CUT AND RUN?

Congress Must Take Fresh Look At Drug War

According to the old saying, if at first you don't succeed, try, try
again. That seems to be the advice the Colombian government is
getting these days. Colombia is once again asking for an infusion of
U.S. cash, ostensibly to help in the drug war. Under Plan Colombia,
begun during the Clinton administration, the U.S. sent $4 billion in
aid to that South American nation.

The aid was to have been used to battle cocaine production, not used
in Colombia's long running civil unrest.

Because of the drug lords' growing use of Marxist rebels for
security, however, some of that aid no doubt was used to help
Colombia fight the insurgents. The lines between the civil war and
the drug war were often blurred, and with the war on terror labeling
many anti-government rebels as terrorists, it's getting even more murky.

Now, Colombia is back in Washington, asking for another $4 billion
for what's informally being called Plan Colombia II. This time,
Colombian Vice President Francisco Santos is linking the effort to a
trade deal being brokered between the two nations.

Although we like the idea of freer trade between the two nations,
we're wary of another infusion of cash to a drug war that's not working.

Santos disputes that Plan Colombia was a failure, noting that
corruption and drug violence is down in his country.

According to media reports, Santos notes that kidnappings are down
over the past four years and the yearly murder rate has been cut
nearly in half. We're happy we could help with that, Mr. Vice
President, but Colombian cocaine is still readily available in U.S.
cities, so we have a difficult time thinking we got a good deal for
our $4 billion.

In fact, we don't believe Americans are getting their money's worth
for any of the cash the government has thrown into the bottomless pit
of the drug war. Court dockets are packed and prisons are
overcrowded, yet illicit drugs are still readily available to anyone
who wants them. Sure, we're seeing a lot of convictions for
drug-related crimes, but the true test of a successful program is the
effect of operations on the availability and price of a product.

After decades of effort, the drug war fails this test. Many
schoolkids know where to buy drugs.

In addition to not being effective at stemming the use and
availability of drugs, prohibition increases violence.

Drug dealers battle over turf because prohibition drives up prices,
making selling drugs quite lucrative. Police conduct no-knock raids
with paramilitary units designed to meet potential problems with
overwhelming force, sometimes mistakenly targeting innocent citizens.

And drug users commit crimes to support their habits.

Does this mean drugs are inherently evil and should stay banned?

No. Drug use isn't the problem, although use is not risk-or
consequence-free. Prohibition, however, is what makes drugs the law
enforcement black hole the drug war has become.

Prohibition of any product creates a black market, which in turn
drives up the price because of the increased risk involved in
supplying that product. The allure of high profits with little effort
brings in the criminal element, as well as criminalizing behavior
that was once legal. If the government were to outlaw peanut butter
because of its effects on people with allergies, people who really
wanted a PBJ would find a way to get what they wanted.

This analogy isn't a perfect match, because peanut butter is not
addictive, but the results would be the same: PBJ lovers would pay a
higher price to get what they want, and dealers would rake in the cash.

Perhaps more problematic, the drug war is a slap in the face of
freedom-loving Americans. By what right do the feds ban a product
that harms only the user? We know the arguments that drug use affects
others because of the actions of the user, but that can be addressed
as are other crimes against people.

Alcohol use can affect others, but society takes on that problem by
going after users whose actions endanger the rights or safety of
others, such as drunken driving laws. We tried alcohol prohibition
once before and it was as big a failure as the current drug prohibition.

Readers would be wrong to conclude we believe drug use is harmless;
it's not. Regular use can be debilitating, sometimes fatal.

But it should be up to the individual to decide whether he or she
will indulge in possibly harmful behavior.

It's time to take a fresh look at the drug war; it's not working and
it restricts the right of adults to do as they please with their
bodies as long as they don't endanger others. And it would save far
more than the $4 billion Colombia is seeking.