[Sparkletron]

NATO launches offensive against Taliban

"The operation will not touch Helmand's poppy fields, which supply much of the world's opium and its more potent derivative, heroin. That could antagonize the 2 million farmers whose livelihoods depend on growing poppy, something the alliance wishes to avoid."

Yes I understand this is NATO--not the US per se, and that NATO ostensibly operates at the behest of the Afghan government, but I think it's rather amazing that we're admitting we know where "much of the world's opium" is, that we're right on top of it with an army, and that we're doing nothing to destroy it. Is this a significant change from the usual? Or just the political realities of the region?

-S

[red rocket]

It was a mistake to destroy any of the poppy fields in the first place. If I had a poppy field and my living depended on it, and some foreign horde burned it down, I'd want to kill the bastards, as well.

[nonhuman]

We know where pretty much all of the world's cocaine comes from, but we haven't gone and bombed it all to hell yet either...

[Dakarʒ]

Well in this case I think its so as to not alienate that part of the population. Having any segment of the population supporting Taliban is a pain in the ass.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Well in this case I think its so as to not alienate that part of the population. Having any segment of the population supporting Taliban is a pain in the ass.

You'd think having driven off the Taliban and granted the people a chance at freedom and democracy only to abandon them to the Taliban again would have already done that...

[Dakarʒ]

Now that I think about it, who was maintaining order in locales after the Taliban was driven away? (I know it wasn't the government)

[smacintush]

"The American drug policy is so stupid that those who support it would either have to be in on the racket…or a moron." - Alan W. Watts

[OldManMac]

We're not really interested in solving the drug problem; we just want to make it look like we are.

[shinji]

The amount of land dedicated to opium cultivation in Helmand was up 132% in 2006, and in Afghanistan overall by 61%...overall opium production 26%.

Afghanistan Opium Crop Sets Record - washingtonpost.com

Makes you wonder how we can still imprison non-violent drug offenders in our own country.

[Sparkletron]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

It was a mistake to destroy any of the poppy fields in the first place. If I had a poppy field and my living depended on it, and some foreign horde burned it down, I'd want to kill the bastards, as well.

I'm sure the folks whose livelihood depends on the slave trade feel the same way.

I don't think we want a general rule that makes something legit if someone's living depends on it. There are too many instances of people making a living from the unjustifiable use of violence.

Meanwhile, as the third season of The Wire suggests, legalization has its own set of problems. The camps are generally:

1. People who are against recreational drug use and believe law enforcement will lead to less use.
2. People who are against recreational drug use and believe legalization will lead to less use.
3. People who support the right to recreational drug use.

Complicating matters is how you define a drug. In the US, cigs and alcohol are not considered drugs. Since this is a multicultural context, one must consider the possibility that other cultures may have their own definitions and exceptions.

-S

[peeb]

There is another group - those who support the right to recreational drug use, and want to reduce the amount of it and the damage it can do. These people also favor a rational drug policy that gives access to legal, affordable and clean drugs, as well as public information, counseling, and therapy for those having a bad trip, so to speak.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by Sparkletron

I'm sure the folks whose livelihood depends on the slave trade feel the same way.

I don't think we want a general rule that makes something legit if someone's living depends on it. There are too many instances of people making a living from the unjustifiable use of violence.

It's hardly the same as slavery. People have been smoking opium for millennia. Just because some governments have made it illegal in recent years, doesn't mean it is suddenly evil and production needs to be wiped out.

Besides, there are plenty of people making a good living from war. It's far more harmful than growing opium, but nobody's talking about banning soldiers or destroying their weapons.

The ‘war on drugs’ is completely hypocritical.

[Super Mario]

Narco states are never peaceful because the crop doesn't belong to little people. Big bully drug dealer terrorists won't allow farmers to grow anything else through intimidation and threats.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

People have been raping for millennia. Just because some governments have made it illegal in recent years, doesn't mean it is suddenly evil and people need to be having consensual sex

Fixediated.

[red rocket]

You cannot seriously be equating raping people with growing opium?

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

You cannot seriously be equating raping people with growing opium?

A farmer who wants to grow wheat and is forced to grow opium is a life raped of decency.

A depressed person who is tempted by heroin is a life raped of decency and potential.

Rape isn't just sex. It's the act of taking away someone's right to live decently.

