Kabul Residents on Heroin Watch as Addiction Grows

[inanna]

Source: New York Times

KABUL, Afghanistan — Each afternoon, spectators line a bridge in west Kabul and gaze down. They have not come to stare at the Kabul River — a dismal trickle of muddy runoff this time of year — but at the figures huddled on its garbage-strewn banks.

Some of the men below rock back and forth, or crawl on all fours. Others sit perfectly still, with blankets over their heads, shielding lit matches from the wind and their gaunt faces from the men on the bridge above.

This is where Kabul’s surging numbers of heroin addicts gather to smoke, inject and occasionally die — usually with an intently staring audience. Some look on in judgment, others with pity.

<snip>

Government officials do have a plan. It involves moving addicts from encampments around Kabul to a large facility where they will be weaned off opiates. The treatment center will be on the grounds at Camp Phoenix, a former United States Army base handed over to the Afghan government. Camp Phoenix was once one of the largest Army bases in Afghanistan, suggesting that some foresight went into its selection as a future home for the addicts.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/world/in-a-sorrowful-pastime-kabul-residents-watch-as-drug-addiction-climbs.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

[PatrickforO]

1. By 2001 the Taliban

had helped farmers eradicate 75% of the poppy fields in favor of other crops.

Then we invaded.

Just saying...

[True Blue Door]

2. Know what else they eradicated?

[elias49]

3. You're right in your implication.

What a crying shame!

[philosslayer]

13. Yes, of course

Because why would little girls ever have to go to school? (The Taliban got rid of THAT too)

[elias49]

17. I guess we both see the glass as half empty! nt

[NewDeal_Dem]

19. and al-qaeda, who replaced them, was such a big improvement....

[cosmicone]

4. They also fomented terror

and killed millions of Afghans, eradicated education for women and put all women back in burkhas. The women couldn't leave their house unless accompanied by a male relative.

[MADem]

9. Yeah, that subjugation of women, eradication of them from public life and the workplace, the

beatings in the streets, the "beekeeper suits" and male escorts mandated, the removal of young girls from schools and universities, the uptick in child brides, the eradication in the name of some warped brand of a religion that was not Islam of some magnificent art pieces....

Hmmm. Just sayin' indeed!

[NewDeal_Dem]

20. and so did their replacements. who also brought back the drug trade.

al-Qaeda, you know, the ones who supposedly bombed the world trade center?

[cosmicone]

22. Supposedly bombed the World Trade Center?

Usama bin Laden admitted it and so did Khalid Sheikh Mohammad.

And opium trade is bad but it had been going on for thousands of years.

I'd rather have the Bamiyan buddhas intact than have a fucked up Taliban regime.

[NewDeal_Dem]

24. Well, you have the Taliban And al-qaeda. but no Buddhas. so I guess you don't get to

choose.

[alcina]

5. Sadly...

I suspect numbing oneself with heroin is one of the better alternatives for some of these people.

[MADem]

10. Iran (next door neighbor) has a pretty big heroin problem too.

There are periodic crackdowns, but it is an issue--there are a LOT of addicts on the streets, and there's a lot of "product" available, too--both refined heroin and opium.

During the period of the shah, it was much less of a problem because people who were addicts were issued a red card, and they could go to the pharmacy and get what they needed. It was a sanctioned and controlled type situation, enough to 'maintain' but not get messed up. If the addicts went off and bought from a dealer and got caught, they'd be harshly punished, but if they used the red card system they were left alone.

[Major Nikon]

6. So the official story goes

But there's plenty of reasons to doubt the official story. For one thing the "in favor of other crops" part seems a bit dubious because there's little to no independent evidence other crops were planted or harvested. It's entirely possible (and likely) that fully or partially processed crops were stored for later utilization once the price of heroin started to spike. The UN was also paying the Taliban for the effort. At any rate, the Taliban is back to financing their efforts through opium production, as if they ever really stopped.

[MADem]

8. I agree--I think that narrative is inaccurate, myself.

The Taliban LOVED that heroin money--they just didn't want the locals using the stuff. My understanding as well was that they took that UN money to "eradicate" production after they'd siphoned off a ton of product from the previous years' bumper crops, and in essence, created a shortage whereby they could get much more money for the stuff they had laid by. Basically, they had the farmers improve their land and let the fields lie fallow for a bit while they were paid to enrich the soil for later crops down the line.

[Jesus Malverde]

12. heroin production is up from 185 tons a year to 5,800 tons

Afghan drug war debacle: Blair said smashing opium trade was a major reason to invade but 10 years on heroin production is up from 185 tons a year to 5,800

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2102158/Heroin-production-Afghanistan-RISEN-61.html

[MADem]

21. Well, that's the MAIL (they don't like Blair, you see), and it's up that much from where the UN was

paying them to NOT grow--so it isn't surprising, really. The TALIBAN controls the production, make no mistake, so let us not go calling them "the good guys" when all they are doing is making sure the price for the product stays high. When it drops too much, they put the product in the barn (it keeps well) and turn off the spigot and wait for the inevitable price rise. They suckered the UN into meeting their operating expenses while they gamed the heroin and opium markets.

