Pubdate: Thu, 14 Apr 2005
Source: Valley Morning Star (TX)
Copyright: 2005 Valley Morning Star
Contact: http://www.valleystar.com/letters.php
Website: http://www.valleystar.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/584
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/coke.htm (Cocaine)

NOTHING TO SHOW FOR COCAINE WAR

British historian Thomas Carlyle once wrote, "Teach a parrot the terms 
'supply and demand' and you've got an economist." That attitude might be 
too dismissive of what drives economies. But it's the attitude that keeps 
the international war on drugs chugging along, destroying at least as many 
lives as the drugs themselves.

The law of supply and demand is routinely ignored as developed nations 
co-opt undeveloped and underdeveloped nations by offering them aid in 
exchange for attacking drugs at their sources. Such is the case in 
Colombia, where President Alvaro Uribe announced recently that his 
government would continue with U.S.-backed and funded aerial spraying of 
coca crops, despite data from the White House Office of National Drug 
Control Policy showing that last year's spraying was ineffective -- 
Colombia had roughly the same number of acres planted with coca as it did 
the previous year.

Drug warriors point out that the result is not for their lack of effort: 
337,427 acres were sprayed, but the growers replanted almost before the 
planes had disappeared.

Not to be deterred, Uribe announced, "Our will is to continue seizing the 
drugs and to continue with the fumigation."

What have Americans gotten for the $3 billion we've given Colombia since 
2000 to help stop cocaine at its source? U.S. street prices for the white 
powder are as low as they've ever been and, at the risk of sounding like 
Carlyle's parrot, it's because there is plenty of supply to meet the 
demand. Despite last year's fumigation efforts, Colombia still had the 
potential to produce 430 metric tons of cocaine. That doesn't sound like a 
successful eradication program to us.

Part of the reason for the drug war's failure is that many Americans don't 
think it's the government's business what they choose to ingest, provided 
they don't hurt others by doing so. But the feds didn't learn anything from 
alcohol Prohibition during the 20th century -- and they don't seem to be 
learning anything from the current drug prohibition.

Our jails are full as a result of the drug war. Granted, few felons are 
locked up solely on possession charges; many also have been convicted of 
property crimes committed to support a drug habit.

But part of that situation can be laid at the feet of officials who refuse 
to acknowledge that prohibiting drugs doesn't make them unattainable, only 
more expensive. And higher prices attract criminal elements drawn by big 
profits.

The way to get rid of the criminals is to get rid of the prohibition that 
makes it a high risk/high profit industry. When Prohibition ended in 1933, 
gangsters had to find other ways to line their pockets -- manufacturing and 
smuggling liquor was no longer profitable enough and was overtaken by 
legitimate business people.

Insanity has been described as doing the same thing over and over, 
expecting different results each time. ONDCP's David Murray noted recently 
in an interview with the Associated Press, "What you have now is hard-core 
cultivators ... who are faced with extinction of their business, and what 
they are doing is they're staying put and replanting as rapidly as they 
can, and we're coming back and hitting them with eradication."

It's easy to understand the position of the farmers; they tend to be poor 
peasants trying to eke out a living. But we expect more from officials in 
Washington, who have several options from which to choose, yet continue to 
chose the one that has been a demonstrated failure.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth