The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in to your account.Don't have an account? Register
These policies backfired like most American policies. They are wreckless, careless, visionless, based on self interest only and stupid.
These policies backfired like most American policies. They are wreckless, careless, visionless, based on zelf interest only and stupid.
"The United States has spent more than $10 billion on anti-drug efforts in the country, mainly on setting up eradication teams, giving cash to Afghan peasants to grow wheat instead of poppies and rewarding local politicians from areas where opium production fell. However, rather than reducing poppy output, this campaign seems to have merely relocated opium production to areas controlled by the Taliban—enriching the very group America has sought desperately to defeat."
Unless there is some reason to believe that the demand for opium cannot be filled by the regions controlled by the Taliban, how can such a policy make sense to anyone?
The interesting (and ignored) side-effect of Afghanistan becoming the world's largest opium producer are the soaring addiction rates in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan.
(While addiction rates in Western countries have remained fairly constant)
I guess that this is hardly surprising taking into account that world population increases and the world gets richer. Only few countries have effective policies against drug abuse. It would require a deeper international cooperation to stop this trend. So let us observe what will happen.
That is what you get when, people suffer from equality....
Everyone has to make a living somehow and someway, with respects to that, they are many factors.... it seems that the issue is directed at the dealers and the distributors..... the issue of drug trafficking is high risks and high rewards.
However what I do not understand, is how are people affording it, I guess the old adage comes to mind, where the is a high demand there will be high supply.
It is nice to know, that institutions such as Interpol, Europol, Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are keeping things somewhat stable.....
In respects speaking, solely in political terms, it is interesting in the international system and market despite the the problem of inclusive or exclusive perspectives it should be the wealthy who should be able to afford the purchasing illicit substances however it seems nowadays the even those who are not on the same level in terms of social stratification are able to purchase drugs.
The drug game has improved, and transporting, corruption and just plain inequality have caused this to happen. How does one implement a policy in order to deter if anything curb the increase of drug trafficking let alone drug consumption?
Should one follow the steps of Philipines Duarte (President) and eliminate all dealers which is impossible, or increase border control...? Or improve the maritime law and drugs being shipped via means of overseas?
It is funny though, that despite the improvements being made, the nation states which have the highest production of drugs are those who suffer from the lack of rule of law. With that being mentioned the war on drugs will never be eradicated like prohibition, and barons distilling illegal liquor or brew despite the efforts increased so much after the law came to effect.
Or you can have another case study, on America's war on drugs. Despite all the efforts it never succeeded. How about legalization of certain drugs....? Should that be an option but governments will not let that pass because they cannot tax it.