News
Will Myanmar’s Economy Ever Kick its Opium Habit?
PACHAKA LO, Shan State, Myanmar – It is the middle of the rainy season in Myanmar, when planting begins in the poppy fields of Shan State. Days can go by before the sun briefly appears, only to be quickly obscured again by grey clouds and the steady rain that helps the crops flourish.
For the farmers of one such crop, it takes a two-hour trek through dense forest to reach their field. Hidden in the mountains, it is accessible only by way of winding, slippery footpaths, near-vertical climbs and the crossing of at least two streams forded only by fallen logs, which they must traverse while carrying baskets, seeds and tools.
The farmers, small and thin, easily navigate the treacherous trails that are part and parcel of the only jobs generations of Shan State villagers have ever known.
Many farmers continue to grow poppies despite knowing that doing so puts them at the mercy of the Myanmar army.
One of Pachakalo’s four leaders, U Htan Ngwe, 53, says there are 305 households in his village, 300 of which contain at least one member involved in small-scale poppy farming. “In the remaining five households, they do not farm poppy because they are simply too old,” U Htan Ngwe says.
One of the younger villagers, Nu Kyi, 23, cannot remember when she stopped going to school, only that it was when she was very young. Elders say the average resident is educated to elementary level.
Nu Kyi, slender with a wide smile, has worked in poppy fields for almost a decade, since she was 15. Asked if she likes the work, she says: “It is not a matter of like or dislike, it is the only job to do in my village.”
Another villager, U Htun, 78, has been farming poppy in the lush mountains of Shan State for about 40 years, and over that time has been joined in the illegal effort by his daughter, grandson and in-laws.
They are part of what has become something of a cultural and familial tradition of small-scale poppy farming in Myanmar, which is now second only to Afghanistan as a producer of raw opium.
And their efforts show no sign of abating.
Most of the heroin in Australia comes from these poppy fields in Myanmar. The flowers cover over 600 square kilometers of Shan state.
A recent report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) estimates Myanmar had 55,000 hectares of poppies under cultivation in 2015, most of it in Shan State. Some say that is a conservative estimate and place the figure at closer to 160,000 hectares.
By either measure, Myanmar is by far the most prolific producer of opium in the Golden Triangle of Myanmar, Laos and Thailand, Southeast Asia’s illegal drugs hub. The report notes that, after a decline, the country’s opium production numbers have tripled since 2006 and remained stable for a third consecutive year. It accounts for 91 per cent of the Golden Triangle’s raw opium, which is often further refined into heroin.
Opium and heroin produced in Myanmar provides subsistence for farmers, but also supplies a growing number of addicts in the region, including China, which accounts for 70 per cent of heroin users in Asia, according to the UNODC. One of the most devastated areas is Yunnan (雲南) province, near the border of Myanmar. The southern province is the main entry point in China for Myanmar’s illegal drugs, and has become home to half of China’s registered drug addicts, according to the UNODC. The drugs are often then transported to Shanghai, Beijing, Hong Kong and further overseas.
Experts agree there are few options. “Most farmers grow it because of poverty,” says Tom Kramer
U Htun, his daughter, 54, grandson, 30, and other villagers would rather not farm the land for poppy, which not only fuels drug addictions worldwide but also puts them at the mercy of the Myanmar army, which regularly threatens to destroy their crops.
“There is no alternative,” U Htun says through a translator at a gathering in the home of a fellow farmer in the village of Pachakalo. “There are no other jobs for us to do. It is very simple – if we don’t grow it, we don’t eat.”
Experts agree there are few options. “Most farmers grow it because of poverty,” says Tom Kramer, a researcher for the Netherlands’ Transnational Institute who has been visiting Myanmar regularly since 1993. “They grow poppy as a cash crop to address food shortages and to access health and education.”
There are no other jobs for us to do. It is very simple – if we don’t grow it, we don’t eat.
In 2006, U Aung Soe, 60, invested 1.5 million kyats (US$1,268) to switch to sugar cane. By the time he harvested his second crop, the price for sugar cane had plummeted. U Aung Soe lost his life’s savings. He did not have a job for two years, but eventually returned to work – growing poppy. “In our hearts we sincerely want to stop farming poppy, but it is our only real option because there is no other suitable crop,” says U Aung Soe.
A worker holds collected resin from opium buds, in a poppy field in the hills of north Shan State, Myanmar.
Similar attempts have been made with coffee beans and, most recently, avocados. But poppy remains the king of the cash crops in Shan State due to its light weight and long shelf life. Its compactness is an important factor in Myanmar, where infrastructure is notoriously weak. Village roads are narrow and unpaved, making it impossible or prohibitively expensive to get heavy, large crops onto trucks and into markets. Electricity is unreliable, making processing plants unrealistic.
And unlike sugar cane, coffee and avocados, poppy is eminently portable. While still on the stem, an immature bud is scored several times with a knife to allow a yellow-brown residue to leak out. The sticky residue then dries and is scraped off, ready for further processing. This process has not changed since ancient times, and neither has the resulting convenient, compact size of the product.
A rattan basket full of dried residue from an average year’s harvest from a typical poppy field is easily carried through the steep and narrow forest pathways. The raw opium, which can comfortably fit into a large backpack, will be sold to an agent, who pays about 600,000 kyats. That will be barely provide a family with health care, food and education for a year.
Policemen and local villagers destroy a poppy field above the village of Tar-Pu, in the mountains of Shan State.
With skirmishes between the Myanmar army and rebel groups still occurring, the drug’s portability is an extra blessing.
“In conflict-affected areas, opium is the perfect crop as buyers come to the village,” says Kramer. “And unlike other crops, opium is easy to carry and can be stored for some years.”
Myanmar has endured decades of convoluted civil war, with dozens of insurgent ethnic groups fighting the army and each other for territory, natural resources, the right to self-determination, religious freedom and the drug trade. Peace talks have been held in fits and starts for years. Ceasefires have been agreed in the past, most recently in October, but the fighting persists.
In an act of faith, militant Christian groups take on narcotic producers in Myanmar
The ongoing ethnic conflicts and poppy growing are inextricably linked, according to experts. The less developed a village, the more prevalent the opium fields, according to the UNODC.
“There is no infrastructure without peace, hence more poppy growing [in areas such as Shan State],” says Troels Vester, the Myanmar country manager for the UNODC.
The quality of Myanmar’s raw opium that contains the powerful opioids morphine and codeine is said to be superior to that of Afghanistan’s. In addition to global recreational use, the highly addictive drug is regularly used in villages to treat diarrhoea, pain and for anaesthesia. This is critical in the small, poor villages of northern Myanmar that do not have access to modern health care or essential medicines, according to Kramer, the Dutch researcher.
He says opium is also sometimes offered to guests at weddings and funerals, with some small amounts saved in case of an unexpected expense such as a sudden illness that requires hospital treatment.
Presented with statistics showing increasing opium and heroin addiction in neighbouring countries, U Aung Soe expresses concern as well as frustration.
“I have not seen or heard of these statistics, but I trust you that they are accurate,” said U Aung Soe.
“But without an alternative, poppy is our only way of survival.”
By Mark Angeles
A recent report indicates that since Trudeau’s announcement of his gun buyback program four years ago, almost none of the banned firearms have been surrendered.
The federal government plans to purchase 2,063 firearm models from retailers following the enactment of Bill C-21, which amends various Acts and introduces certain consequential changes related to firearms. It was granted royal assent on December 15 of last year.
This ban immediately criminalized the actions of federally-licensed firearms owners regarding the purchase, sale, transportation, importation, exportation, or use of hundreds of thousands of rifles and shotguns that were previously legal.
The gun ban focused on what it termed ‘assault-style weapons,’ which are, in reality, traditional semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that have enjoyed popularity among hunters and sport shooters for over a century.