[peeb]

I think that your examples serve only to dilute the real meaning of 'rape'.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Narco states are never peaceful because the crop doesn't belong to little people. Big bully drug dealer terrorists won't allow farmers to grow anything else through intimidation and threats.

And why do you suppose those big bully drug lords exist in the first place? Opium is not a valid international crop to be traded openly on the market. Opium farmers depend on the black market mechanisms in order to trade, and the black market, operating outside of the law, can resort to any means it wants to get what it wants when it wants.

[Sparkletron]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

It's hardly the same as slavery. People have been smoking opium for millennia. Just because some governments have made it illegal in recent years, doesn't mean it is suddenly evil and production needs to be wiped out.

I'm not equating drug use with slavery. I merely pointed out that just because someone makes a living from something doesn't justify it. Slave trading is one of many reductio ad absurdum examples one might use to explain why this general principle doesn't work.

You are now clarifying the principle by suggesting that history is also a factor, that if a profession dates back to the dawn of man it is somehow justified. Again, I would point to slave trading as a reason why this doesn't work. There are many professions older than opium farming that we would not want to legalize despite their endurance throughout history.

Also, it is inaccurate to imply that governments have only recently made smoking opium illegal; go to Wikipedia and read about the Opium Wars. My guess is that opium becomes illegal when it becomes a problem. In the case of the Opium Wars, it brought down the Qing dynasty. It is also responsible for something very much akin to rape: the drug mules whose bodies are used as smuggling containers. From Wikipedia, "In 2003; statistics confirmed that over 50% of foreign females in UK jails were drug mules from Jamaica." Being forced or induced to swallow 50-90 capsules of drugs sure sounds like rape to me.

-S

[Uncle Skeleton]

If it weren't illegal, there would be no drug mules

Since someone else already added to your list of 3, this will be 5, 6 and 7:
People who are against recreational drugs, but think the violence caused by fighting them is far worse than the drugs themselves.
People who support the use of recreational drugs, and think the violence caused by fighting drugs makes them far more dangerous than they otherwise would be, and
People who don't care one way or another about drugs (or are split between mild drugs like pot and hard drugs like crack), but realize that the violence caused by fighting them is far worse than all the drugs themselves.

[macintologist]

Sparkletron, if opium could be traded freely and legally on the international markets, there would be no drug mules because their services would not be needed. Trucks and cargo ships would do just fine.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If it weren't illegal, there would be no drug mules

While I'm on your side of this debate, that still isn't really a valid argument. If killing people weren't illegal, there'd be no murderers either. We'd just have to deal with a lot more dead people. Outlawing homicide doesn't eliminate killers any more than outlawing drugs eliminates users. And yet it's still illegal and no one is proposing that it shouldn't be.

The question is one of morals and values: do we want to accept users or do we want to make it as difficult as possible to be one? Neither position is right or wrong, they're just different opinions held by different people.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Mules aren't users. They are people whose lives are put in danger purely because of the "need" to circumvent the laws against drugs. Whether the laws are stopping anyone from using drugs who otherwise would, and how many of those people there are is arguable, but drug mules are perfect examples of where the laws in place create misery and destruction that otherwise wouldn't be there.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

While I'm on your side of this debate, that still isn't really a valid argument. If killing people weren't illegal, there'd be no murderers either. We'd just have to deal with a lot more dead people. Outlawing homicide doesn't eliminate killers any more than outlawing drugs eliminates users. And yet it's still illegal and no one is proposing that it shouldn't be.

The question is one of morals and values: do we want to accept users or do we want to make it as difficult as possible to be one? Neither position is right or wrong, they're just different opinions held by different people.

There are alternatives to making drugs completely illegal which creates all of these dangerous side effects. Liberty is far more important than any of your "desires" for what kind of society you want to live in.

Why not try to educate people about drug abuse? All of the sales tax collected from the legal sale of harmful drugs could be used to pay for anti-drug education programs. Hell they could easily pay for themselves. Also, organizations that think drugs are bad can run ads on TV and newspapers, showing it's ill-effects.

Has the power of persuasion been emasculated by the ease at which governments ban products which society deems harmful?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Mules aren't users. They are people whose lives are put in danger purely because of the "need" to circumvent the laws against drugs. Whether the laws are stopping anyone from using drugs who otherwise would, and how many of those people there are is arguable, but drug mules are perfect examples of where the laws in place create misery and destruction that otherwise wouldn't be there.

