Before 1974 controls over Turkey’s opium production were ineffective and provided opportunities for large-scale diversion, making it one of the world’s largest sources of illicit opium. The state monopoly was limited by a lack of authority over opium producing areas, laissez faire controls and poor state procurement practices. Policies administered between 1933 and 1971 did, however, represent a period of organisational learning which led to the establishment of a highly successful drug control policy. A secondary finding of this paper, revealed whilst analysing diversion estimates, suggests that there may be inaccuracies in assumptions of geographical displacement from Turkey. While these assumptions have been reproduced in much of the literature, the data suggests that the Turkish opium ban of 1971 had either minimal impact on global or regional production levels, or that displacement occurred during the 1960s rather than the mid-1970.
AgarMReisingerHS (2002) A tale of two policies: The French connection, methadone, and heroin epidemics. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry26: 371–396.
2.
AkçasuA (1952) The changes experienced by the narcotics monopoly in Turkey. Bulletin of Narcotics3(1): 6–9.
3.
BayerI (1983) The monitoring of trade in and control of psychotropic substances to guard against their diversion. Bulletin on Narcotics4: 3–13.
4.
BayerIGhodseH (1999) Evolution of international drug control, 1945–1995. Bulletin of Narcotics51(1/2): 1–19.
5.
BlockAA (1989) European drug traffic and traffickers between the wars: The policy of suppression and its consequences. Journal of Social History23(2): 315–337.
6.
British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (1972) Essential Facts. Kew, London: British National Archives, FCO 9/1841.
7.
British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (1974) ECOSOC: Narcotic Drugs, Agenda Item No. 9, 56th Session of the United Nations Economic and Social Council: Provisional Agenda and Brief. Kew, London: British National Archives, FCO 61/1227.
8.
British Foreign Office (1961) British Embassy, Tehran to Foreign Office. June 22, 1961. Kew, London: British National Archives, FO 371/157503.
9.
British Foreign Office (1966) CENTO. Report of the Third Session of the Working Party on Narcotics Control. June 1st 1966. Kew, London: British National Archives, 371/186536.
10.
BrundageWMitchellW (1977) Towards an understanding of opium poppy production in Turkey. Journal of Asian and African Studies12(1): 259–268.
11.
Bulletin of Narcotics (1949) Opium production throughout the world. Bulletin of Narcotics1(1): 6–38.
12.
Bulletin of Narcotics (1950) The cultivation of the opium poppy in Turkey. Bulletin of Narcotics2(1): 13–25.
13.
Bulletin of Narcotics (1953) Illicit traffic in opium. Bulletin of Narcotics5(3): 24–29.
14.
CecenAADogruelSDogruelF (1994) Economic growth and structural change in Turkey 1960–88. International Journal of Middle East Studies26(1): 37–56.
15.
ChamblissWJ (1977) Markets, profits, labour and smack. Contemporary Crises1: 53–76.
16.
ChouvyP (2009) Opium: Uncovering the Politics of the Poppy. London: I.B.Taurus.
17.
CINC (Committee on International Narcotics Control) (1972) World Opium Survey 1972. Washington: US Government Printing Office.
18.
CostaM (2008) Making Drug Control “Fit for Purpose”: Building on the UNGASS Decade. Vienna: Commission on Narcotic Drugs, E/CN.7/2008/CRP.17.
19.
CND (Commission on Narcotic Drugs) (1944) Summary of Annual Reports of Governments. New York: CND.
20.
CND (Commission on Narcotic Drugs) (1945) Summary of Annual Reports of Governments. New York: CND.
21.
CND (Commission on Narcotic Drugs) (1946) Summary of Annual Reports of Governments. New York: CND.
22.
CND (Commission on Narcotic Drugs) (1951) Summary of Annual Reports of Governments. New York: CND.
23.
CND (Commission on Narcotic Drugs) (1955) Summary of Annual Reports of Governments. New York: CND.
24.
CND (Commission on Narcotic Drugs) (1957) Summary of Annual Reports of Governments. New York: CND.
25.
DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) (1995) Drug Trafficking in Southwest Asia and the Central Asian States: Drug Intelligence Report. DEA-95055.
26.
Decree No.7/8522 (1974) Decree to Authorize Opium Poppy Cultivation in the Seven Provinces During 1974–1975. Available at: http://www.unodc.org/doc/enl/1974–46.pdf (accessed 18 January 2009).
DownsJM (1968) American merchants and the China opium trade, 1800–1840. The Business History Review42(4): 418–442.
29.
EisenlohrLES (1934) International Narcotics Control. London: George Allen and Unwin.
30.
EpsteinE (1977) Agency of Fear: Opiates and Political Power in America. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.
31.
ErinçSTuncdilekN (1952) The agricultural regions of Turkey. Geographical Review42(2): 179–203.
32.
EveredKT (2011a) ‘Poppies are democracy!’: A critical geopolitics of opium eradication and reintroduction in Turkey. Geographical Review101(3): 299–315.
33.
EveredKT (2011b) Traditional ecologies of the opium poppy and oral history in rural Turkey. Geographical Review101(2): 164–182.
34.
EveredKT (2011c) The opium poppy in Turkey: Alternative perspectives on a controversial crop. Focus on Geography54(1): 1–10.
35.
FazeyC (2005) Where have all the flowers gone? Gone to opium everyone. When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?International Journal of Drug Policy16(2): 104–107.
36.
Fyjis-Walker (1974) US/Turkish Relations. Letter to A.C. Goodison (FCO). Kew, London: British National Archives, FCO 9/2129.
37.
GOA (Government Accounting Office) (1972) Efforts to Prevent Heroin from Illicitly Reaching the United States. B-164031(2). Washington: GOA.
38.
GOA (Government Accounting Office) (1975) If The United States Is To Develop An Effective International Narcotics Control Program, Much More Must Be Done. Report to Congress. E-175425. Washington: GOA.
39.
GreenfieldHNanbyMC (1974) Report and Recommendations of the United Nations Mission to Turkey, 26 August – 10 September 1974. Kew, London: British National Archives, FCO 9/2129.
40.
GreyWA (1925) The opium problem. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science122: 148–159.
41.
GOA (Government Accounting Office) (1979) Gains Made in Controlling Illegal Drugs, yet the Drug Trade Flourishes. Controller Generals Report to Congress: GAO. GGD-80-4. Washington: GOA.
42.
Government of Turkey (1986) Facts on Turkish Poppy. Ankara: Directorate General of Press and Information.
43.
Government of Turkey (1988) Turkey’s Narcotics Control in Turkey. Ankara: Ministry of Health and Social Assistance General Directorate of Pharmaceuticals.
44.
HaqI (1996) Pak-Afgan drug trade in historical perspective. Asian Survey36(10): 945–963.
45.
HatchO (1984) Stop imported heroin. New York Times, 5May, 2.
46.
HolahanJHenningsenP (1972) The economics of heroin. In: The Ford Foundation (ed) Dealing with Heroin. London: Praeger Publishers, pp. 255–299.
47.
HoweM (1980) Turkish farmers turn bitterly from opium poppy. New York Times, 28November, 2.
48.
INCB (International Narcotics Control Board) (1967) Statistics on Narcotic Drugs for 1967. Geneva: UN. E/INCB/3.
49.
INCB (International Narcotics Control Board) (1968) First Report of the International Narcotics Control Board. Geneva: UN. E/INCB/1.
50.
INCB (International Narcotics Control Board) (1969) Report to the Economic and Social Council on the Work of the Board in 1969. Geneva: UN. E/INCB/5.
51.
INCB (International Narcotics Control Board) (1970) Report of the International Narcotics Control Board on its Work in 1970. Geneva: UN. E/INCB/9.
52.
INCB (International Narcotics Control Board) (1971) Report of the International Narcotics Control Board on its Work in 1971. Geneva: UN. E/INCB/13.
53.
INCB (International Narcotics Control Board) (1972) Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 1972. Geneva: UN. E/INCB/17.
54.
INCB (International Narcotics Control Board) (1973a) Statistics on Narcotic Drugs for 1973. Geneva: UN. E/INCB/27.
55.
INCB (International Narcotics Control Board) (1973b) Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 1973. Geneva: UN. E/INCB/24.
56.
INCB (International Narcotics Control Board) (1974) Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 1974. Geneva: UN. E/INCB/25.