In May 2020, the federal government enacted an Order-in-Council that prohibited 1,500 types of “assault-style” firearms and outlined specific components of the newly banned firearms. Property owners must adhere to the law by October 2023.
Trudeau’s Buyback Hasn’t Happened
“In the announcement regarding the ban, the prime minister stated that the government would seize the prohibited firearms, assuring that their lawful owners would be ‘grandfathered’ or compensated fairly.” “That hasn’t happened,” criminologist Gary Mauser told Rebel News.
Mauser projected expenses ranging from $2.6 billion to $6.7 billion. The figure reflects the compensation costs amounting to $756 million, as outlined by the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO).
“The projected expenses for gathering the illegal firearms are estimated to range from $1.6 billion to $7 billion.” “This range estimate increases to between $2.647 billion and $7 billion when compensation costs to owners are factored in,” Mauser stated.
Figures requested by Conservative MP Shannon Stubbs concerning firearms prohibited due to the May 1, 2020 Order In Council reveal that $72 million has been allocated to the firearm “buyback” program, yet not a single firearm has been confiscated to date.
In a recent revelation, Public Safety Canada disclosed that the federal government allocated a staggering $41,094,556, as prompted by an order paper question from Conservative Senator Don Plett last September, yet yielded no tangible outcomes.
An internal memo from late 2019 revealed that the Liberals projected their politically motivated harassment would incur a cost of $1.8 billion.
Enforcement efforts Questioned
By December 2023, estimates from TheGunBlog.ca indicate that the Liberals and RCMP had incurred or were responsible for approximately $30 million in personnel expenses related to the enforcement efforts. The union representing the police service previously stated that the effort to confiscate firearms is a “misdirected effort” aimed at ensuring public safety.
“This action diverts crucial personnel, resources, and funding from tackling the more pressing and escalating issue of criminal use of illegal firearms,” stated the National Police Federation (NPF).
The Canadian Sporting Arms & Ammunition Association (CSAAA), representing firearms retailers, has stated it will have “zero involvement” in the confiscation of these firearms. Even Canada Post held back from providing assistance due to safety concerns.
The consultant previously assessed that retailers are sitting on almost $1 billion worth of inventory that cannot be sold or returned to suppliers because of the Order-In-Council.
“Despite the ongoing confusion surrounding the ban, after four years, we ought to be able to address one crucial question.” Has the prohibition enhanced safety for Canadians? Mauser asks.
Illegally Obtained Firearms are the Problem
Statistics Canada reports a 10% increase in firearm-related violent crime between 2020 and 2022, rising from 12,614 incidents to 13,937 incidents. In that timeframe, the incidence of firearm-related violent crime increased from 33.7 incidents per 100,000 population in 2021 to 36.7 incidents the subsequent year.
“This marks the highest rate documented since the collection of comparable data began in 2009,” the criminologist explains.
Supplementary DataData indicates that firearm homicides have risen since 2020. “The issue lies not with lawfully-held firearms,” Mauser stated.
Firearms that have been banned under the Order-in-Council continue to be securely stored in the safes of their lawful owners. The individuals underwent a thorough vetting process by the RCMP and are subject to nightly monitoring to ensure there are no infractions that could pose a risk to public safety.
“The firearms involved in homicides were seldom legally owned weapons wielded by their rightful owners,” Mauser continues. The number of offenses linked to organized crime has surged from 4,810 in 2016 to a staggering 13,056 in 2020.
“If those in power … aim to diminish crime and enhance public safety, they ought to implement strategies that effectively focus on offenders and utilize our limited tax resources judiciously to reach these objectives,” he stated.
Related News:
Millennials in Canada Have Turned their Backs on Justin Trudeau
Millennials in Canada Have Turned their Backs on Justin Trudeau
Google is so closely associated with its key product that its name is a verb that signifies “search.” However, Google’s dominance in that sector is dwindling.
