 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:25
|
|
quote:
Afghans Report Decline of Poppy Crop
Officials Credit Karzai's Appeals, but Warn Aid Is Needed to Ensure Success
By N.C. Aizenman
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, February 6, 2005; Page A17
GIRDI GHOUS, Afghanistan -- Shah Mahmoud smiled ruefully as he surveyed the snow-speckled fields stretching beyond the mud walls of his village. In drought-plagued Nangahar province, a rare snowfall would normally augur a bumper crop for the many opium poppy farmers among his people. But on acre after acre, the green shoots poking through the soil were not fat poppy buds but delicate sprigs of wheat.
"I made the decision this season that it would be forbidden to plant poppy," said Mahmoud, whose edicts as the area's traditional chief, or malek, carry more weight with the 30,000 members of his community than any government law. "So none of us did. Now I'm not so happy about that."
Across Afghanistan, government officials and foreign aid workers who monitor poppy cultivation have reached a remarkable conclusion: One year after Afghan farmers planted the largest amount of poppy in their nation's history and provided the world with nearly 90 percent of its opium supply, many of them have stopped growing it.
Poppy farming, officials said, may have declined by as much as 70 percent in three provinces that together account for more than half of Afghanistan's production: Nangahar in the east, Helmand in the south and Badakhshan in the north.
In Nangahar, where last spring poppies bloomed all along the main road from the provincial capital, Jalalabad, to the Pakistani border, the contrast today is striking.
"I visited 16 out of 22 districts and I couldn't find a single plant of poppy," marveled Mirwais Yasini, head of the Afghan government's counter-narcotics directorate. "It was all wheat."
Several factors may be responsible, including a drop in opium prices after the previous banner harvest, and a reluctance to plant among farmers whose crops were destroyed last season by disease or the police.
Afghan officials, however, claim the news vindicates President Hamid Karzai's decision to reject an anti-poppy aerial spraying campaign, which had been promoted by the U.S. government, in favor of a more consensus-based "Afghan solution."
Karzai voiced concerns that spraying would cause health and environmental problems and antagonize farmers; several foreign nonprofit aid groups here also opposed the idea. Instead, the president used appeals to national and religious pride, the promise of international aid and the threat of crop destruction to persuade hundreds of village and tribal leaders such as Mahmoud to curb poppy cultivation voluntarily.
Yet the very success of this new policy also creates tremendous challenges in a nation where opium cultivation and trafficking made up more than a third of the economy last year and sustained many thousands of poor rural families.
"People will need other sources of income as soon as possible, or we'll be the witness to a big disaster. People may even face starvation," said Gen. Muhammad Daoud, deputy interior minister in charge of counter-narcotics.
U.S. military officials said they plan to conduct aerial surveillance soon to verify reports that poppy crops have been reduced. In December, the top commander in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. David W. Barno, reportedly warned visiting officials, including Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, that drug lords were expanding their influence in the Afghan government and could form ties with Taliban fighters.
But Col. David Lamm, chief of staff for the U.S. military command in Afghanistan, said he was optimistic that Kabul's assertions of progress in reducing poppy production would prove true. "Can you put it under your mattress and let the price go up? Yes," he said, but he added that since Karzai told farmers not to plant, "they are not planting."
International donors have pledged millions to help Afghanistan combat drugs this year; the United States pledged about $780 million. About $120 million of the U.S. assistance package has been earmarked for work on irrigation canals, to improve roads, to create micro-credit systems, and to obtain better seeds and fertilizers so poppy workers can make a living from other crops and industries.
In Nangahar, the first phase of that effort has already begun, with plans to hire about 50,000 workers to do jobs such as clearing irrigation canals. In a largely symbolic gesture, the U.S. government has also distributed 500 metric tons of wheat seeds in Nangahar -- enough for less than 5 percent to 10 percent of farmers, Afghan officials said.
But it will take until at least early spring to start up more lasting infrastructure improvements, U.S. officials said. Also, while aid workers stress that such programs are not intended to compensate individual farmers who gave up their poppy crops, local leaders such as Mahmoud see it that way.
A tall man in his sixties with pale blue eyes and a long gray beard, Mahmoud has the regal bearing of a leader whose title has been passed down through generations. If enough aid does not arrive by the start of the planting cycle next fall, he warned, he may not have enough clout to stop growers from switching back.
"The farmers will grab my collar and say, 'You said that we could get aid for not growing poppy and we got nothing!' " Mahmoud predicted. "Then even I will not be able to stop them from growing poppy again."
Mahmoud said he learned of Karzai's new anti-drug strategy in December when he tuned a dusty television set to watch the inaugural address. Karzai, who was elected Oct. 9 after serving as interim president for nearly three years, called for a "holy war" against the drug trade, which Afghan religious leaders have also declared un-Islamic.
Shortly afterward, Mahmoud and more than 40 other tribal and village leaders in Nangahar received invitations to meetings about anti-drug efforts with provincial officials, several national ministries and representatives of the British and U.S. governments.
