http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/0/1/4/1/p201416_index.html

or click on signature.

The one fact seems to be that the world did have stockpiles of opium in 2000 when the Taliban banned poppy cultivation, because the effect on the price peaked only in 2003.

"Abstract:

In September 2000 the Taliban government of Afghanistan imposed a complete ban on the production of opium, the dominant world supplier to the illegal heroin market. This sudden and unanticipated cutback in Afghanistan’s opium production in 2001 initially appeared to be the shot that was not heard around the world that year. There was no discernible supply side response, i.e., no other country increased production of heroin substantially and no new producer entered the market. There was little indication of substantial decline in consumption in 2001. Only a few regional markets saw price increases. Instead it appears that there was sufficient inventory to meet existing world demand and it did indeed enter the market.

However a longer-term analysis yields a notably different picture. The effects of the cut-back persisted long after the fall of the Taliban in late 2001. Opium prices in Afghanistan peaked not then but only in January 2003. Correspondingly, there are signs that in Western Europe, the consequences were felt only in 2002 and 2003. Just as inventory depletion dampened the initial effects of the cut-back, so rebuilding inventory may have prolonged those responses.

This paper traces the effects of the ban, primarily through changes in prices and purity, in order to improve understanding of the workings of the global heroin market. It does this by examining the episode in statistical detail and interpreting the results in terms of the economic theory of illegal markets."

http://www.opioids.com/afghanistan/index.html

In the story about the UN-witnessed near-eradication of opium in 2000; and US skepticism, there is also this weak allegation:

" Western diplomats in Pakistan have suggested the Taliban is simply trying to drive up the price of opium they have stockpiled. The State Department official also said Afghanistan could do more by destroying drug stockpiles and heroin labs and arresting producers and traffickers.

Frahi dismissed that as "nonsense" and said it is drug traffickers and shopkeepers who have stockpiles. Two pounds of opium worth $35 last year are now worth as much as $360, he said."

Can we deliver a McClatchy news + GG commentary package to the White House? And somehow make sure the editors of major newspapers also read it?

I also think Rupert Murdoch should be stripped of his bought citizenship and his control of US media. I think everyone's behavior is influenced for the worse by fear of Fox.

Certainly, the rule of law is an ideal that the US of A has never reached. That is no reason to deviate from it even further. Nor to deny that the semblance of rule of law that the US has is preferable to the alternative of none at all. One just has to have lived in a somewhat more lawless place to appreciate what we have here.

One could equally well sneer at human frailty and ask what liberty do such miserable creatures deserve.

The nihilists are as dangerous to us as an out-of-control President.

Win, do you honestly see this is as allowing the government to break the law? It IS the law. The law allows the government to suspend habeas corpus when public safety so reqires in the event of "rebellion or invasion." I can't imagine how you think this supports any argument you are making.

In the Orwellian world where torture gets redefined to be "enhanced interrogation techniques" and is no longer a violation of the law, perhaps a dozen people holding placards near the Capitol can constitute a "rebellion", and two people without valid papers on a ship entering a US port can constitute an "invasion".

We cannot rule out these absurdities, because it is politically acceptable to Humpty-Dumpty-ize words.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'

If this policy of presidential detention post-acquittal is really necessary, let Obama make public the information that proves it to be necessary.

Such a momentous issue cannot be decided by the President's say-so.

Is Obama as committed to post-acquittal Presidential detention as he is committed to abolishing DADT in the armed forces, or the public option in health care?

Haven't yet scanned through the roughly 100 comments so far, so the point may have already been made, namely, that the article fails to compare American attitudes to Uighurs and Tibetans, which would be the closest possible comparison to make, both being in China, and both having had recent clashes with the Chinese authorities.

It is amusing to contemplate all the self-styled libertarians, talking of self-reliance and not mooching on others, who may be infesting the comments here because writing on their own elsewhere might get them zero eyeballs. And then some of them complain about GG, too!

To be realistic, how long is it going to take before the people get annoyed by the same message and walk right by this guy on the corner without even looking at him?

Well, you still visit this board, so it will be a while yet.