The Daily Texan

(Newspaper of Univ. of Texas at Austin)

Pub. Date: 4/3/98

Contact: Texan@www.utexas.edu

========================================================

Drug certification hurts Drug War

Greg Hammond TEXAN COLUMNIST

It's that time of year again, when the government decides whether or not our southern neighbors have done enough to fight the drug trade. South and Central American countries that are "sufficiently" compliant with U.S. policies are certified as good guys in the drug war; those that don't come up to federal snuff lose that certification -- and with it, some portion of their aid package. This means that once again we are risking a great deal for little, if any, gain.

Consider what happened when Colombia failed to meet the standard (whatever that standard may be) and received as punishment a yearlong reduction in U.S. foreign aid. The country lost money needed for programs that just might have helped fight drugs. We looked bad pushing around another nation. And there's no real indication that any positive difference was made either before, during or after the arbitrary decertification. On the contrary, the bad feeling it caused only hampered joint drug-fighting efforts.

The certification process only serves to antagonize the very governments whose help we need to fight drugs. At the same time, it does nothing to actually fight drugs; recertified nations are not given any special reward or support. And of course the drug runners themselves are not affected by this.

Furthermore, the certification process is losing whatever value it might have had at home. The government likes to use such measures to show the public that it is "doing something" about the serious problems plaguing us. Few, after all, would seriously argue against fighting drugs. With the certification procedure, the feds get to look like they're doing something concrete towards that goal. As a bonus, the only price that the public pays is that we have to watch Congress and the president argue over who's in and who's out every year. Fortunately, not only have most of us become bored with the drama, we also seem to be realizing why the whole notion was a bad idea in the first place.

The flow of drugs is an international problem, not something that the United States can stanch by itself. Both producing and consuming nations face tremendous violence, corruption, and drastic health problems as a result of the trade. The only solution to the problem is true cooperative action. Only when there is understanding and good will between nations can cooperation function. It is that good will which the certification process threatens, however. We waste time arguing whether our allies our doing their share, and risk alienating them in the process.

What is most bizarre about this is that we bear the primary responsibility for the drug trade. People in the United States are the ones doing the buying, after all. And do we not believe that in a capitalist free market, the consumer votes with his wallet? U.S. citizens make the choice to buy drugs, and it is the responsibility of the United States to curb that demand. Until we do, we will continue to present the ludicrous image of a wealthy alcoholic bachelor telling a poor liquor store owner with a family to feed to clean up his act.

Hammond is a graduate student in history.

Reply by: Craig Schroer Librarian - Benson Latin American Collection, UT Austin

Re: Drug certification hurts Drug War

Greg Hammond's OpEd, "Drug certification hurts Drug War" -- 4/3/98, is an unsettling example of the degree to which irrationality pervades discussion of drug policy. Although Mr. Hammond criticizes drug certification on legitimate grounds he fails to apply the same standards to evaluating the larger issue of drug prohibition. For example, he notes that with Washington's certification process "we are risking a great deal for little, if any, gain" and that "the drug runners themselves are not affected by this." These precise points apply equally well to the larger issue of prohibition.

According to the UN Drug Control Program, traffic in illicit drugs has grown to account for 8 percent of the world's economy. Latin America's longest standing democracy, Colombia, is being undermined not by drugs, but by drug money generated in a black-market. Here in the U.S. we are now incarcerating 300 percent more people per capita than in 1980, primarily due to drug laws. Furthermore, one third of African-American males between the ages of 19 and 29 are either incarcerated, on probation, parole or awaiting trial, again primarily for drug law infractions. Our Constitution has effectively been purged of the 4th Amendment (freedom from unreasonable search and seizure) in drug cases, and forfeiture laws indict inanimate objects thus dodging due process of law and allowing for people to be stripped of their possessions without ever being convicted of a crime. Our long standing democratic tradition of maintaining separation between police and military (the Posse Comitatus Act) has been suspended where drugs are involved thus leading to the dangerous militarization of our police, our criminals, and ultimately, of our society. These are just a few of the myriad of unintended consequences of the war on drugs. Surely, in the case of prohibition "we are risking a great deal for little, if any, gain." And of course, the harder we "fight drugs" the more profit the kingpins make.

The only possible rationale for continuing the drug war, given its host of problems, is the belief that civilization will collapse without a war on drugs (indeed, many government agencies might collapse...). However, all of the common drugs (cocaine, heroin, morphine, marijuana) were available to anyone without prescription prior to the Harrison Narcotic Act of 1914. In fact, common household remedies (not to mention Coca-Cola) contained cocaine and or opiates and were consumed by the majority of Americans prior to the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 which required manufacturers to list all ingredients on their product labels. Upon learning what they were consuming, the majority of Americans simply chose not to continue buying these products. Contrary to the propaganda of drug warriors, Americans did not see the horrible results of these drugs being legal and then press for their ban. Rather, a confluence of factors (the temperance movement, racist prejudices, federal expansionism) led to the placement of the legislative cornerstones which have evolved into the war on drugs. This policy was sold to the public through the media, exactly as it is today.

As evidence of the role of the media in perpetuating the drug war, consider the following: the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA 3/18/98) just published the results of a study of American attitudes toward illegal drugs. They found that "Most people rely on mass media for information about the scope of drug abuse in America" ... "Although 82 percent of the public thinks illegal drug use is a big problem for society, only 27 percent see it as a major problem in their local communities. Eighty-one percent say drug abuse has never caused problems in their own families." Clearly, these people are reacting to what they're being fed by the media rather than what they're actually experiencing in their own lives. This same article states that the annual number of deaths in America attributed to illegal drugs is roughly 11,000. Compare this to the 500,000 annual American deaths due to alcohol (100,000) and tobacco (400,000) and any reasonable person has to question our incredibly skewed priorities. Moreover, we need to begin questioning who's agenda does it serve to have the American public completely bamboozled on the issue of illegal drugs? (Likely candidates include; the Pentagon, DEA, CIA, INS, IRS, Customs, Coast Guard, National Guard, the alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceutical industries and, not least of all, the narcotraffickers -- does one sense an unholy alliance here?)

Lastly, Mr. Hammond either misspeaks or is misinformed when he says that "Few, after all, would seriously argue against fighting drugs." He's correct if what he means is that no one seriously advocates that we should simply legalize all drugs and put them in vending machines. However, many people seriously argue that there may be less harmful ways to minimize drug use and its ramifications for society and that "legalization" in a very regulated context might be an improvement over our current disaster. These people simply are not given the same media coverage as people such as drug czar McCaffrey yet they are just as credible and often times more so since they're not drawing their paycheck on a drug warrior account. For example, last month (3/10/98) the London Daily Mail published an OpEd by Edward Ellison, Former Head of Scotland Yard's Anti-Drugs Squad, entitled "Former Drugs Squad Chief Wants All Drugs Legalized." The roll call of people calling for reform and in many cases a highly regulated form of legalization is growing by leaps and bounds but is still largely ignored by the US media monopoly.

I hope that Mr. Hammond, as a graduate student in history, is sufficiently intrigued to spend some time investigating the history of drug policy and its contemporary ramifications.

I would welcome any comment.

Sincerely,

Craig Schroer

Librarian - Benson Latin American Collection, UT Austin