Another One Bites the Dust

National Review Online ^ | August 12, 2004 | Ted Galen Carpenter

[DaveCooper]

Another One Bites the Dust

“Plan Colombia” is the latest failed drug-war policy.

John Walters, the head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, recently startled the media by admitting that the $3.3 billion “Plan Colombia,” now in its fourth year, has failed to make a significant dent in the amount of cocaine flowing out of that country. Walters added hastily, however, that he expected to see substantial progress in the next year or so.

His comments are the latest in a familiar and dreary pattern. Each new initiative in Washington’s international campaign to stem the supply of illegal drugs is launched with great fanfare. During the early phases, isolated examples of success are touted as evidence that the overall strategy is working. Ultimately, though, reality intrudes, and it becomes clear that the drug supply is as plentiful as ever. Thrown on the defensive, drug warriors admit that the task has proven more difficult than anticipated, but argue that, if we stay the course, success is just around the corner. When such predictions prove faulty often enough, the existing initiative is quietly buried and a new one is launched with the appropriate fanfare.

That is what has occurred with Plan Colombia. The Clinton administration initiated the program in 2000, and within months U.S. officials boasted about the amount of coca plants (the raw ingredient for cocaine) that the aerial-spraying program was eradicating. Similar claims of success continued until recently. The State Department’s most recent annual International Narcotics Control Strategy Report contended that the amount of coca cultivation in Colombia fell from 420,000 acres in 2001 to 280,000 acres in 2003.

That statistic was superficially impressive, but it ignored two important factors. First, although the acreage devoted to coca cultivation may have declined in Colombia, the acreage in Peru and Bolivia (the other two major players) had risen sharply. That reversed the trend of the mid and late 1990s, when U.S.-funded antidrug measures led to a crackdown that reduced cultivation in Peru and Bolivia—only to see it explode in Colombia, and spread to new locales such as Ecuador and Brazil.

Second, even if the acreage devoted to coca in the entire Andean region has declined slightly in recent years, drug traffickers have become more efficient. In other words, they are able to produce the same amount of cocaine from a smaller number of cultivated plants. The bottom line is that the supply of cocaine flowing into the United States (and other markets) remains plentiful, as even the nation’s drug czar now admits.

Indeed, the situation in Colombia may be even worse than Walters’s remarks suggest. Washington has placed great confidence in the willingness of Colombian President Álvaro Uribe to wage a vigorous war on drugs. But a 1991 assessment by the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that Uribe was in league with drug-trafficking organizations. Indeed, the DIA concluded that Uribe himself was one of the top 100 drug traffickers.

Uribe has denied those allegations, and the U.S. State Department criticized the DIA’s assessment and expressed continued confidence in him. Nevertheless, given how thoroughly drug-trafficking cartels have penetrated Colombia’s political establishment over the years, the episode creates more than a little doubt.

The Colombian police and military are certainly notorious for drug-related corruption. Just last month, the police commander of one of the major drug-producing provinces and his deputy were sacked after an 80-lb. cocaine seizure mysteriously disappeared. That was the latest in a series of scandals that included the resignation of the head of the National Police when it became apparent that members of his force took more than $1 million in bribes to return some two tons of cocaine they had seized from traffickers.

Plan Colombia has not succeeded any better than earlier antidrug initiatives. And contrary to the drug czar’s tenacious optimism, that pattern is not likely to improve in the next year—or the next ten years. One wonders how many times U.S. officials have to travel down the road of failed prohibitionism before they realize that it always leads to a dead end. Given the huge profit margin that exists because drugs are illegal, supply-side campaigns are doomed to fail. It is time that Walters and other policymakers recognize that reality.

Ted Galen Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign-policy studies at the Cato Institute, is the author or editor of 15 books on international affairs, including Bad Neighbor Policy: Washington’s Futile War on Drugs in Latin America.

[LloydofDSS]

The really ironic part of this whole war on drugs is that we in America profess to be the bastion of freedom, yet we repeatedly send the message around the world that people can't handle freedom.

[cryptical]

One wonders how many times U.S. officials have to travel down the road of failed prohibitionism before they realize that it always leads to a dead end.

You'd have to be an idiot, or an eternal optomist (aren't they the same thing?) to believe that prohibition can work. I'll go out on a limb and speculate that drug-warriors aren't stupid, so the constant re-assertion that victory is right around the corner is a deliberate and cynical untruth.

[Wolfie]

Capitalism wins out every time.

[John O]

the wayu to solve the imported drug problem is not to attack the growers. They are residing in foreign lands and are outside our sphere of influence.

The way to stop it is to kill the importers.

Any foreigner caught smuggling drugs into the US should be executed on the spot as an un-uniformed enemy combatant and all goods in their possion confiscated to fund better border control.