According to eMarketer, Google will lose control of the US search industry for the first time in decades next year.
Google will remain the dominant search player, accounting for 48% of American search advertising revenue. And, remarkably, Google is still increasing its sales in the field, despite being the dominating player in search since the early days of the George W. Bush administration. However, Amazon is growing at a quicker rate.
Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding
Amazon will hold over a quarter of US search ad dollars next year, rising to 27% by 2026, while Google will fall even more, according to eMarketer.
The Wall Street Journal was first to report on the forecast.
Lest you think you’ll have to switch to Bing or Yahoo, this isn’t the end of Google or anything really near.
Google is the fourth-most valued public firm in the world. Its market worth is $2.1 trillion, trailing just Apple, Microsoft, and the AI chip darling Nvidia. It also maintains its dominance in other industries, such as display advertisements, where it dominates alongside Facebook’s parent firm Meta, and video ads on YouTube.
To put those “other” firms in context, each is worth more than Delta Air Lines’ total market value. So, yeah, Google is not going anywhere.
Nonetheless, Google faces numerous dangers to its operations, particularly from antitrust regulators.
On Monday, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Google must open up its Google Play Store to competitors, dealing a significant blow to the firm in its long-running battle with Fortnite creator Epic Games. Google announced that it would appeal the verdict.
In August, a federal judge ruled that Google has an illegal monopoly on search. That verdict could lead to the dissolution of the company’s search operation. Another antitrust lawsuit filed last month accuses Google of abusing its dominance in the online advertising business.
Meanwhile, European regulators have compelled Google to follow tough new standards, which have resulted in multiple $1 billion-plus fines.
Pixa Bay
Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding
On top of that, the marketplace is becoming more difficult on its own.
TikTok, the fastest-growing social network, is expanding into the search market. And Amazon has accomplished something few other digital titans have done to date: it has established a habit.
When you want to buy anything, you usually go to Amazon, not Google. Amazon then buys adverts to push companies’ products to the top of your search results, increasing sales and earning Amazon a greater portion of the revenue. According to eMarketer, it is expected to generate $27.8 billion in search revenue in the United States next year, trailing only Google’s $62.9 billion total.
And then there’s AI, the technology that (supposedly) will change everything.
Why search in stilted language for “kendall jenner why bad bunny breakup” or “police moving violation driver rights no stop sign” when you can just ask OpenAI’s ChatGPT, “What’s going on with Kendall Jenner and Bad Bunny?” in “I need help fighting a moving violation involving a stop sign that wasn’t visible.” Google is working on exactly this technology with its Gemini product, but its success is far from guaranteed, especially with Apple collaborating with OpenAI and other businesses rapidly joining the market.
A Google spokeswoman referred to a blog post from last week in which the company unveiled ads in its AI overviews (the AI-generated text that appears at the top of search results). It’s Google’s way of expressing its ability to profit on a changing marketplace while retaining its business, even as its consumers steadily transition to ask-and-answer AI and away from search.
Google has long used a single catchphrase to defend itself against opponents who claim it is a monopoly abusing its power: competition is only a click away. Until recently, that seemed comically obtuse. Really? We are going to switch to Bing? Or Duck Duck Go? Give me a break.
But today, it feels more like reality.
Google is in no danger of disappearing. However, every highly dominating company faces some type of reckoning over time. GE, a Dow mainstay for more than a century, was broken up last year and is now a shell of its previous dominance. Sears declared bankruptcy in 2022 and is virtually out of business. US Steel, long the foundation of American manufacturing, is attempting to sell itself to a Japanese corporation.
SOURCE | CNN
(VOR News) – A ruling that prohibits emergency abortions that contravene the Supreme Court law in the state of Texas, which has one of the most stringent abortion restrictions in the country, has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The United States Supreme Court upheld this decision.
