practical ethics: poppies, hunger and heroin
I rarely keep up with the news lately, I find quick scan of the headlines on the BBC website is enough to be going on with. The other day though I was at a loss for what to do for half an hour or so and switched on the telly. Sadly, the only thing that was worth watching was the ITV news, which had an extended report from an embedded journalist in Helmand province in Afghanistan.
One of the operations that the British are carrying out is aimed at eradicating opium poppy growth in the province. Apparently (according to ITV), 93% of the worlds opium comes from Afghanistan. Of course, a reasonable quantity of that gets sold in the UK as heroin.
Now, I’m aware that drug abuse is a bad thing, and that the easy availability of certain drugs, including heroin, have contributed to the serious decline of some towns in the UK. I can also believe that the Taleban - who I’ll describe as “not the party that I’d vote for - make money from the trafficking of opium. And as I say, I’m not their biggest fan.
On the other hand, the operation that was described in the ITV footage consisted in completely trashing the opium fields in the area. It could be argued that it’s illegal, but quite frankly it’s the major cash crop of the region and pretty much sustains the entire economy - not just the armed forces, but all the other men, women and children in the area.
It made me think about ethics. I have no idea what anyone is trying to do to reduce the dependency of the economy on opium, but just trashing the crop seems unethical. What are people expected to live on? On the other hand, heroin causes misery across the world - is the suffering of a few people that much more important than the suffering of many?
I think, my preferred solution would be to legalise hard drugs, then the opium crop wouldn’t be illegal, the trade could be taxed which would make money for the government to invest in infrastructure. And as a happy side benefit, much of the additional crime associated with illegal drugs - theft for enough cash to get a fix - might be reduced.
What does anyone else think?
Popularity: 32% [?]
Comments
8 Responses to “practical ethics: poppies, hunger and heroin”
Got something to say?
Ebon posted on this topic recently.
It’s probably better to legalize, regulate, monitor and tax drug use than it is to outlaw it. God knows, the War on Drugs hasn’t accomplished anything other than incarcerating more citizens than any other country in the world!
Absolutely right.
I am with Heather on this and I pretty much agree with everything you have written here.
It is strange that the powers that be seem to have ignored the long term effects of their actions. By making the peasant poppy growers destitute what options are left open to them?
They can side with the US-led coalition and be poor, starving and penniless while surrounded by comparatively rich westerners and Arabs
Or
They can side with the obnoxious Taliban, force the westerners out and get back to having at least some income from the heroin trade.
Well done the west.
I don’t know, but I think it might be called shooting yourself in the foot.
But then there’s a habit of that where Afghanistan is concerned. Anyone care to remember who first funded the mujaheddin?
To be fair, I don’t actually know for certain that they aren’t trying to encourage cash crops apart from poppies, but I think they are putting more effort into poppy eradication than other things.
I’m concerned about the effect mass marketisation would have on take-up of a drug so addictive as heroin. Keeping it illegal at least makes it pretty difficult to advertise widely.
I also don’t see how theft to pay for drugs would be reduced if addicts were buying them from a different, legal, supplier. And any drugs you tax are going to be available on the black market for cheaper (and no doubt in higher concentrations, too).
I would certainly prefer for more money to be invested in treatment and less in incarceration, though.
Tim F, there is no question that legalization would increase drug use. However, you should have no worries about advertising. Presumably the government would ban all advertising even at the point of sale.
Theft by addicts would be reduced because drugs would be cheaper. Current drug prices have enormous costs built into them, including the costs of smuggling, hiding production, etc., not to mention a really gigantic risk premium to compensate suppliers for the legal risks they are taking. We could tax them at truly confiscatory levels, 100% or more, and drugs would still get cheaper if legalized.
But, certainly, more people would use drugs than currently do since they’d be cheaper, more readily available, and legal (though presumably they’d be restricted in a manner similar to prescription drugs).
It’s rather obvious that currently “illegal for any purpose” drugs should be treated the same way we treat prescription medications. Drugs are very, very, very bad. The War on Drugs is worse.
By the by, Afghanistan’s problem pales in comparison to Colombia’s.
Interestingly, in the UK, heroin used to be legal - in the manner of a prescription drug. Of course there were only a very small number of addicts.
I don’t know if anyone’s read Freakonomics which explains the economics of drug gangs. One of the things that I picked up from that is that until gangs started getting into the lucaritve drug trade, they were only really viable for individuals for a few years. With no money or promises of riches, people were forced on the whole to become more productive members of society.
Opiates are among the most addictive substances around. Even legitimate uses of legal opiates (morphine) can easily lead to painful and expensive addiction.
Legalizing heroin is not the answer. It is unfortunate that people rely on illegal substances as their primary means of support, and the farmers are probably not even to blame.
A better answer is to provide incentives for farmers to raise other cash crops. I don’t have a particular crop in mind, but if you can grow poppies, you can grow something else, perhaps to process in to biofuels.