pH7 Magazine - Fields of Gold

In his speech to the Labour Party conference in 2001, the Prime Minister pointed to the war on drugs as integral to the war on terrorism and ousting the Taliban:

“It is a regime founded on fear and funded on the drugs trade. The biggest drugs hoard in the world is in Afghanistan, controlled by the Taliban. Ninety per cent of the heroin on British streets originates in Afghanistan. The arms the Taliban are buying today are paid for with the lives of young British people buying their drugs on British streets. That is another part of their regime that we should seek to destroy.”

Three years later, that country has just concluded a record harvest in opium poppies, the raw ingredient of heroin, and cultivation looks set to rise. From 4,000 acres in 2001, the area of cultivation rose to 150,000 in 2003 and produced 3,400 tons of opium, bringing in $2.3 billion – more than half of Afghanistan’s GDP. In a survey conducted by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) earlier this year, 69 per cent of poppy farmers said they intended to increase production this year and 43 per cent of those not growing the narcotic said they now would. This is hardly surprising when, as cited by a recent foreign affairs committee report, a hectare of opium poppies will yield £7,000, whereas the same land planted with wheat pays only about £120. The poor soil and unpredictable conditions in Afghanistan also mean that farmers depend more on opium, which crops reliably even in periods of drought.

While it is true that the Taliban did profit from the opium trade, it outlawed poppy cultivation, which fell significantly in 2000-01. Output declined from 4,565 tons in 1999 to 185 tons in 2001. Ironically, this only pushed up the regime’s profits. Now, given the lack of government control over areas outside Kabul and the financial need among farmers, the situation appears to be spiralling out of control. Fears of a mafia-controlled narco-economy replacing the deposed regime seem dangerously close to being realised.

The counter-narcotics strategy, which has so far proved ineffective, has been led by the UK, largely because most of the heroin in Britain comes from Afghanistan (supplies in the US tend to originate in Mexico and Colombia). While cocaine lies behind the biggest drug-related public health problems in America, in Europe and the UK the problem is opiates. However, alarm bells are now ringing louder for the American administration, since local commanders and insurgents seem to be profiting most from the trade and it is also suspected that funds are making their way to al Qaeda. Although so far US troops have not been involved in combating opium farming and trading, they may soon have to take on this problem. They could find themselves fighting an even more complex and dangerous war within the war on terrorism.

As for the British, drug teams are being deployed to the country and £70 million is to be spent on anti-drug measures. The Department for International Development has allocated another £20 million to provide alternative strategies for farmers whose crops have been destroyed. In May 2003, the Afghan National Drug Control Strategy, co-ordinated by the UK, set targets of reducing opium poppy cultivation by 75 per cent by 2008 and eradicating it completely by 2013. However, as the foreign affairs committee report stresses, the government needs to make clear how it is going to meet these targets: “Without greater security in Afghanistan, without a successful programme of disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration, and for as long as the commanders or ‘warlords’ retain their effective autonomy from central government, the war on drugs cannot be won.” It also points out that eradication is not only difficult, but temporary in effect, as crops can be replanted. Eradication can even provide perverse economic incentive if farmers are compensated for destroyed crops.

The problem is likely to worsen, but rather than getting hysterical about a flood of heroin pouring into the UK and pushing up the addiction figures, we need to consider its impact in more level-headed terms. The market is driven by demand rather than supply and supplies are cyclical. Addicts may get a purer and better quality of drug, which could make it more difficult for them to stop using or easier for them to relapse, but prices will most probably stay the same. Dealers are also likely to make the same profit. Those who will benefit most will be the traffickers and importers. Furthermore, eradication does not necessarily lead to a fall in supplies or addicts.

Plan Colombia, the five-year, $3.3 billion US campaign to eradicate cocaine production has resulted in an increase in huge drug seizures and arrests of traffickers, as well as a claimed 21 per cent reduction in coca production, but cocaine prices on the street in the US remain unchanged, with no sign of shortage. While the impact of increased opium production on Britain is not likely to be visible here for another 12 to 18 months (the time it takes the drug to arrive through its myriad routes), what is clearer is that it can only hinder any progress the Afghan state might be able to make towards political stability, as well as efforts to combat growing drug use and HIV infection in countries like Iran and Russia. Meanwhile, in this country, concerns about the causes of addiction and the quality of treatment need to be addressed.