Legalise Opium? Jaesus that's a big question. One I can't answer to be honest with you.
Off Topic Jeremy Corbyn
- Thread starter BBFs Unpopular View
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Legalise Opium? Jaesus that's a big question. One I can't answer to be honest with you.
You guys are funny, ye leave out anything that is a valid point and troll in any way ye can what you think is a good straw man.
Treat opinion as if it is stated as fact and ask for proof as if such things are easily proved and not providing "proof" is "proof" it is not true.
So many false arguments.
meanwhile neither of you have explained with even a shred of sound reasoning and anything to support your comments, how Afghanistan has gone from almost 0 opium production to what are record harverts never seen prior to Taliban destruction.. under NATO occupation.
Previous British government forced China to legalise the trade which led to the addiction of millions in India and China.
By 1900s China had reversed this though the fallout was still endemic in society.
The fact the CIA also ran drugs in as recent as a few decades ago, the only real proven recent state involvement is also lending to this.
The fact that politicians ordered the protection of harvests also lend to the assumption.
"They were trying to get the locals onside" < There is no logical reasoning for this given that they could not sell it of thier own accord and who was getting this opium is a big unanswered question.
I dunno what ye pair are cacking about but reading the posts it's pretty obvious ye are about me personally here not the subject, you couldn't give a **** about the subject, a subject you are utterly ignorant of like.
Hurray
!!!!!!!!!We finally have it the "you are too stupid to understand and its all about people ganging up on Sisu" rant.
If you don't like questions dont post stuff you don't know about just because it suits your agenda and then insult others intelligence when they find fault in what you say.
As for "getting the afghan people onside".
As of January 2015, more than 26,000 civilians are estimated to have died violent deaths as a result of the war. That's just violent, I think the total since the 2000s is 90.000+ dead but not certain on that number
Yep that will do it, flooding the country with opium on top of that. Yes, makes sense
[HASHTAG]#legitthinking[/HASHTAG]
As of January 2015, more than 26,000 civilians are estimated to have died violent deaths as a result of the war. That's just violent, I think the total since the 2000s is 90.000+ dead but not certain on that number
Yep that will do it, flooding the country with opium on top of that. Yes, makes sense
[HASHTAG]#legitthinking[/HASHTAG]
You guys are funny, ye leave out anything that is a valid point and troll in any way ye can what you think is a good straw man.
Treat opinion as if it is stated as fact and ask for proof as if such things are easily proved and not providing "proof" is "proof" it is not true.
So many false arguments.
meanwhile neither of you have explained with even a shred of sound reasoning and anything to support your comments, how Afghanistan has gone from almost 0 opium production to what are record harverts never seen prior to Taliban destruction.. under NATO occupation.
Previous British government forced China to legalise the trade which led to the addiction of millions in India and China.
By 1900s China had reversed this though the fallout was still endemic in society.
The fact the CIA also ran drugs in as recent as a few decades ago, the only real proven recent state involvement is also lending to this.
The fact that politicians ordered the protection of harvests also lend to the assumption.
"They were trying to get the locals onside" < There is no logical reasoning for this given that they could not sell it of thier own accord and who was getting this opium is a big unanswered question.
I dunno what ye pair are cacking about but reading the posts it's pretty obvious ye are about me personally here not the subject, you couldn't give a **** about the subject, a subject you are utterly ignorant of like.
Spouting that we're ignorant again - standard
You don't understand - standard
Straw man - standard
[HASHTAG]#dullasfuck[/HASHTAG]
You must log in or register to see images
Look what happned in 2000. The crops were wiped out, in 2001 there was no harvest.
Afghanistan was invaded the year after the cops were destroyed, invading in 2001, twhen Afghanistan did not produce 60% of global opium supplies..
[HASHTAG]#coincidencesIdontdo[/HASHTAG]
Look at Afghan production thereafter until 2009, the % of global is even higher than here which is 6 year old data.
In fact if you look at where the US helped the Afghans against the Russians, production grew then also in the 80s , which no doubt helped to pay for weapons to fight the Russians and much of that opium ending up in US and European markets.
Last edited:
Has anyone got the figures on how much of the black market in strap on sales is controlled by the CIA?
Has it never occured to you that the Taliban clamp down on production could have had an ulterior motive?
Opiates store well, and a short term 'famine' would have done wonders for the unit price..............
Just a thought like.....
Motive? For anyone following the hardline Islamic religion drugs are a big no no. You get power changing hands in these groups with factions taking over, as is always the case. They took it upon themselves that the drugs were agaisnt Islam and wiped out the crops.
I suspect that they were also looking to cut the funding of rivals too no doubt, that's an effective way of going about it.
Now as things stand growing and trading opium is against the current Afghan consitution and law. Yet they are producing serious tons of opium every single year after year under occupation, to this very day it continues
There was no opium famine in 2001. Crop destruction led to the shortfall.
From 2004 to 2007 under US occupation saw the biggest growth in production in Afghan harvests to date, that was at the height of NATO occupation.
No famine.
Taliban end Afghan drug trade 2001
NATO invaded not long after this. Just a coincidence of course
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/apr/01/internationalcrime.drugstrade
Other than the one year were the Taliban wiped out the crops, opium production has increased fairly consistently. I'd imagine that increase is in line with increased sale value and increased demand. They would be interesting stats to see. Could it not be that this is a natural increase of supply to meet demand within an unstable economy where growing drugs is potential for a steady income?
Opiates and weed are Afghanistans only export. Religion my arse, the decision made by the Taliban was about control.
They have a virtual monopoly on the market, and a forced 'famine' would have sent the price rocketing, which in turn would boost the revenue generated and give them more funds to buy arms with...........an OPEC of heroin so to speak....
You could probaly also factor into that better production techniques such as fertilizers etc.
You said earlier that "NATO troops did not only protect the harvests, they stopped the opium local suppliers sending it out of the country too."
So who was sending it out of the country then, NATO?
No, countries that already supply 60% of the global market do not destroy their market, that's just silly thinking tbh..
Look you are making these statements in disagreement without knowing the ****ing history of Afghanistan ffs
When the US got into bed with the mujahadeen there were also endless promises of rebuilding the country and so on.
This continued for years. The Taliban are the same Mujahadeen the US sold and gave weapons to in the 80s. That is not even disputed history man ffs. It's fact.
Eventually a more traditionalist hardline faction took over the taliban in the late 90s, this having been made possible with the then thought selling out to US and multinational intersts. The US did indeed break many promises tot he taliban (mujahadeen) There was a flippin film about it with Tom Hanks
Watch Charlie Wilson's war, a purile version of events but with truth too, that is reneging on their promises.This was most likely one cause for the split in the taliban.
Yes religion, it is used as a tool in the middle east in case you've not been watching the ****ing news for the past decade
FF ****ing S like Not because they are good traditionalists, but because it is a means to justify the end, as religious violence and control always is.
It looks like at some point around 99 one faction won out, it's hard to tell because they do not keep documents on all of this after all
But to see a sudden turnaround and destruction of all the harvests it is clear there was a new agenda overnight literally which suggests power changed hands.
And it is also a fact that the Afgan invasion planned before 2001. No doubt because control of the supply was lost when the "new" taliban were not lackeys
If I remember correctly the Taliban(post 90s) or Mujahadeen(pre 90s) got a new leader Mullah Omar in the 90s which fits in nicely with all the other stuff posted. Not proof obviously
You must log in or register to see images
Still unclear on how the stuff was getting out of the country if NATO was stopping the locals sending it out of the country.
That wasn't my point, chaps. My point was that Cameron was coming in for bad publicity, so the Mail (as it frequently did during the election) hit the 'Ivan' button, presumably at the behest of Cameron's advisors
No, he stuck his snout into the same lines of coke as Rebekah Brooks and fixed her trial for her.
How did he manage to do that? I think we'd have found out if Cameron was involved in jury tampering. Entertaining thread though. Good to see that the Lone Gunmen conspiracy theorists are alive and well in Scouseland. Some crazy sit here, and that's what most of it is. I think some of you have been taking too much of the product you've been talking about.
I think we'd have found out if Cameron was involved in jury tampering. Entertaining thread though. Good to see that the Lone Gunmen conspiracy theorists are alive and well in Scouseland. Some crazy sit here, and that's what most of it is. I think some of you have been taking too much of the product you've been talking about.