From your link:

Ironically, the Taliban had overseen a significant fall in heroin production in the months before the invasion. Their leader Mullah Mohammed Omar – collaborating with the UN – had decreed that growing poppies was un-Islamic, resulting in one of the world’s most successful anti-drug campaigns.

As a result of this ban, opium poppy cultivation was reduced by 91 per cent from the previous year’s estimate of 82,172 hectares.....Experts say the Taliban’s involvement in the drugs trade ranges from direct assistance – such as providing farmers with seed, fertiliser and cash advances – to distribution and protection.

Understand that "collaborating" means "taking money from" and all is clear. So much for that "un-Islamic" shit, eh?

See, Mullah Omar was beiing PAID by the UN to not grow the stuff, and he'd already put a lot of product aside once he'd finalized that deal, anticipating a price rise.

It wasn't "un-Islamic" to grow poppies --it was a business decision to get money without having the farmers do any work while playing the cooperative good guy, and it was a way to boost the price of the crop. He was acting as the OPEC of poppies, in essence.

When the fighting started, that "don't grow" money stopped, and by then, he'd been using his already existing inventory, sold at substantially inflated prices, to fund his shenanigans.

Heroin funds the Taliban. Make no mistake. They're not the only ones taking a cut--the Kurds, though I wish them luck with their national efforts, are on the receiving end of a shit load of that money, as they supervise a lot of the transshipment and provide security along parts of the heroin highway. A lot of corrupt actors within and without regional southwest Asian governments have their dirty paws in the pie getting that stuff to market.

[JonLP24]

11. Here is some info

Wiki but you can judge the source citations for yourself

Rise of the Taliban (1994–2001)

During the Taliban rule, Afghanistan saw a bumper opium crop of 4,500 metric tons in 1999,.[13]

In July 2000, Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, collaborating with the United Nations to eradicate heroin production in Afghanistan, declared that growing poppies was un-Islamic, resulting in one of the world's most successful anti-drug campaigns. The Taliban enforced a ban on poppy farming via threats, forced eradication, and public punishment of transgressors. The result was a 99% reduction in the area of opium poppy farming in Taliban-controlled areas, roughly three quarters of the world's supply of heroin at the time.[14] The ban was effective only briefly due to the deposition of the Taliban in 2002.

However, some people[who?], believe that certain parties benefited from the price increase during the ban. Some[who?], even believe it was a form of Market manipulation on the part of certain drug lords. Dried opium, unlike most agricultural products, can easily be stored for long periods without refrigeration or other expensive equipment. With huge stashes of opium stored in secret hideaways. Taliban, and other groups became involved in the drug trade were in theory able to make huge personal profits during the price spikes after the 2000 ban and the chaos following 9/11.[15][16]

Since 2008 the Taliban insurgency has been supporting farmers growing poppy as a source of income for insurgent operations.[17]

Present war in Afghanistan
Opium production levels for 2005–2007

By November 2001, the collapse of the economy and the scarcity of other sources of revenue forced many of the country's farmers to resort back to growing opium for export.(1,300 km² in 2004 according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.)

In December 2001, a number of prominent Afghans met in Bonn, Germany, under United Nations (UN) auspices to develop a plan to reestablish the State of Afghanistan, including provisions for a new constitution and national elections. As part of that agreement, the United Kingdom (UK) was designated the lead country in addressing counter-narcotics issues in Afghanistan. Afghanistan subsequently implemented its new constitution and held national elections. On December 7, 2004, Hamid Karzai was formally sworn in as president of a democratic Afghanistan."[18]
Regional security risks and levels of opium poppy cultivation in 2007–2008.

Two of the following three growing seasons saw record levels of opium poppy cultivation. Corrupt officials may have undermined the government's enforcement efforts. Afghan farmers claimed that "government officials take bribes for turning a blind eye to the drug trade while punishing poor opium growers".[19]

Another obstacle to getting rid of poppy cultivation in Afghanistan is the reluctant collaboration between US forces and Afghan warlords in hunting drug traffickers. In the absence of Taliban, the warlords largely control the opium trade but are also highly useful to the US forces in scouting, providing local intelligence, keeping their own territories clean from Al-Qaeda and Taliban insurgents, and even taking part in military operations.

While U.S. and allied efforts to combat the drug trade have been stepped up, the effort is hampered by the fact that many suspected drug traffickers are now top officials in the Karzai government.[20] Estimates made in 2006 by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) estimate that 52% of the nation's GDP, amounting to $2.7 billion annually, is generated by the drug trade.[21] The rise in production has been linked to the deteriorating security situation, as production is markedly lower in areas with stable security.[22] By some, the extermination of the poppy crops is not seen as a viable option because the sale of poppies constitutes the livelihood of Afghanistan's rural farmers. Some 3.3 million Afghans are involved in producing opium.[23] Opium is more profitable than wheat and destroying opium fields could possibly lead to discontent or unrest among the indigent population.[24] Some poppy eradication programs have, however, proven effective, especially in the north of Afghanistan. The opium poppy eradication program of Balkh Governor Ustad Atta Mohammad Noor between 2005 and 2007 successfully reduced poppy cultivation in Balkh Province from 7,200 hectares in 2005 to zero by 2007.[25]