57.
INCB (International Narcotics Control Board) (1975) Report of the International Narcotics Control Board 1975. Geneva: UN. E/INCB/29.
58.
INCB (International Narcotics Control Board) (1977) Report of the International Narcotics Control Board 1977. Geneva: UN. E/INCB/37.
59.
INCB (International Narcotics Control Board (1979) Report of the International Narcotics Control Board 1979. Vienna: UN. E/INCB/47.
60.
INCB (International Narcotics Control Board) (1980) Report of the International Narcotics Control Board 1980. Vienna: UN. E/INCB/52.
61.
INCB (International Narcotics Control Board) (1981) Report of the International Narcotics Control Board 1981. Vienna: UN. E/INCB/56.
62.
INCB (International Narcotics Control Board). (1982). Report of the International Narcotics Control Board 1982. Vienna: UN. E/INCB/61.
63.
Interpol (1988) The Quest Review. Vienna: Interpol.
64.
JensemaEArcherG (2005) Licensed opium cultivation and production in the main producing countries. In: Senlis Council (eds) Feasibility Study on Opium Licensing in Afghanistan for the Production of Morphine and other Essential Medicines, London. The Senlis Council, pp. 125–191.
KenneyM (2009) Organizational Learning and Islamic Militancy. Washington: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
67.
KloseK (1981) Accused Turk looked for exit from poverty. The Washington Post, 22May, 31.
68.
LamourKLambertiMR (1974) The Second Opium War. (Translated by RossPRossB.) London: Allen Lane.
69.
League of Nations (1930) Commission of Enquiry into the Control of Opium-Smoking in the Far East: Report to the Council: Detailed Memoranda on Each Territory Visited by the Commission. C.635.M.254.1930.
70.
League of Nations (1931) Commission of Inquiry into the Control of Opium-Smoking in the Far East. C.635.M.254.1930.
71.
League of Nations (1936) Nineteenth Assembly: Seventh Committee. Traffic in Opium and Other Dangerous Drugs. A.VII/5.1936.
72.
League of Nations (1938) Advisory Committee on Traffic in Opium: Report to the Council Concerning the Preparatory Work for a Conference to Consider the Possibility of Limiting and Controlling the Cultivation of the Opium Poppy and the Production of Raw Opium and Controlling Other Raw Material for the Manufacture of Opium Alkaloids. XI.1.
73.
LevittBMarchJG (1988) Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology14: 319–340.
74.
McCoyA (2003) The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade. Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books.
75.
MansfieldD (1999) Alternative development: The modern thrust of supply-side policy. Bulletin of Narcotics51(1/2): 19–45.
MeyerKParssinenT (2002) Webs of Smoke: Smugglers, Warlords, Spies, and the History of the International Drug Trade. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield.
78.
MurnGS (1914) The Morphia Traffic. 17 March 1914. Kew, London: British National Archives, FO 228/2458.
79.
MurphyJ (1983) Implementation of international narcotics control: The struggle against opium cultivation in Pakistan. Boston College International and Comparative Law Review6(1): 199–247.
80.
MurphyMSteeleR (1971) The World Heroin Problem. Washington: US Government Printing Office.
81.
MustoD (1987) The American Disease: Origins of Narcotics Control. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
82.
NewmanRK (1989) India and the Anglo-Chinese opium agreements, 1907–14. Modern Asian Studies23(3): 525–560.
83.
Newsday (1974) The Heroin Trail. London: Souvenir Press.
84.
NNICC (National Narcotics Intelligence Consumers Committee) (1973) The Supply of Drugs to the US Illicit Market. Washington: US Government Printing Office.
85.
NNICC (National Narcotics Intelligence Consumers Committee) (1980) The Supply of Drugs to the US Illicit Market. Washington: US Government Printing Office.
86.
NNICC (National Narcotics Intelligence Consumers Committee) (1981) The Supply of Drugs to the US Illicit Market. Washington: US Government Printing Office.
87.
NNICC (National Narcotics Intelligence Consumers Committee) (1988) The Supply of Drugs to the US Illicit Market. Washington: US Government Printing Office.
88.
