Europe votes to legalize Afghan opium for medicine

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Schleswig-Holstein, Nov 1, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. some news from Nature News showing that the European Parliament supports what many on ARRSE have been saying for some time - use the Afghan poppies for medicines, not smack...

  2. UK Govt rejected this proposal when it was put forward by senlis council prior to Afg deployment spring last year. MoD stated that Brit Forces would oversee poppy eradication in Helmand. Since then production has sky rocketed and Brit forces are ignoring/turning blind eye to the poppy crop in Afg.

    Oh dear, confusion reigns. Something Labour is good at.
  3. And how long would it take for some scrote to filter off morphine destined for a hospital and bring it up to heroin? 30 fcuking seconds I'd estimate.
    The point being that if you have a large supply of morphine, there's a greater chance of some of it going walkies and hitting the streets. Which is what the Afghan debacle is partly about. Back to square 1.
  4. Whats the price of a dose of morphine for a hospital patient? About 90 pence?

    Compare with the price of a similar dose of smack for a junkie - about ten pounds?

    I really can't see the Afghani drug barons queueing up to reduce their profits by over 90%.

    It's a bit scary to think that the people leading the 'war on drugs' are this naive.
  5. I'm sure the Afghans- including the barons as well as the humble farmers- are making a lot less than 90p per gram of unrefined opium. AFAIK (which really isn't far at all), the profits are made at the refining stage- in Iran, or Turkey, say- and in the smuggling route Turkey-->Bulgaria-->Central/W Europe-->UK.

    So the local Afghans wouldn't lose any money at all, would have a guaranteed, risk-free income, and be reliant on NATO-led stability for their income.
  6. I agree in outline. However, this would require organisation etc to cut out the middle men.
    May I draw your attention to the thirsty goverment workers sitting in a brewery over there? ---->
  7. I think it is a great idea. Then any crops not licensed should be burned. This would encourage everyone to submit to the scheme. Clealrythe middlemen issue needs sorting but since there is a worldwide shortage of diamorphine something that must be rectified.
  8. Pay the opium farmers more than they get from the middle men now. At a stroke this would bring them on side, remove a source of funding from the bad guys and any morphine that is surplus to Europes pharmacutical need could be donated to NGO's for humanitarian medicine.

    This would also cut the flow of heroin to our own streets.

    It makes sense.
  9. So you build the pharmacuetical plants in Afghanistan. You ship finished product. You create jobs and wealth, you take your licence fee from the production which pays for infrastructure development, security ,education and employment.

    You get it under British control and development now, the whole shebang.

    As for security of shipments, take them out by air.
  10. Good idea, now sell the plan to the EU :D
  11. ...........and you don't then think that the 'middle men' would then up the ante by offering more? Or that threats would be made to force illegal supply?

    The simple truth is that whilst a commodity is prohibited, and supply restricted through conventional outlets, then illegal outlets will step in to fill the gap between supply and demand. You could of course remove the problem by decriminalising the consumption of narcotics and making them available through chemists. Even then there would be restrictions on that (age etc) which in itself would ensure a significant black market endured. All of this without the health/social problems that would surely arise if drugs were decriminalised.

    Current ME exists because it is seen as easier for the planners to concentrate their eradication efforts on the source of the supply as; (a) this is concentrated into relative small geographic areas and; (b)attempts to rein in the demand-side are doomed to failure.

    Perhaps ME, therefore, should be the parts of the supply chain that add value by processing the drug - these are pretty specialised and if you disrupt them you won't alienate the source of the supply but you will curtail end-supply volume. That said, this would push up the unit price and hence push up crime rates to feed this cost increase.

    Summary: No win situation.
  12. Screw selling them the idea. Just do it. "Won't provide the troops? Can't have a portion then"

    They'll jump on board soon enough when we're producing cheap opiates and creating wealth, they always do :D
  13. Fair idea PTP, though that would put quite a few people near me out of work as they work in the only legal morphine production facility in the UK.

    We should though buy the whole crop and use what we need and as part of the deal get them to agree to change their crops buy helping them to grow other cash crops and helping create a market for them for the new crops.
  14. If the middle men start to threaten people to get them to supply opiates illegally when we are paying the farmers a premium, then do you not see what a huge step that would be in our battle for hearts and minds?

    We offer money, a decent standard of living and a chance for stability and a free and Independent Afghanistan. (Making sure the tribal elders are well on side)

    The middle men offer threats, violence and a return to Taliban rule.

    Whose side would they prefer to be on?
  15. Why? There is nothing wrong with growing poppies. It's product brings relief and comfort to millions of people. The Afgans are competent at growing them, and it brings them very quickly into a globalized, advanced business rather than peasants growing a cash crop to sell to their neighbours.