The purpose was to make clear that the government had the means and the determination to crack down on poppy cultivation, said Ghous, head of counter-narcotics for Nangahar police.
"We told them that the central government is serious -- that if you grow poppy, the government will get rid of it by force," recalled Ghous, who like many Afghans uses only one name.
The community leaders also heard presentations by aid workers about plans for development and assistance projects. Then they were asked to discuss among themselves whether they could pledge to stop growing poppy in their areas. Mahmoud said he struggled with the decision.
"As far back as I can remember, the people in this village have always grown poppy," he said. The reason is simple: Opium harvested from poppy fetches 10 to 20 times the price of legal crops such as wheat.
Last season, Mahmoud said, he and his brothers planted poppy on about 1 1/2 of the three acres they farm and received about $2,500 in return. By contrast, the wheat they planted on the rest of the land earned them one-tenth that amount. He also leased another 25 acres to sharecroppers who mainly planted poppy.
A tour through Mahmoud's fortress-like compound made clear how he has benefited from poppy income. Although it is built of mud brick and lacks electricity and heat, it has walls two stories high, an imposing blue metal gate, three separate courtyards, and a sprawl of rooms with living space for more than 50 members of his extended family.
Inside the walls, his daughters and daughters-in-law padded about in colorful, gold-embroidered garments. Outside, a Toyota Corolla -- one of three vehicles the family owns -- was parked near a mosque built especially for the family.
Mahmoud said that although he would miss the income from a new poppy crop, he could make up for it with savings from last year's harvest. But he worried that many families in the village would not be able to do so.
"Most people here are very, very poor," he said. "I don't think they will starve. But they may have to leave to go to the city to find work as laborers."
Nevertheless, he agreed to the voluntary crop reduction, in part because he feared a more aggressive effort to eradicate the crop would lead to violent clashes with farmers, and in part because he was convinced that the aid officials he met would follow through on their promises. But mostly, he said, it was because he did not want to bring shame on Karzai, for whom he voted, and his new government.
"The international community has its eyes on Afghanistan now. If we cultivate poppy this year, they will say every time Afghanistan is growing poppy. We need the international community's help, and so I don't want us to have a bad reputation," he said.
There is, however, a limit to his support. If the president does not deliver the expected improvements soon, he said with a shrug, "We will vote Mr. Karzai out of office and go back to planting poppy." |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
PeteH
|
|
quote:
I don't believe that kids buy drugs because they are expensive. I think that preventing a little amount of drugs from being consumed by our kids is worth a high cost. |
See theres the thing though, for all the money spent, consumption continues to be as high as ever overall. So where is this benefit again?
There is also the danger of lumping all drugs into the same category. Prescription drugs have all kinds of testing for dangerous interactions and side effects, but the same kind of research is not llowed on most illegal drugs, making the risk of complications from them higher. the actual danger of any single drug is mostly irrational fear, in my experience. There is almost nothing that is as dangerous as the drug warriors make most drigs out to be if you have sdone even the most basic research into the effects and pitfalls of a drug, like you would with a prescription, or cold medicine, or herbal supplement etc.
I think any sensible policy has to start from the basis that a certain segment of society will seek out mind altering substances regardless of legality, and therefore needs to be managed in a way that is not harmful to society (including those drug seekers and their neighbors in the community
|
|
| |
|
|
|
PeteH
|
|
quote:
People who sell drugs should be put in prison. That being said the biggest problem is our society in general. |
Obviously this is something you aren't looking to debate, you have your mind made up.
But I would say, as food for thought at least, I find it strange to view a certain subset of chemicals as fundamentally different than another set of chemicals simply based on the whims of certain goverment officials. I doubt there is a need to point out the obvious nicotine/alcohol/prescription/otc drug deaths, the harm to the public health of fast food, excessive television watching, gambling, shopping, pick your poison.
However, it is only a certain set of chemicals which get deemed "illegal drugs" that demand the harshest penalties available.
Perhaps you just find selling of items in general offensive, I could probably get behind that, but somehow I don't see that as where you are going in this respect
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by PeteH
Obviously this is something you aren't looking to debate, you have your mind made up.
|
Like I said. I'm willing to pay a high price to take a little drugs of the street.
quote:
But I would say, as food for thought at least, I find it strange to view a certain subset of chemicals as fundamentally different than another set of chemicals simply based on the whims of certain goverment officials. I doubt there is a need to point out the obvious nicotine/alcohol/prescription/otc drug deaths, the harm to the public health of fast food, excessive television watching, gambling, shopping, pick your poison.
|
Shopping? 
quote:
Perhaps you just find selling of items in general offensive, I could probably get behind that, but somehow I don't see that as where you are going in this respect |
It's not only that it's offensive. I would like to see this type of person in prison.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:25
|
|
drug wars are for losers and republicants
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-02-2005 00:18
|