PamukS (1991) War, state economic policies and resistance by agricultural producers in Turkey, 1939–1945. In: WaterburyJKazemiF (eds) Peasant Politics in the Modern Middle East. Florida: University Presses of Florida, pp. 125–142.
89.
PaoliLGreenfieldVAReuterP (2009) The World Heroin Market: Can Supply be Cut?Oxford: Oxford University Press.
90.
PCOB (Permanent Central Opium Board) (1948) Report to the Economic and Social Council on Statistics of Narcotics for 1947 and the Work of the Board in 1948. Geneva: UN. E/OB/4.
91.
PCOB (Permanent Central Opium Board) (1949) Report to the Economic and Social Council on Statistics of Narcotics for 1948 and the Work of the Board in 1949. Geneva: UN. E/OB/5.
92.
PCOB (Permanent Central Opium Board) (1950) Report to the Economic and Social Council on Statistics of Narcotics for 1949 and the Work of the Board in 1950. Geneva: UN. E/OB/6.
93.
PCOB (Permanent Central Opium Board) (1951) Report to the Economic and Social Council on Statistics of Narcotics for 1950 and the Work of the Board in 1951. Geneva: UN. E/OB/7.
94.
PCOB (Permanent Central Opium Board) (1952) Report to the Economic and Social Council on Statistics of Narcotics for 1951 and the Work of the Board in 1952. Geneva: UN. E/OB/8.
95.
PCOB (Permanent Central Opium Board) (1953) Report to the Economic and Social Council on Statistics of Narcotics for 1952 and the Work of the Board in 1953. Geneva: UN. E/OB/9.
96.
PCOB (Permanent Central Opium Board) (1954) Report to the Economic and Social Council on Statistics of Narcotics for 1953 and the Work of the Board in 1954. Geneva: UN. E/OB/10.
97.
PCOB (Permanent Central Opium Board) (1955) Report to the Economic and Social Council on the Work of the Board in 1955. Geneva: UN. E/OB/13.
98.
PCOB (Permanent Central Opium Board) (1957) Report to the Economic and Social Council on the Work of the Board in 1957. Geneva: UN. E/OB/13.
99.
PCOB (Permanent Central Opium Board) (1959) Report to the Economic and Social Council on the Work of the Board in 1959. Geneva: UN. E/OB/15.
100.
PCOB (Permanent Central Opium Board) (1960) Report to the Economic and Social Council on the Work of the Board in 1960. UN: Geneva. E/OB/16.
101.
PCOB (Permanent Central Opium Board) (1961) Report to the Economic and Social Council on the Work of the Board in 1961. UN: Geneva. E/OB/17.
102.
PCOB (Permanent Central Opium Board) (1962) Report to the Economic and Social Council on the Work of the Board in 1962. UN: Geneva. E/OB/18.
103.
PCOB (Permanent Central Opium Board) (1963) Report to the Economic and Social Council on the Work of the Board in 1963. UN: Geneva. E/OB/19.
104.
PCOB (Permanent Central Opium Board) (1965) Report to the Economic and Social Council on the Work of the Board in 1965. UN: Geneva. E/OB/21.
105.
PCOB (Permanent Central Opium Board) (1966) Report to the Economic and Social Council on the Work of the Board in 1966. UN: Geneva. E/OB/22.
106.
PoroyII (1981) Expansion of opium production in Turkey and the state monopoly of 1828–1839. International Journal of Middle East Studies13: 191–211.
107.
RenardR (2001) Opium Reduction in Thailand 1970–2000: A Thirty Year Journey. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.
108.
ReuterP (1985) Eternal hope: America’s quest for narcotics control. The Public Interest79: 79–95.
109.
RobinsP (1993) The overlord state: Turkish policy and the Kurdish issue. International Affairs69(4): 657–676.
110.
RobinsP (2007) The opium crisis and the Iraq war: Historical parallels in Turkey-US relations. Mediterranean Politics12(1): 17–38.
111.
RottenbergS (1968) The clandestine distribution of heroin, its discovery and suppression. The Journal of Political Economy76(1): 78–90.
112.
RustowDA (1967) Politics and development policy. In: ShorterFC (ed) Four Studies on the Economic Development of Turkey. London: Frank Cass, pp. 5–32.