We can defend our borders if we so choose

[Leatherneck_MT]

There is only one way to go about this war on drugs, IF you are serious about it.

If you are caught using, selling or otherwise involved with drugs, and convicted in a court of law, you are to be taken out to a place of execution where you are hung by the neck until dead.

I hate the thought of it, but it IS the only thing that will make a serious dent in this abhorrent habit.

[coloradan]

I'm sure that if that became the law of the land, no cop would ever plant drugs on anyone to get them executed.

[Leatherneck_MT]

Like cops don't plant evidence now to convict innocent people. Some of which even leads to death?

The fact remains there is no way of shutting this down that I have seen short of capital punishment.

[B Knotts]

1. That is disproportionate punishment, and so many people, including myself, would consider it unjust

2. It doesn't work. Several Islamic countries impose such penalties, but still have serious drug smuggling going on.

IMO, this is moral question, which will never be completely addressed in a country where morals are shrugged off as unimportant.

[TKDietz]

They already do that in several countries but it doesn't work there. They've executed over 5000 people in Iran in the last few years and still have a worse heroin problem than we do. Judging from the number of heroin addicts in treatment in Singapore it appears that they probably have higher rates of heroin addiction than we do even though they use the death penalty for drugs. The death penalty is overrated as a deterrent.

[somniferum]

As of 2002, there were 94,946,000 people who had used marijuana in the US. How many of them do we need to kill before we "win" the War on Drugs?

[John O]

The death penalty is overrated as a deterrent

I disagree. I can guarantee that no foreigner executed for attacking this country with drugs will ever attack us again. It has a 100% deterrence rate

[Leatherneck_MT]

Dunno, ask them

[TKDietz]

You are correct in that specific deterrence would be 100%, none of those executed would re-offend. The problem is though that there would still always be plenty of others willing to take the risks involved for enough money. They have executed over 5000 people in Iran over the last five years for heroin/opium offenses yet Iran still has a worse heroin problem than we do. Singapore is still a major drug trafficking nation even though were people are executed for drug offenses there. Judging from the number of people in treatment for heroin there per capita it appears that their heroin problem is worse than ours.

The death penalty is overrated, especially when it comes to drug offenses. Think about it. Let's say the death penalty really does deter crime. Let's say that the death penalty deters many people from committing murder (it doesn't appear that it does, but let's just say it does for the purpose of this exercise). If several people are deterred from committing murder, that's a real accomplishment. The murder rate is reduced. Lives are saved. Now, let's say the death penalty would deter several would be drug smugglers. Is the accomplishment as meaningful or important? No, because there are still going to be all of those people left to get the job done who were not deterred. In most instances these murders would not be committed if substantial numbers of murderers were deterred, because murders are usually not part of a business deal where the murderer is being paid to perform a service that anyone else could perform for money. Drug smuggling is a service people perform for money. If one guy won't do it, they'll just go to the next guy and then the next guy and pretty soon they'll come up with somebody who needs or just wants the money bad enough to take the risk. There will always be warm bodies for hire to smuggle drugs.

[John O]

While I agree with what you are saying (there'll always be more attackers) killing off the ones we catch is a worthy and admirable goal. There should never be repeat offenders

[TKDietz]

I disagree. The death penalty is an extreme remedy that won't really remedy anything. The main objective in these interdiction efforts is to reduce drug use by reducing the supply. The government has failed on both counts. For the reasons I explained above, going out and killing a lot of people isn't going to turn that failure into a success.

There is something else I don't like about this. I'm a public defender. I represent a lot of people caught carrying large amounts of drugs down the highway. I'm not on a border state, so I don't do international smuggling, but I do get big cases. I had a plea last week for a lady caught with 63 pounds of cocaine, and usually have several cases going at any given time where my clients have been caught with hundreds of pounds of pot.

As I sure it is on the border just like it is on the interstate, usually, there isn't just one person in these vehicles. Often the vehicles don't belong to these people and in some cases these people are hired to transport a legitimate load and there are drugs hidden in the load or in false compartments in the vehicle. I think that sometimes not everyone in the vehicle knows about the drugs. Sometimes probably none of them do. The people in charge of running the drugs save money that way and it makes it much less likely that they'll have people who lose their cool and cause suspicion with the police if they are pulled over when the people hauling the drugs have no idea they are there. That, and if it's a case where one person was hired to deliver the drugs but he wants people to help drive or act as cover to make it look more like he's on a legitimate trip, he's got big incentive not to tell the others so 1) he doesn't have to split the money, and 2) he doesn't have to worry about people freaking out if they are pulled over. There is no doubt in my mind that sometimes innocent people plead guilty to hauling drugs to avoid going before a jury and taking a much bigger hit and there is no doubt in my mind that sometimes juries find innocent people guilty of hauling drugs and send them of to prison for a really long time. If the death penalty was available, people would plead to much longer sentences to avoid it and some innocent people would be wrongfully executed. Juries tend to convict these people despite evidence that someone else was behind the crime and despite a lack of evidence that they knew they were carrying drugs.