Former U.S. State Department Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs Thomas Schweich, in a New York Times article dated July 27, 2007, asserts that opium production is protected by the government of Hamid Karzai as well as by the Taliban, as all parties to political conflict in Afghanistan as well as criminals benefit from opium production, and, in Schweich's opinion, the U.S. military turns a blind eye to opium production as not being central to its anti-terrorism mission.[26][27] In March 2010, NATO rejected Russian proposals for Afghan poppy spraying, citing concerns over income of Afghan people.[28] There have also been allegations of American and European involvement in Afghanistan's drug trafficking with links to Taliban.[29]

On October 28, 2010 agents of Russia’s Federal Service for the Control of Narcotics joined Afghan and American antidrug forces in an operation to destroy a major drug production site near Jalalabad. In the operation 932 kg (2,055 lb) of high quality heroin and 156 kg (344 lb) of opium, with a street value of US$250 million, and a large amount of technical equipment was destroyed. This was the first anti-drug operation to include Russian agents. According to Viktor Ivanov, Director of Russia’s Federal Service for the Control of Narcotics, this marks an advance in relations between Moscow and Washington. Afghan President Hamid Karzai called the operation a violation of Afghan sovereignty and international law.[30][31]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan#Rise_of_the_Taliban_.281994.E2.80.932001.29

For the record I have no opinion one way or the other except to say drug wars can't be won if don't tackle the 'demand' side of the equation. Going after supply, supply, supply does nothing if the demand is still there.

[Major Nikon]

14. Going after the supply actually exacerbates the situation

Because even if it enjoys some level of success, all it really does is drive up the price. Those who are addicted will have a greater tendency to resort to crime for their fix and recreational users will just switch to another drug. When the price goes up, it simply insures more producers will step into the game. That's why any effects of the attack on supply are always short lived and ultimately have the effect of lowering long term costs of the drug.

The exact same situation happened with alcohol. When prohibition ended, the US consumption rate of alcohol was about the same as when prohibition started. The only difference was the production and distribution was driven underground which created a host of other problems.

Going after demand doesn't work either. If people want to drink, they are going to drink regardless of the laws. It's the same with drugs. The only proven method of controlling vices is to put a tax stamp on it.

[JonLP24]

15. I agree 100%

but I still favor treating addiction as a public health issue rather than punishment -- jail time & fines and permanent record convictions.

[Major Nikon]

16. Treatment should be available for those who want it

But forcing treatment on people along with punitive penalties has never worked. I'm for legalizing virtually all drugs. The stuff that has a low rate of addiction like pot should be available OTC and the other stuff should be available by prescription to anyone who wants it. At least that way those who are doing the stuff will be under a doctor's care and their health can be monitored and the dosage controlled along with quality control of the product in question.

[JonLP24]

18. I agree with you

I was just saying as an either or option, dropping the punitive penalties in favor of treatment.

Ideally I'm in the legalizing recreational drugs camp.

[NewDeal_Dem]

23. How China got rid of opium

Opium ...was first introduced to the country by Arab traders as a medicine in the seventh or eighth century. By 1620 however, Portuguese traders off the coast of China had introduced its use as a luxury habit. But because opium was relatively rare and therefore expensive, it affected only the well-to-do, primarily young men of wealthy families, among whom it was regarded as a status symbol.

This all changed in the 1770s, when England conquered India and Burma. Britain needed large sums of money to colonise these two vast tracts of land, and opium was the answer. Taxes levied on the product brought in the much needed revenue while Britain's merchant ships carried it to the most convenient market: China....

By this time, there were literally millions of addicts in the country. The new government immediately set about coping with the monumental problem. Peasants were persuaded to plough in their opium crops and sow wheat or rice instead. Neighbourhoods were mobilised in a massive educational programme. The street committees which governed the neighbourhoods held study groups in which the evils of opium and heroin were discussed. Families of known addicts were educated not to blame their addict members, but to encourage them to seek help. Addicts themselves were impressed by the fact that they were not blamed for their addiction, since they were considered victims of foreign governments and other enemies of the people. After their cure, they were given training and then placed in paying jobs. Many of them were hired by the government to work with other addicts.

At the same time, pressure was placed on the dealers. Those who surrendered were accepted by the community, re-educated, trained for meaningful work and given jobs. The rest were packed off to prison, and the worst offenders were executed. By 1956, the People's Republic of China had virtually eliminated its drug problem.

http://www.sacu.org/opium.html

[Major Nikon]

25. Executing people for shoplifting is also quite effective

[NewDeal_Dem]

26. Doubtful

[Major Nikon]

27. Not sure why you'd doubt it

China has been executing repeat offenders of even minor crimes for a long time and their crime rate compared to the US is quite low, even though the per capita income is far less. Chopping off the right hand of petty thieves is also a very effective deterrent.

[Warpy]

7. Actually, they relented on that before we invaded

because poppies were one of the few cash crops Afghanistan has ever had. Banning opium threw prosperous farmers into destitution and that removed a lot of the Taliban's power base. By the time we invaded, opium production was nearly what it had been before the decree.