DRUG POLICY

To the editor:

Your July 27 editorial on foreign aid was excellent. The White House
proposal to add $ 676 million in South American counter-narcotics aid to
the Clinton administration's $ 1.3 billion Plan Colombia is a prime 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. When faced with the choice of abject poverty and the inflated
black market profits of illicit crops, many farmers will choose the latter.
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 created 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 drugs and drug laws have the potential to cause harm. Given the
historical precedent in America's disastrous experiment with 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 fuels organized crime and violence.

Robert Sharpe, Washington, D.C.

The writer is a program officer with The Lindesmith Center-Drug Policy
Foundation (www.drugpolicy.org).