware of in the US where you can't grow poppies. It's ludicrous to think we can destroy other people's property because of a domestic problem we have.
I could say likewise; as a Liberal, aren't you supposed to believe that we should protect our people from the influence of horrific drugs?
People are obviously better off if they never have the option to use heroin. That much isn't easy to dispute. We can and are cracking down on illicit drugs at home, but the War on Drugs would be most effective if we could strike at the root of the problem (which is the foreign opium poppy farms).
Name one place where heroin is completely legal.
List of countries where you can get a prescription : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#Legal_status
It may have limited use as a painkiller or something, but its primary use is in the black market for recreational purposes. There are probably equally effective alternatives out there for medicinal purposes.
"I could say likewise; as a Liberal, aren't you supposed to believe that we should protect our people from the influence of horrific drugs?" - Sure... Not by messing with a country we have no rights over. Work on helping our people who have problems with addiction. || "People are obviously better off if they never have the option to use heroin." Who says? The drug is not necessarily a problem, abuse of it is the problem. || "That much isn't easy to dispute." Well, I do dispute that || "We can and are cracking down on illicit drugs at home, but the War on Drugs would be most effective if we could strike at the root of the problem (which is the foreign opium poppy farms)." The war on drugs is a complete joke. We lost. People want and will use drugs. It is even more silly than a war on terror.
For how long do you want to continue this "burn it all" policy? Do you want to salt the earth too? Want to occupy all countries where drugs are grown, and destroy all crops of indigenous farmers? What on earth gives us the right to anything like this?
You can't use heroin if there isn't any to use.
Think opiate addicts will magically stop being adicts? Know what Krokodil is?
Simply waiting for people to become addicted and then spending thousands to rehabilitate them and providing for their healthcare is the definition of insanity. Crack down on the producers of heroin. Their production affects us so we have every right to get involved.
Krokodil comes from opium poppies, so your point about that is moot.
1) You can make Krokodi with codeine (no poppy needed - go blame pharma). 2) You have yet to address under what right we destroy the farms of another country because of OUR problem.
You're forgetting that they are causing our problem.
They are causing our problem? Please... I ask again. Where is the personal responsibility. They are growing a flower. Answer the questions I have posted or I am done.
I'm not saying that this will solve our drug problem. But it'll definitely help.
By your logic dealers aren't doing anything wrong because somebody else chose to buy.
1) For how long do you want to continue this "burn it all" policy? 2) Do you want to salt the earth too? 3) Want to occupy all countries where drugs are grown, and destroy all crops of indigenous farmers? 4) What on earth gives us the right to anything like this?
1) As long as it takes. It shouldn't be all that expensive to do, so we potentially could keep it up indefinitely. 2) No, I do not want to salt the earth's soil. Then no crops could be grown. 3) Not unless they refused to allow the U.S. to step in and destroy such crops, and that you're even claiming that I suggested we destroy all crops of "indigenous farmers" is an affront to all things intelligent and logical 4) I've already given reason several times as to why we have a right to do this. What they're doing affects us in a pretty massive way. All they have to do differently is grow some other crop. Just about any other crop would suffice. That they're growing this crop anyway means they accept full responsibility for whatever consequences and foreign intervention their actions cause.
@Vox_Veritas - I mean this is the nicest possible way. You are what is wrong with America. We don't have the right to tell everyone in the world how to live their lives or countries. We don't have the right to occupy and destroy parts of a country "for as long as necessary" because some of OUR people abuse a drug. This attitude is a huge part of the problem with America. We are NOT the final word on the affairs of everyone just because of firepower.
I would say that you are what is wrong with this country, but that is completely beside the point. This conversation isn't going anywhere because we seem to have a different opinion as to whether or not the choice of using illegal drugs should be present and as such both of us are making polar opposite assumptions when arguing this.
Also, "destroying part of a country" and "burning a field" are technically the same thing but your context in using the former language is to make it look a lot worse than it is.
OK. Let's talk about "making it look worse". Just looked it up. There are about 620,000 users in the US. That is ~.18% of the population. Some percentage have a addiction issue with the drug. Your solution to this minor problem is to invade and occupy a country indefinitely destroying farms of flowers. Further, aside from having no right to do this, it has little hope of fixing the problem you want to address. As I said, there are other drugs addicts move to. So.... Yea, this is a terrible plan.
1) 620,000 people is the population of Montenegro, I should add. 2) From 2001 to 2014 we were already pretty much in charge of the country so another invasion of it wouldn't have been necessary. Had it been done even at this present day there's no indication that the Afghan government would resist using military force. I didn't propose permanent occupation but rather permanently stepping in when needed to destroy opium poppy fields (this all assumes, of course, that the Afghan military wouldn't eventually take up this job to get the U.S. out of the country). You also fail to mention that the U.S. isn't the only country grappling with heroin addiction, so the impact on the War on drugs would be bigger than you're assuming.
The U.S. is in a superpower position and as such we have the power to intervene to cure both ourselves and other nations from the epidemics of drugs such as heroin and cocaine. Afghanistan would be just one part of it.
This bit might interest you. 5,927 people died of heroin use in 2012. ~10,000 children shot. Want to send the army into every gun manufacture and destroy the means to produce more guns?
I was wondering when you would bring that up...Let me reverse this, though: you believe that people should be allowed to use illegal drugs but guns should be banned?
No I don't think guns should be banned. I also don't think we should invade, occupy and burn the crops of another country in the vain attempt to address a drug problem in our own country.
Now answer the question. Do YOU think we should send the army into gun manufactures and destroy their property to keep them from producing more guns?
Ending heroin would also help reduce the transmission of HIV in 3rd world countries, where this virus and other viruses are able to spread rapidly due to junkies sharing needles.
Pakistan has over 6 million drug addicts, with cannabis being the most commonly abused drug and opiates such as heroin coming in second. The increased heroin usage has been attributed to the rise in HIV cases in the country.
Guns are not used almost solely to murderl other people. They have self-defense purposes (if you're a 120 pound normal college girl and you're being charged by 160 pounds of sheer muscle intent on raping you a gun would drastically increase your chances of survival), hunting (a very popular recreational activity), and even the occasional deterrent for invasion (the Japanese wouldn't invade America because of the many guns). So no.
*increased HIV cases attributed to increased heroin usage
Tell you what Vox_Veritas. We will get on this "burn the poppies" idea right after we send the Army into North Carolina with big truck loads of flammables and orders to burn all the tobacco fields. Forget about the North Carolina's their product is a problem.
Will a cigarette do THIS?
Http://i.Ytimg.Com/vi/SxFg5xsZY34/maxresdefault.Jpg
Your link is broken, but how about the CDC http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/ "Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including nearly 42,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure. This is about one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day.1". Soooo...... At about 80x more deadly than Heroin, and right there - in our own country - we could start the fires up tomorrow. Wouldn't cost much.
That's essentially a red herring. I'd like to get rid of cigarettes as well. But heroin is like the devil in the way that it ruins lives. A cigarette smoker's life won't get anywhere near that level of ruined. Really, all it costs you is around 12 years of your life. You'd still live to be 60 and if you kick the habit before 40 (and it is much easier to quit smoking, I can assure you) your risk of an early death brought on by smoking is reduced by as much as 90%.
In fact, you could die from your first heroin dose.
Well do not burn it, but heavily encourage a change in the crops. Now if the new Afghanistan goverment that we set up gave us promission then why not, take out the drug trade there.
The thing is, the Taliban shoots farmers who won't grow opium poppies. It's not their choice, it's the Taliban's. So trying to convince the farmers does nothing, and the Taliban doesn't care if a few fields are burned every year.
Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and