I know what mules are, I was just using users as a more universal example.

And it's not entirely true that mules wouldn't exist if drugs were legal. As long as there is something that people want that is illegal, mules will exist. Hell, mules exist for things that are legal. People bring prescription drugs across the border from Mexico all the time and re-sell them at a profit for prices that are still lower than normal prices in the US. And not just prescription drugs. There are guys that dig up agave plants along the border to sell illegally to Americans. Agave plants are perfectly legal to own, grow, and sell here, and yet people still do it illegally.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

There are alternatives to making drugs completely illegal which creates all of these dangerous side effects. Liberty is far more important than any of your "desires" for what kind of society you want to live in.

Why not try to educate people about drug abuse? All of the sales tax collected from the legal sale of harmful drugs could be used to pay for anti-drug education programs. Hell they could easily pay for themselves. Also, organizations that think drugs are bad can run ads on TV and newspapers, showing it's ill-effects.

Has the power of persuasion been emasculated by the ease at which governments ban products which society deems harmful?

I'm entirely in agreement with you. It just annoys me when people try to use the argument that it would be good to legalize drugs because it will get rid of all that drug crime. Of course it will! Legalizing any illegal activity will get rid of the associated crime. That doesn't mean it's desirable.

And yes, liberty is important. But we've decided as a society, and I agree, that making it illegal to kill people (except in certain situations) is more important than that liberty. We're not free to kill whomever we want, but that's ok. Some people think it's ok that we're also not free to ingest whatever we want. I don't agree with them, but their position is still valid.

[Sparkletron]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If it weren't illegal, there would be no drug mules

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Sparkletron, if opium could be traded freely and legally on the international markets, there would be no drug mules because their services would not be needed. Trucks and cargo ships would do just fine.

True. But it is also true that if there were no drug producers, there would be no drug mules. If there were no drug suppliers, there would be no drug mules. If there were no drug users, there would be no drug mules. Lots of these equations work. It still comes down to the three aforementioned camps (plus all the variants others are suggesting, which are mostly just subsets of the original three).

My problem with the recreational use of opium and its derivatives is the physically addictive properties. It truly brought the Qing era Chinese society to the brink. Something like half the population was addicted, including most of the royal court. As I said before, drugs tend to become illegal when they become a problem.

I'd be much more inclined to legalize and regulate cannabis, which is not physically addictive and has proven medical uses for cancer patients that no other drugs can (as yet) duplicate. If someone has cancer and marijuana helps and nothing else does, I say let them use it.

-S

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

And yes, liberty is important. But we've decided as a society, and I agree, that making it illegal to kill people (except in certain situations) is more important than that liberty. We're not free to kill whomever we want, but that's ok. Some people think it's ok that we're also not free to ingest whatever we want. I don't agree with them, but their position is still valid.

In no way is murder an exercise of one's liberty, rather it is an abridgment of another's. Liberty is doing what you want so long as you don't violate someone else.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by Sparkletron

I'm not equating drug use with slavery. I merely pointed out that just because someone makes a living from something doesn't justify it. Slave trading is one of many reductio ad absurdum examples one might use to explain why this general principle doesn't work.

Bringing up slavery when it comes to discussing opium farming is suggesting that there is something similarly wrong with opium farming.

Whilst it may be your personal opinion that that is the case, wild comparisons like that do not take into account that are a wide variety of cultures on the planet who do not feel that way about opium farming, and educating the ignorant savages about their primitive and evil ways seems a bit condescending.

Originally Posted by Sparkletron

You are now clarifying the principle by suggesting that history is also a factor, that if a profession dates back to the dawn of man it is somehow justified. Again, I would point to slave trading as a reason why this doesn't work. There are many professions older than opium farming that we would not want to legalize despite their endurance throughout history.

But we're not talking about slave trading or other professions. We're talking about opium farming. The farming of a substance which millions of people have enjoyed for thousands upon thousands of years. Even Queen Victoria was an opium user, and she lived to the ripe old age of 81.

Originally Posted by Sparkletron

Also, it is inaccurate to imply that governments have only recently made smoking opium illegal; go to Wikipedia and read about the Opium Wars. My guess is that opium becomes illegal when it becomes a problem. In the case of the Opium Wars, it brought down the Qing dynasty. It is also responsible for something very much akin to rape: the drug mules whose bodies are used as smuggling containers. From Wikipedia, "In 2003; statistics confirmed that over 50% of foreign females in UK jails were drug mules from Jamaica." Being forced or induced to swallow 50-90 capsules of drugs sure sounds like rape to me.

