Pubdate: Wed, 29 Mar 2000
Source: Los Angeles Daily Journal
Copyright: 2000 Daily Journal Corp.
FAX: (213) 625-0945
Address: 915 E 1st St., Los Angeles, CA 90012-4050
Author: Kevin B. Zeese
Note: The same article was published in the San Francisco Daily Journal on 
Thu, 30 Mar 2000. FAX: (415) 252-0288 Address: 1390 Market St #1210, San 
Francisco, CA 94102-5306  These legal newspapers do not appear to have any 
websites or email contacts.

DRUG INSANITY

In rushing to approve a 1.7 billion dollar Colombian military aid package 
Congress is ignoring drug enforcement history which shows this approach 
will actually make America's drug problem worse.

There has not been an eradication or interdiction program in the last 35 
years that has reduced the supply of illegal drugs. Indeed such efforts 
actually increase drug supplies by spurring new source countries, new 
trafficking routes and new drugs.

1.  The French Connection of the 1960s. Officials believed destroying the 
Turkey—French—US supply line would destroy the heroin market. In fact the 
heroin market expanded to sources in Mexico and Asia. The Mexican and 
Southeast Asian heroin markets are still with us today. Also, Turkey and 
other Eastern European sources now supply much of Europe.

2.  Operation Intercept. President Nixon's first drug war effort was an 
offensive against Mexico that included searching one in three vehicles 
crossing the border. This spurred an increase in prescription drug use and 
traffickers switched to boats and planes. The Mexican effort also expanded 
the Southeast Asian drug markets which were already making inroads thanks 
to the Vietnam War. The border searches disrupted commerce and therefore 
could not be sustained. Thus the result was increased use of prescription 
drugs, expanded Southeast Asian supplies and Mexican traffickers not only 
had land routes, but also sea and air routes.

3.  The Paraquat Spraying Program: This mid-70's herbicide spraying program 
attempted to eradicate marijuana and poppies in Mexico. Paraquat tainted 
marijuana created the US marijuana market, which now accounts for at least 
25% of marijuana consumed here, and the Colombian marijuana market, which 
evolved to include cocaine and heroin.

4.  Reagan's Florida interdiction program: In the early 80s Florida was the 
entry point for marijuana. President Reagan involved the military in 
marijuana interdiction. The result ­ Colombian traffickers realized they 
would get caught less often and make a larger profit if they switched to 
the less bulky cocaine. The also developed trafficking lines along the west 
and gulf coasts and through Mexico. The result purity increased, price 
decreased and cocaine problems soared.

5.  Bush's Andean Strategy. President Bush increased military and other law 
enforcement involvement in the Andean Region to seize cocaine. The result ­ 
the cocaine market is still there.

6.  Invasion of Panama: President Bush invaded Panama to arrest Manuel 
Noriega. The military succeeded in making this arrest but the money 
laundering and transhipments never stopped. They removed Noriega, but not 
the drug problem.

7. Peruvians Shoot Down Strategy: During the Clinton years the US provided 
intelligence to Peru so they could shoot down suspected traffickers. The 
result, traffickers increased their activity in Colombia ­ creating the 
problem we are facing today.

8.  Clinton's Colombian eradication program. Colombia has been the site of 
the most aggressive herbicide spraying program in the world and the largest 
recipient of military aid outside of the middle east. The result ­ we need 
to escalate the war because it has not worked.

Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey recognizes that winning the war in Colombia is 
improbable and is already making excuses. Recently he said that lack of 
AWAC air support makes success in Colombia unlikely. Not only does this 
allow the drug czar to point blame for failure at DoD, it greases the skids 
for more direct involvement of our military in the Colombian civil war. The 
quagmire many fear is becoming more likely.

Since 1980 the federal government has spent over $250 billion on the drug 
war. Why do advocates of the Colombian escalation think that this $1.7 
billion appropriation will succeed? Are these last few billion going to be 
more effective then the first $250 billion?

We should learn the lessons of drug wars past. Failure to do so is likely 
to result in a greater drug problem. For example, right now there are signs 
of an initial development of expanding methamphetamine use. This is a 
domestically produced speed. If, by chance, the Colombian drug war resulted 
in a drop in cocaine availability this would be a natural replacement drug. 
Thus, we would have spurred a more dangerous alternative, more difficult to 
interdict because it will be produced locally and, as history shows, in a 
brief time the cocaine market will move elsewhere to neighboring countries. 
Already, Peru is reporting that the price of raw coca has tripled and there 
has been an expansion of 1,500 hectares of new coca cultivation in 1999.

It is time to seek effective alternatives to expanding the drug war. For 
less then the cost of international drug efforts we could have treatment on 
request so addicts who want to stop can do so. The RAND Corporation has 
concluded that treatment is 10 times more effective then interdiction.  We 
could also institute effective prevention programs for American youth. 
After school programs would do more to stop adolescent drug use then the 
drug war. The US spends $600 million on after school programs, the 
Children's Defense Fund recommends $2.5 billion.

These two programs would take away current consumers and reduce the number 
of new consumers. If we want to undermine Colombian drug cartels we should 
take care of our problems at home.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake