By posting a link supporting my argument? Rather subtle way to differ. I quote:
"The Taleban government which took power in most of Afghanistan in the mid-1990s stamped down hard on the country's long-established heroin trade.
But with precious few other ways for Afghan farmers to make money, many of them are returning to poppy cultivation. "
1996 - Taliban takes over Afghanistan, the world's top heroin producers. They, being mad religious fundamentalists, believe that everything they need to run the country is in the Koran, which says 'no drugs'. However, being new kids on the block, they haven't got the strength to do this yet and poppy is grown in the usual large quantities.
2000 - Taliban, having consolidated their power in the preceding four years, ban drug production in accordance with their nutty religious beliefs. Being by now all-powerful, they can really back this up with enforcement action that makes Guantanamo look like a bit of a tea party, which is needed because the measure is highly unpopular. Hence drug production plummets, prices go up, people who stockpiled the stuff make a massive profit, as always happens when something is banned.
2001 - post 9/11 the Taliban realise that they are about to get walloped, so relax the ban on growing poppy in an effort to keep things together, to no avail, they're kicked out, and farmers, removed from the threat of Taliban enforcement, start growing like mad.
March 2003
"Afghanistan retook its place as the world's leading producer of heroin last year, after US-led forces overthrew the Taleban which had banned cultivation of opium poppies."