The justices did not provide any specifics regarding the underlying reasons for their decision to uphold an order from a lower court that declared hospitals cannot be legally obligated to administer abortions if doing so would violate the law in the state of Texas.
Institutions are not required to perform abortions, as stipulated in the decree. The common populace did not investigate any opposing viewpoints. The decision was made just weeks before a presidential election that brought abortion to the forefront of the political agenda.
This decision follows the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that ended abortion nationwide.
In response to a request from the administration of Vice President Joe Biden to overturn the lower court’s decision, the justices expressed their disapproval.
The government contends that hospitals are obligated to perform abortions in compliance with federal legislation when the health or life of an expectant patient is in an exceedingly precarious condition.
This is the case in regions where the procedure is prohibited. The difficulty hospitals in Texas and other states are experiencing in determining whether or not routine care could be in violation of stringent state laws that prohibit abortion has resulted in an increase in the number of complaints concerning pregnant women who are experiencing medical distress being turned away from emergency rooms.
The administration cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case that bore a striking resemblance to the one that was presented to it in Idaho at the beginning of the year. The justices took a limited decision in that case to allow the continuation of emergency abortions without interruption while a lawsuit was still being heard.
In contrast, Texas has been a vocal proponent of the injunction’s continued enforcement. Texas has argued that its circumstances are distinct from those of Idaho, as the state does have an exemption for situations that pose a significant hazard to the health of an expectant patient.
According to the state, the discrepancy is the result of this exemption. The state of Idaho had a provision that safeguarded a woman’s life when the issue was first broached; however, it did not include protection for her health.
Certified medical practitioners are not obligated to wait until a woman’s life is in imminent peril before they are legally permitted to perform an abortion, as determined by the state supreme court.
The state of Texas highlighted this to the Supreme Court.
Nevertheless, medical professionals have criticized the Texas statute as being perilously ambiguous, and a medical board has declined to provide a list of all the disorders that are eligible for an exception. Furthermore, the statute has been criticized for its hazardous ambiguity.
For an extended period, termination of pregnancies has been a standard procedure in medical treatment for individuals who have been experiencing significant issues. It is implemented in this manner to prevent catastrophic outcomes, such as sepsis, organ failure, and other severe scenarios.
Nevertheless, medical professionals and hospitals in Texas and other states with strict abortion laws have noted that it is uncertain whether or not these terminations could be in violation of abortion prohibitions that include the possibility of a prison sentence. This is the case in regions where abortion prohibitions are exceedingly restrictive.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which resulted in restrictions on the rights of women to have abortions in several Republican-ruled states, the Texas case was revisited in 2022.
As per the orders that were disclosed by the administration of Vice President Joe Biden, hospitals are still required to provide abortions in cases that are classified as dire emergency.
As stipulated in a piece of health care legislation, the majority of hospitals are obligated to provide medical assistance to patients who are experiencing medical distress. This is in accordance with the law.
The state of Texas maintained that hospitals should not be obligated to provide abortions throughout the litigation, as doing so would violate the state’s constitutional prohibition on abortions. In its January judgment, the 5th United States Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with the state and acknowledged that the administration had exceeded its authority.
SOURCE: AP
SEE ALSO:
Could Last-Minute Surprises Derail Kamala Harris’ Campaign? “Nostradamus” Explains the US Poll.
-
News3 years agoLet’s Know About Ultra High Net Worth Individual
-
Entertainment2 years ago
Mabelle Prior: The Voice of Hope, Resilience, and Diversity Inspiring Generations
-
Health3 years agoHow Much Ivermectin Should You Take?
-
Tech2 years agoTop Forex Brokers of 2023: Reviews and Analysis for Successful Trading
-
Lifestyles2 years agoAries Soulmate Signs
-
Movies2 years agoWhat Should I Do If Disney Plus Keeps Logging Me Out of TV?
-
Health3 years agoCan I Buy Ivermectin Without A Prescription in the USA?
-
Learning2 years agoVirtual Numbers: What Are They For?