This is from the Wikipedia article on opium:

[test]
Modern opium production is the culmination of millennia of production, in which the source poppy, methods of extraction and processing, and methods of consumption have become increasingly potent. The medicinal use of poppies for pain relief dates back to ancient times, but widespread use in patent medicines or as a recreational drug has occurred only in the last few centuries. Drug prohibition laws in most countries have been promulgated only during the last century. Today the opium crop is worth in excess of $400 million legally and $7 billion illegally, after processing.
[/test]

As for the Opium Wars, governments establish laws banning all manner of things all the time. Just look at the history of alcohol, its been banned in all sorts of countries over the years. Or consider all the stuff that's forbidden under Islamic law:

[test]
• Pork, or any pig-based products
• Blood
• Animals slaughtered in the name of anyone but God (There is debate regarding the permissibility of meat slaughtered by Christians or Jews)
• Carrion
• "Fanged beasts of prey" as per the Sunnah, usually simplified to all carnivorous animals, with the exception of most fish and sea animals
• All intoxicants (specifically alcohol)
[/test]

Apparently, what's banned in one place at one time has no bearing on what should be banned elsewhere, at other times.

You can't just take two 19th century wars between the Company and one Chinese dynasty, and spin it into some consensus argument about the evilness of opium.

Britain was in favour of opium. France was in favour of opium. America was in favour of opium. China only decided to ban it once her economy suffered from it.

Let's examine this 1810 decree by the Chinese government:
[test]
Opium has a harm. Opium is a poison, undermining our good customs and morality. Its use is prohibited by law. Now the commoner, Yang, dares to bring it into the Forbidden City. Indeed, he flouts the law!
[/test]

Customs and morality.
Relative subjects.

And, as others have pointed out, you are stretching the ‘rape’ definition.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

In no way is murder an exercise of one's liberty, rather it is an abridgment of another's. Liberty is doing what you want so long as you don't violate someone else.

That really depends on the philosophic framework in which you operate...

Some might say the murder is wrong not because you're violating someone else's right to life but because you're decreasing the potential productivity of a society and/or family. Or because you're causing emotional distress to the people that cared about your victim.

Some would say that murder is wrong solely because God (or whomever/whatever they believe in) forbid it, and that petty human concern don't enter into it.

In both of those cases, a single person doing drugs themselves in isolation could be equally as bad as that person killing another.

Amazingly enough not all people approach life with the same assumptions about it's inherent properties.

[Sparkletron]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Bringing up slavery when it comes to discussing opium farming is suggesting that there is something similarly wrong with opium farming.

No it doesn't, particularly as I repeatedly qualified and limited my comparison to your justification for opium farming. If X can by used to justify Y and Z, that doesn't mean Y and Z are equivalent, does it?

Originally Posted by red rocket 

and educating the ignorant savages about their primitive and evil ways seems a bit condescending.

That's ad hominem. Referring to your fellow Mac users as ignorant savages is not very nice, nor is mischaracterizing someone's argument to bolster your own.

Originally Posted by red rocket 

But we're not talking about slave trading or other professions. We're talking about opium farming. The farming of a substance which millions of people have enjoyed for thousands upon thousands of years.

We are also talking about the justifications for opium farming, which you once again suggest is related to historical endurance. Yet slave trading is an older profession than opium farming, which millions of people have also enjoyed for thousands upon thousands of years. So historical endurance alone cannot be the arbiter of what is just.

Originally Posted by red rocket 

[test]Drug prohibition laws in most countries have been promulgated only during the last century[/test]

Interesting that you consider this a valuable plank in your argument. What this says to me is that, despite all the different cultures in the world, with all the different languages, religions, and moralities, most countries now agree that certain drug prohibitions are required. Apparently, the world consensus regarding opium farming transcends all our worldly differences. That is quite a strong consensus!

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Apparently, what's banned in one place at one time has no bearing on what should be banned elsewhere, at other times.

I couldn't agree with you more, which is why any justification for opium farming has to either limit itself to a particular place and time, or transcend place and time altogether.

