How to make a bad situation worse

Wed, 10 May 2006 17:47:35 +0100

William Lind covers a report on the worsening situation in Afghanistan where government (i.e. US, UK, and Afghan army) control is diminishing in the south. The report suggests that this is because of the dual objectives being persued (apparently in no particular order):

Stop the insurgents
Eradicate opium production

For farming families with no other means of survival opium is a life-line and the insurgents play to this by supporting the farmers against the government. The division of military resources between these conflicting goals means that neither policy can be effectively enforced.

It seems to me that the answer is to legalize opium production and consumption (in Afghanistan, the UK, and the US) and treat it like any other product that has potentially negative side-effects (e.g. alcohol, paracetamol, Sky One). Slap a warning on the side and let people get on with their lives and the consequences of their choices.

At a stroke the Afghan government could support the farmers and cut off the support base of the insurgents. The farmers could get a fair price for their produce on the open market. And opium/heroin users can get a better product without being unfairly criminalized for their choices.

But governments don't do this sort of stuff because it means less meddling in other peoples lives not more. The idea that people don't need every aspect of their existence dictated to them by central government seems to be anathema to the raving bureaucrats we are saddled with.

Curiouser and Curiouser! on drug-wars

How to make a bad situation worse