113.
SarellR (1970) Turkey: Annual Review for 1970. 31st December 1970. Kew, London: British National Archives, FCO 9/1466.
114.
SayariSHoffmanB (1991) Urbanization and Insurgency: The Turkish Case, 1976–1980. California: RAND.
115.
SchmidtJ (1998) From Anatolia to Indonesia: Opium trade and the Dutch Community in Izmir, 1820–1940. Leiden: Nederlands Instituute voor het Nabijie Oosten.
116.
SchulzM (2005) Organizational learning. In: BaumJA (ed) The Blackwell Companion to Organizations. Oxford: Wiley, pp. 415–442.
117.
SpainJW (1975) The United States, Turkey and the poppy. The Middle East Journal29(3): 295–309.
118.
Time (1974) Turkey: Opium’s lethal return. Time, 15July, 13–14.
119.
The Economist (1974) Poppy Power. The Economist, 13July, 49.
120.
The Times (1931) The trade in opium. The Times, 27May, 13.
121.
The Times (1933) Drug barons of Europe. The Times, 21March, 13.
122.
The Times (1970) Factories for heroin found. The Times, 24July, 4.
123.
The Times (1971) Huge heroin haul by French police. The Times, 10October, 5.
124.
The Times (1972) Heroin factory seized by police in Marseille. The Times, 7March, 3.
TurnbullJH (1972) Opium Narcotics: A World Survey of the Illicit Traffic. The Royal Military College of Science Department of Chemistry and Metallurgy: Technical Report AC/R/5.
127.
UNFDAC (UN Fund for Drug Abuse Control) (1975) The Cultivation of Opium Poppy in Turkey. MNAR/8/1975 GE.75–8207.
128.
UNODCCP (UN Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention) (2000) World Drug Report. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
129.
US Information Service (1971) Stepping up International Action Against Drug Abuse. American Embassy: London. Kew, London: British National Archives, FCO 15/1392.
130.
US State Department (1995–2007) International Narcotics Control Strategy Report. Washington: US State Department.
131.
UsluN (2003) The Turkish-American Relationship Between 1947 and 2003: The History of a Distinctive Alliance. New York: Nova.
132.
VailleCBailleulE (1953) Clandestine heroin laboratories. Bulletin of Narcotics4: 1–6.
133.
Warren-Gash (1974) To Georgina Wright (FCO). 19th March, 1974. Kew, London: British National Archives, FCO 9/2129.
134.
Warren-Gash (1975) To C.S. Wright (FCO). Turkish Opium Poppy Cultivation. 9 September 1975. Kew London: British National Archives, FCO 61/1369.
135.
WestCS (1992) Turkey and India. In: McDonaldSZagaridB (eds) International Handbook on Drug Control. Westport: Greenwood Press, pp. 349–363.
136.
WestermeyerJ (2004) Opium and the people of Laos. In: SteinbergMKHobbsJJMathewsonK (eds) Dangerous Harvest: Drug Plants and the Transformation of Indigenous Landscapes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 115–133.
137.
WiggR (1974) Ringleader of French heroin smugglers jailed for 18 years. The Times, 12July, 4.
138.
WindleJ (2011) Poppies for medicine in Afghanistan: Historical lessons from India and Turkey. Journal of Asian and African Studies46(6): 663–677.
139.
WindleJ (2012) Insights for contemporary drug policy: A historical account of opium control in India and Pakistan. Asian Journal of Criminology7(1): 55–74.
WindleJFarrellG (2012) Popping the balloon effect: Assessing drug law enforcement in terms of displacement, diffusion and the containment hypothesis. Substance Use and Misuse47(8/9): 868–876.
142.
WishartD (1974) The opium poppy: The forbidden crop. Journal of Geography73(1): 14–25.
143.
ZarkinMJ (2010) The FCC and the Politics of Cable TV Regulation, 1952–1980: Organizational Learning and Policy Development. Amherst: Cambria Press.
144.
ZerelUAhrensBGerzP (2005) Documentation of a heroin manufacturing process in Afghanistan. Bulletin of Narcotics61(1/2): 11–33.
145.
ZürcherE (1998) Turkey: A Modern History. London: I.B. Tauris and Co.
