I don't understand the "war on drugs" sometimes

[Jim Sharkey]

In today's paper, there is an article about the Afghan government destroying poppy crops. They have been given some money by the UN to partially compensate farmers for their loss. A faremr there can make an average of $400 per acre. The government initially offered them $250 per, and eventually upped it to $350 per, according to the article.

The part that I don't understand is this: The U.S. a big mover behind any kind of "war on drugs." Now we spend a great deal of money on this war, and we have more money than any nation on Earth The logistics on this may be difficult to work, but wouldn't it make more sense to give these impoverished farmers *more* money not to plant poppies than they would normally get? I mean, give them $500 an acre to *not* plant poppies and make a different crop. If we pay our own people not to plant, why not others?

I can understand that we don't want to prop them up artificially for too long, as that kind of dependecy can only lead to bad things. And I understand that there are probably many nuances here that are below the surface of the issue. But we go on and on about the war on drugs. Why not spend the money at the source rather than spend it after the fact?

Jim

---