
Poppies were the first thing that British army Capt. Leo Docherty noticed when he arrived in Afghanistan’s turbulent Helmand province in April 2006. “They were growing right outside the gate of our Forward Operating Base,” he told me. Within two weeks of his deployment to the remote town of Sangin, he realized that “poppy is the economic mainstay and everyone is involved right up to the higher echelons of the local government.”
Docherty was quick to realize that the military push into northern Helmand province was going to run into serious trouble. The rumor was “that we were there to eradicate the poppy,” he said. “The Taliban aren’t stupid and so they said, ‘These guys are here to destroy your livelihood, so let’s take up arms against them.’ And it’s been a downward spiral since then.”
Thirty-six years and hundreds of billions of dollars after President Richard M. Nixon launched the war on drugs, consumers worldwide are taking more narcotics and criminals are making fatter profits than ever before. The syndicates that control narcotics production and distribution reap the profits from an annual turnover of $400 billion to $500 billion. And terrorist organizations such as the Taliban are using this money to expand their operations and buy ever more sophisticated weapons, threatening Western security.
In the past two years, the drug war has become the Taliban’s most effective recruiter in Afghanistan. Afghanistan’s Muslim extremists have reinvigorated themselves by supporting and taxing the countless peasants who are dependent one way or another on the opium trade, their only reliable source of income. The Taliban is becoming richer and stronger by the day, especially in the east and south of the country. The “war on drugs” is defeating the “war on terror.”
Supply is so plentiful that the price of a gram of heroin is plummeting in Europe, especially in the United Kingdom. According to the UNODC, the street price of a gram of cocaine in the United States is now less than $70, compared with $184 in 1990. Adjusted for inflation, that’s a threefold drop.
In Washington, the war on drugs has been a third-rail issue since its inauguration. It’s obvious why — telling people that their kids can do drugs is the kiss of death at the ballot box. But that was before 9/11. Now the drug war is undermining Western security throughout the world. In one particularly revealing conversation, a senior official at the British Foreign Office told me, “I often think we will look back at the War on Drugs in a hundred years’ time and tell the tale of ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes.’ This is so stupid.”
As much as this article offers, it only scratches the surface. Corporations profit from fighting the War on Drugs – organized crime profits from the logistics. The response from our political hierarchy of hypocrites and reactionaries continues to be grounded in moralizing and prohibition. We know how well they work.
Some folks actually work at resolving questions like this.












#33, green,
In #1, you wrote:
The British East Indies company had and will always have control of the heroin trade in Afghanistan. Troops are there to ensure that continues.
Why don’t you google the British East India Company and see if they are still in business. Then google how much heroin actually comes from Afghanistan. Then check to see when was the last time British troops were stationed in Afghanistan before NATO went after the Taliban.
Now to quote from the site you provided.
1830
…
Jardine-Matheson & Company of London inherit India and its opium from the British East India Company once the mandate to rule and dictate the trade policies of British India are no longer in effect.
You’re own effen cite disagrees with you !!!
You are a moran.
#30, bobbo,
Tell your fat ass lazy stupid cop friend to look for violations of law/safety rather than a “presumption” based on chemical testing?
Uummm, if it is illegal to drive under the influence of drugs then that would be a concern to law enforcement. It is also quite accurate that people driving under the influence are a safety hazard. Just because you disagree with the law does not make the cop fat, lazy, or stupid. Basing a moranic comment upon a stereotype is pure lazy, disingenuous, and not very bright either.
Bobbo, sometimes you just outdo yourself.
#41: You are a moran.
I think you meant moron.
NVM… you probably didn’t
.
#43 – green,
Mr. Fusion is generally quite capable of speaking for himself. In case he doesn’t check back on this thread though, I’m pretty sure he meant moran. For the reference, check this image.
http://tinyurl.com/25ven3
5 LtG. So instead of being in prison, they’d be on the streets until they die from addiction. Good plan. But at least you get your billions out of the deal.
17. Subsection 6(2) of the Canadian Television Broadcasting Regulations held a ban on spirit advertising until challenged on the grounds of free speech. Even so, heavy restrictions and mandatory educational initiatives are in place. Total ban on cigarette advertising continues.
“All of the fourteen comments received from federal, provincial and municipal governments opposed broadcast advertising of spirits. Of these, a majority suggested a total ban and the remainder preferred the status quo” (some outright bans). But to no avail.
Never-the-less, scores of Canadian Northern towns have saw it necessary to enforce a current total ban or heavy restrictions on alcohol use – as in you can’t even bring your own bottle into town without official permission.
RBG