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.