UNITED STATES' ANSWER TO DRUG WAR PROVES HARMFUL

In order for the war on terrorism to be successful, citizens of every
country, especially those of the United States, need to do their part.
It's the effort by ordinary citizens -- keeping a look out for
terrorists and those who help them, staying up-to-date on the risk
those people of interest pose and taking action when necessary -- that
will be a key to victory and eventually ensure the safety of all
citizens of this planet.

So, as the self-proclaimed director of the citizen's faction of the
U.S. Homeland Security Department (HSD), I request all taxpaying U.S.
citizens to turn themselves in to the regional HSD office. Those who
cooperate will only be charged with one count of financing terrorist
activities in Colombia -- a deal I suggest you take, or be hunted down
like your al-Qaida, Taliban and Republican Guard brethren.

U.S. taxpayers contributed to a $605 million check for military
assistance to Colombia last year, money that paid for chemicals to be
sprayed on the citizens of that country. One could compare that to
what Saddam Hussein did to the Kurds, since the U.S. government knew
about that as well, but in the Colombia case, the U.S. government
helped plan the chemical attack, and paid for it, as part of a program
called Plan Colombia.

In an attempt to curb the flow of cocaine from Colombia to the
millions of cokeheads in this country, the U.S. and Colombian
governments have decided it's OK to drop loads of the enhanced version
of the weed killer Roundup across the countryside in order to kill the
fields of coca plants that are grown there. But when dropping
chemicals from crop-dusting planes at much higher altitudes than the
process is designed for, there is no accuracy; when the crop dusting
planes strike, part of the chemical falls straight to the ground, and
the rest hovers in the sky, literally, like a black cloud. Since
there's no controlling it after it is unleashed it from the planes, it
falls beyond the intended patches of coca plants, onto legal
agriculture and livestock, into bodies of water and, most deplorably,
into the lungs of people.

The warnings on the bottle of regular Roundup should say it all;
urging users not to ingest the chemical because it will irritate the
digestive tract "as demonstrated by signs and symptoms of mouth
membrane irritations, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea." It also warns
against adding it to bodies of water "such as ponds, lakes or streams
as Roundup can be harmful to certain aquatic organisms."
Unfortunately, the lives and livelihoods of innocent people aren't
valued that much by the U.S. and Colombian governments, in the context
of the 30-year struggle called the "war on drugs."

Putting human life at risk in order to kill a plant is not only a
violation of basic human rights that supersede any man-made piece of
legislation, but also a badly formed and illogical policy. If someone
wants to do cocaine, someone will produce it, regardless of the legal
and moral consequence. The only thing that will change is the price,
increasing as the risk and penalty does. So in effect, the misguided
drug policy Americans' pay for is actually making drug production more
profitable, making drug traffickers more money and increasing the
incentive to grow and sell it.

It's not the kingpins that grow the coca though; it's the poor peasant
farmers just trying to feed their family. Yet the U.S. government
wants the farmers to stop growing a crop that makes money and start
growing more bananas. But as militant, by-any-means-necessary
capitalism has taught the world, the bottom line is the bottom line,
which is why most farmers don't care about a crack-head in Kalamazoo.
They have said no to the alternative crop subsidy program, which is
where the U.S. pays farmers to grow crops other than coca, in order to
stem production. Coca plants make more money than legal crops though,
and the drug traffickers offer door-to-door service. The United States
expects farmers to grow crops that don't make as much money, pack them
into forms of transportation they don't have, drive them through the
country on non-existent roads and put them into markets that they
obviously don't have. Growing coca makes more sense and cents.

In these difficult financial times, government-spending priorities
need to also be cost effective. According to the conservative RAND
Corporation, drug treatment is 23 times more cost effective than
aerial fumigation in the attempt to stop drug use. As the federal
deficit grows, so do the bills for war, while tax revenue goes down
(thanks W). That leaves the ax to fall on the programs that benefit
the neediest among us, like elementary school funding and veteran's
benefits (no child left behind and support our troops, eh?).

On May 1, 2003, President Bush used these cautionary words to declare the
end of major combat in Iraq: "Any person, organization, or government that
supports, protects, or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the
innocent, and equally guilty of terrorist crimes. Any outlaw regime that
has ties to terrorist groups and seeks or possesses weapons of mass
destruction is a grave danger to the civilized world -- and will be
confronted."

Is this nation ready to look in the mirror? Do Americans support
terrorism as a double-standard policy? Are Americans so blinded by
fear that whatever the Democrats and Republicans in D.C. say actually
goes without critical thought? If so, then there goes the purpose of
democracy, and any meaning behind the constitution and the real
struggle for freedom both at home and abroad. The purpose of the
United States then becomes as transparent as the air we breathe. At
lease there's no Roundup in it.

Ben Lando, a Western Herald opinion columnist, is a junior form
Kalamazoo majoring in political science.