HARM REDUCTION SHOULD REPLACE U.S. DRUG WAR

To the Editor:

The South Florida Sun-Sentinel editorial that The Telegraph reprinted on
Aug. 18 and which called for Spanish classes for the CIA pilots that
contributed to the deaths of two innocent members of an American missionary
family flying over Peru ignores the big picture.

As Peruvian coca production has gone down, Colombian coca production and
domestic methamphetamine production have both gone up, along with the U.S.
incarceration rate, now the highest in the world.

A Bush administration proposal to add another $25 million in Peruvian
counternarcotics aid to expand the Clinton administration's Plan Colombia
is a prime of example of big government throwing good money after bad. The
additional funds will not negate the immutable laws of supply and demand
that drive illegal drug production. A crackdown in one region leads to
increased cultivation elsewhere.

Creating a global welfare state in which every developing country is paid
not to grow illicit crops is a rather expensive proposition. The various
armed factions in Colombia that are tearing the country apart are
financially dependent on profits generated by America's never-ending drug
war. While U.S. politicians continue to use the drug war's collateral
damage to justify its intensification at home and abroad, European
countries are embracing harm reduction. Harm reduction is based on the
principle that both drug use and drug prohibition has the potential to
cause harm. Given the historical precedent in alcohol prohibition, harm
reduction should be readily understood by Congress. Ironically, fear of
appearing "soft on crime" compels many politicians to support a punitive
drug policy that ultimately fuels organized crime and violence.

Robert Sharpe
Program Officer
Lindesmith Center-Drug Policy Foundation Washington, D.C.
www.drugpolicy.org