Why legalizing opium production isn’t that good an idea for Afghanistan

I notice that in proposing that the solution to Afghanistan’s opium production problem is legalizing the production, one statistic that Anne Applebaum doesn’t cite is the per capita rate of abuse. Unlike, say, cocaine, in which the rate of abuse in cocaine-producing countries is quite low compared to that of cocaine-consuming countries (notably the United States), the per capita rate of abuse of opiates in Afghanistan is a whopping four times what it is in the United States or Western Europe. The same is true in Iran although, interestingly, not in Turkey. High enough, in all likelihood, to affect productivity. Consequently, I don’t believe that cultivation of opium poppies is Afghanistan’s key to prosperity.

9 comments… add one
  • How about legalizing pot in North Carolina?

  • In all seriousness I don’t think that the arguments against legalizing cannabis production and against legalizing opium production are completely the same for a host of reasons. I mentioned just one in this post:  that the patterns of abuse between consuming countries and producing countries appear to be different.

    I don’t know that I’d oppose the legalization of pot but I’m very skeptical about legalizing heroin or cocaine.

  • Freakonomics style: how will the country look in 20 years if its filled with opiate addicts?

  • Fletcher Christian Link

    And this is a problem? A country full of junkies will have a declining population and less inclination to send out terrorists. Personally, I think that we ought to be encouraging domestic consumption of opium in Afghanistan.

  • Leaving aside Fletcher Christian’s cretinous trollery of a comment, there is a practical consideration.

    There is little point in making illegal that which you can not enforce.

    I am sure you can agree that the Afghan government can not remotely enforce anti-poppy laws.

    It is better to legalise than to engage in respect-for-rule-of-law sapping shows for the West, mere Potemkin laws to impress the gullible foreigners.

    That there is domestic abuse may be something that will eventually result in wide-spread domestic – indigenous support to change. Else, you are engaging in Potemkinism.

  • I would add that in all likelihood, the rates of abuse are a reflexion more than a cause (although certainly also a cause) of economic stagnation and decline. The Iranian Islamic Socialism system is a failure – as all socialist systems as such (excluding social democratic services grafted onto fundamentlaly free market systems as W. Europe); and in its failure to generate appropriate economic growth it generates despair and flight into refuges, be they drugs or emmigraiton or extremism (or all three). Ironically while I would suggest Afghanistan hasn’t much ability even if one took away the instability to generate economic opportunity, Iran does, but is pissing away its resources in faux socialist solidarity, dressed up in shabby, thread-bare Islamic rhetoric.

  • I concur with Lounsbury as far as there being “little point in making illegal that which you can not enforce.” This is particularly true in a country where the insurgency benefits from your engagement in such actions by driving the locals to them in search of protection and aid to prevent the destruction of their livelihood. Applebaum is right when she says that we need to find a way to bring at least some of the people out of the black economy and into the real economy through a plan like the one she advocates. If anything, it kick starts some measure of economic revival as capital becomes available (through legal means) to spend and hence more likely to benefit a given area. That is, rather than use the money to finance guerrillas, or militias to protect their illegal trade, Afghan farmers can turn it into more productive endeavours. As time passes, and economic connectivity and out own efforts against the insurgency stabilize the situation we can then move on to deal with those locals who continue to work in the black economy, be it through more anti-narcotic efforts or more development work that aids them in finding alternate (but equally rewarding) economic benefits. This removes a grievance that the Taliban can exploit and reduces their support among the locals.

  • As for domestic abuse, you can deal with that problem later. Lounsbury is right, the rates of abuse are probably more a reflection of economic stagnation and the many years of war that Afghanistan has seen. In addition, it can be dealt with at the local level, be it through community and religious support groups. But this comes later, the most pressing matter remains the Taliban insurgency.

  • Delphi_Pro Link

    In some countries where anti-opium laws are not so draconian or not enforced at all, aging people wit chronic pain have learned to use opium in moderation without addiction. Why is this more harmful than legalized pot, alcohol or tobacco, all of which cause sickness and death as well? I smell a political rat.

Leave a Comment