 |
| Afghan business opportunity | |
Opinion is split on whether
the Taliban used to allow
opium to be grown
in Afghanistan during
their mad reign. While fascist control freaks invariably want to control or
prevent the use of drugs by their subordinate population, opium was also a nice
little earner, allowing the islamicists to continue to arm themselves via an
income of US dollars. What is agreed though, is that opium production is flourishing in Afghanistan
under the not-so-watchful gaze of US troops. With heroin hitting over $US100
per gram on the Streets of San Francisco, growing a few poppies looks like a
far more more attractive prospect than herding goats. Previously, when confronted with a poppy farm, the US marines adopted a .. well
.. a US marines approach, and demolished the poppies. It finally occurred to
someone that destroying someone's crops while presenting yourself as champions
of Freedom was a tad
hypocritical, and wasn't making friends in the local rural community. Richard Holbrooke, U.S. envoy for Afghanistan is quoted "Eradication is a waste
of money". What? Next they'll be telling us
the War on Drugs is
unwinnable! So how do you wage a war on drugs if you can't destroy opium poppies? Well, if
you thought the old policy was confused, the new one is bizarre. They are no
longer going to destroy opium crops. They are going to pay opium farmers to NOT
grow opium, and crack down on their buyers. It's not clear whether someone who doesn't grow 10000 poppies gets paid
more than someone who doesn't grow only 5000 poppies. Perhaps people
can start out not growing 100 poppies, and gradually grow their
business to not growing thousands of poppies. Confused? Well .. apparently growing opium and then selling it is
okay, but buying it
is evil and deserving of
severe punishment. But don't 'addicts' (victims) buy drugs, and don't
'pushers' (perpetrators) sell drugs? Why does it work the other way
around for Americans? I guess Americans really are special! Generally, the leftist mindset dictates that people are evil if
they employ someone to do something.
- A worker who knowingly violates safety procedures is a victim, but the
employer who repeatedly trained him in the correct procedures, and urged him to
follow them is a perpetrator.
- Asking for more money is righteous if you are employee, but exploitative if
you are selling goods for profit.
- A police officer can violate someone's rights, and hide behind 'just
doing my job', but his employer 'society', is to blame.
But sometimes inexplicably, it works the other way around.
- Someone who sells drugs (a 'pusher') is a perpetrator who deserves gaol but the people who
employ him (the drug takers), are victims who are entitled to tax-payer funded help-programs.
- People smugglers are evil people who should be imprisoned - but the people who
employ them (the asylum-seekers) are victims who deserve the rights of
welfare, free health and citizenship.
Confused? There is a hidden rule: the person who is more hardworking and successful is
is always the perpetrator. Obviously. It's called the tall poppy syndrome. Best understood through an opiatic haze.
| 