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Just look at the history of alcohol, its been banned in all sorts of countries over the years.

Alcohol is very relevant to this discussion. It is indeed a problem in most countries, and is somewhat indicative of what could happen if opium and its derivatives were legalized. Take the US, for example. Despite all the regulation and public awareness, the stiff penalties and zero tolerance laws, the number of alcohol-related injuries and fatalities nationwide has increased. And--no--I am not suggesting we ban alcohol; I am suggesting that each country has to decide if the individual benefits outweigh the societal costs. In the US, we accept alcohol (thank god!) but we also highly regulate it. We could do the same for opium but we don't, probably because a majority of Americans are turned off by highly addictive substances. There are good arguments on both sides but opium's historical endurance is not one of them.

One thing that is historically significant is the way in which opium use has changed. Prior to the advent of smoking, it was either ingested or used externally, with many anecdotal instances of its beneficial use. After smoking opium became prevalent, the opposite is true, with the historical record documenting many instances of its harm to individuals and society.

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Britain was in favour of opium. France was in favour of opium. America was in favour of opium. China only decided to ban it once her economy suffered from it.

Huh? I don't recall glowing endorcements of opium coming from any of these governments at any time. Opium use has always been controversial, just as alcohol use still is today (Should a minor be allowed to buy alcohol? Good question...). Meanwhile, the only reason these countries *tolerated* opium was because they were exporting it and balancing their trade deficits with it. Opium was banned when the costs (the increasing prevalence of drug addiction and its effect on society) began to outweigh the economic benefits.

-S

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Sparkletron 

True. But it is also true that if there were no drug producers, there would be no drug mules. If there were no drug suppliers, there would be no drug mules. If there were no drug users, there would be no drug mules.

The big difference between what I said and what you said is I was talking about changing the rules, and you were talking about eliminating large portions of the population. This is important for 2 reasons:
1. changing the rules is far easier and more morally justifiable than eliminating human beings, and
2. we as humans start off with the world as is, and try to impose rules to make things better; the last thing the rules should do is make things worse than they were to start with. The producers, the suppliers, the users, they all exist, and as nonhuman pointed out, if we somehow keep them away from drugs they will still exist and do some other unsavory thing. They're "real." The drug laws aren't "real," and if we choose to repeal them, they won't persist and shift to creating some other man-made inequality. The rules, if you will, are under our control. The population isn't.

Creating rules that have effects that are worse than the problem they're meant to solve is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[Sparkletron]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The big difference between what I said and what you said is I was talking about changing the rules, and you were talking about eliminating large portions of the population.

Actually, I am talking about eliminating habits and behaviors--not populations. Slavery was once prevalent and commonplace in the world. Now it is not. The change did not happen overnight. As recently as 1861, the US fought a costly civil war over the issue. There is still an embarrassingly large segment of the population that continues to believe in all the tenets that led to slavery in the first place (e.g., the inferiority of certain races, etc.).

For comparison sake, the violence caused by the war on drugs is a drop in the bucket compared with the violence that ensued to end slavery. Indeed, as the Civil War dragged on year after year with no end in sight, many in the North used arguments similar to your own, essentially, that the costs to end slavery outweighed the benefits, that slavery has always existed and always will exist, that you can't fight human nature, etc., etc.

-S

[Uncle Skeleton]

Slavery was not the primary purpose of the civil war.

[Sparkletron]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Slavery was not the primary purpose of the civil war.

Another discussion for another thread, my friend. ;-)

-S

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by Sparkletron

That's ad hominem. Referring to your fellow Mac users as ignorant savages is not very nice, nor is mischaracterizing someone's argument to bolster your own.

Clue: Opium farming is practised in Third World countries. Interference by First World countries is treating them as ignorant savages.

Your inane misunderstanding of my very clear statement shows a profound lack of reading comprehension.

Debating with you is a waste of time.

[Athens]

The only way the drug problem will be solved is to deal with it as a medical problem.

Remove the profit from the illegal drug trade, provide the drugs to those addicted via medical means such as prescriptions from doctors, and purchase the drugs from the farmers. Crack down on the dealers, not the users making the risk higher then the reduced profits knocking out the illegal drug trade. Value of the drugs decrease, less associated crime related to the drug addicts, better stats and info on addicted people, less people in jail, less cost in insurance, less cost in extra policing more money for treatments for those that have problems with the drugs.