I'm not a big fan of the death penalty, especially when we are talking about drug smuggling, where these people are only delivering a product that people want, doing a job someone else would do if they didn't do it. I'm really opposed to it when all we are talking about is marijuana, the drug most often being smuggled. As a lawyer I hardly ever see marijuana behind criminal conduct that is not directly related to the fact that marijuana is illegal, certainly nowhere even close to the extent that you see drunkenness being behind criminal conduct. Alcohol is much worse than marijuana as a drug that causes spousal abuse and other stupid, crazy, behavior. My friends working in emergency medical services could also vouch for the fact that marijuana is rarely behind accidental and purposeful injuries or death, and that alcohol is all too often the prime contributing factor in these things. The guy "attacking our country" with a couple of hundred pounds of pot in his trunk is causing far less misery and problems here than the guy "attacking our country" by driving the Budweiser truck, or coming from south of the border driving the Corona Beer truck or the Jose Cuervo tequila truck. Killing the marijuana delivery driver while we pat these other guys on the back makes absolutely no sense to me.

[MEGoody]

Great, they are losing the war on drugs. Lets all celebrate by getting coked up. :::sarcasm off:::

[John O]

The main objective in these interdiction efforts is to reduce drug use by reducing the supply.

Here I disagree. The main purpose of these efforts may be what you present it to be but it should be something more. The main effort should be in eradicating the bad guys (foreigners attacking us with illegal cargo, be it human or drug or weapon). Dead enemies don't attack again.

going out and killing a lot of people isn't going to turn that failure into a success.

Killing a bunch of criminals always results in less criminals. (Since the total pool of criminally minded people is smaller) It also greatly reduces repeat offenders

I'm a public defender.

noted

I represent a lot of people caught carrying large amounts of drugs ....

Every one ever convicted of a crime was really innocent. Or at least that's the story you hear from the convicts. If they are innocent they wouldn't have been convicted. If they had taken the measure to be sure of what they were importing they wouldn't have been caught with the attacking item. If they were illegal aliens in the first place then they need to be executed anyway.

I'm not a big fan of the death penalty,

Obviously. and just as obviously I am (for undocumented foreigners (or those attacking this country) I'd go as far as execution on the border. Get caught with the stuff, get snuffed)

I'm really opposed to it when all we are talking about is marijuana, the drug most often being smuggled.

I don't care if they are smuggling sugar. If it's coming in illegally the carrier deserves to die. The law is the law. No excuses for shades of illegality. These are foreign invaders we are talking about here.

The guy "attacking our country" with a couple of hundred pounds of pot in his trunk is causing far less misery and problems here than the guy "attacking our country" by driving the Budweiser truck, or coming from south of the border driving the Corona Beer truck or the Jose Cuervo tequila truck. Killing the marijuana delivery driver while we pat these other guys on the back makes absolutely no sense to me.

The marijuana driver is a foreigner. Case closed. As to the corona driver, IMHO that beer sucks and they should probably be offed too. Likewise I prefer whiskey over tequila when it comes to harder liquors. In any event though, bringing in a truckload of pot is illegal while bringing in a truckload of booze (with the proper paperwork etc) is perfectly legal.

If you want to survive at the border you shouldn't be doing illegal activities.

[TKDietz]

Okay, I think I understand you now. Any foreigner who brings in anything illegal to this country should be executed at the border. You don't really care about reducing the flow of drugs. The main thing you want to do is kill foreigners who would smuggle contraband into this country, or who just enter or remain here illegally. Or maybe you'd like to just kill all foreigners and be done with it.

"If they are innocent they wouldn't have been convicted."

I've got a bridge in Brooklyn up for sale if you're interested.

"If they were illegal aliens in the first place then they need to be executed anyway."

We'd probably be better served ridding the gene pool of nutjobs like you.

[John O]

Or maybe you'd like to just kill all foreigners and be done with it.

Admittedly that would be the best solution (think of the resources that would free up) but we couldn't really do that until they attack us. I may be xenophobic but I'm not blood thirsty

"If they are innocent they wouldn't have been convicted."

I've got a bridge in Brooklyn up for sale if you're interested.

So what percentage of convicted felons are really innocent? 1?, 2?. More likely than not the number would be around 0.25% if that many. Yet every con claims to be innocent.

"If they were illegal aliens in the first place then they need to be executed anyway."

We'd probably be better served ridding the gene pool of nutjobs like you.

Apparently you have something against defending our borders against un-uniformed enemy combatants. typical