FOOLS RUSHING IN--TO COLOMBIA?

Skepticism--always a healthy thing both in journalism and in government--is
said to be growing in Washington among drug-enforcement and military
officials about the Clinton administration's proposed $1.6 billion aid
package for Colombia.

And a good thing, too, if true. For there is plenty of room for doubt and
questions about this initiative. As Woody Hayes used to say of the forward
pass, three things could happen and two of them are bad.

The aid might, as intended, help the Colombian government turn the tide in
its 40-year war against leftist guerrillas and, ultimately, eradicate the
drug industry the guerrillas use to finance their war. Or it may make no
dent either in the guerrillas' strength or the drug trade. And in the worst
case, it could lead to deep U.S. entanglement in a conflict that has
"quagmire" written all over it.

Before involving itself in Columbia's chaos, Washington ought to take a
hard look at what ultimately fuels it: America's insatiable demand for
illicit drugs and a system that criminalizes them and makes their
production and distribution immensely profitable.

There are no slam-dunk solutions to either of those questions, but the U.S.
needs to face them and open itself up to new--possibly radical--responses.

Just like the federal war against drugs--which devotes roughly two-thirds
of its $18 billion budget to supply-side interdiction and law
enforcement--the proposed two-year Colombia aid package is skewed toward
military solutions.

Administration officials point to the success of similar anti-drug
operations in Peru and Bolivia in the past few years, but they fail to
mention the obvious displacement effect: a simultaneous explosion of drug
production in Colombia, and Mexico's emergence as a narcotics superhighway.

Just as worrisome is that in Colombia's civil war, drug profits and
violence have become a deadly double helix that resists untangling. If
Colombia smells like Vietnam, there's probably a good reason.

Ultimately the surest blow against Colombia's drug producers would be for
the U.S. to kick--or drastically reduce--its own drug habit. For starters,
there must be strategies to reduce the damage from addiction. Distribution
of clean needles to drug addicts, for example, has been proven to
significantly reduce the spread of AIDS and other related diseases.

Drug treatment must become universally available on demand. Compared to the
incalculable costs of addiction--time lost from work, the hundreds of
thousands of prisoners doing time for drug-related offenses, and the deaths
and pain caused by substance abuse--treatment on demand is a bargain.

Ultimately, the decriminalization of narcotics--to take the enormous profit
out of their distribution--must be on the table for public debate. There
are enormous and very real risks involved. Would decriminalization
contribute to the spread of drugs, particularly among the young? Would it
become a disincentive for those addicted to seek help?

Such risks may outweigh any benefit decriminalization might bring. But
Americans can't know unless the questions are asked--and weighed against
all the possibilities, including a quagmire in Colombia.