Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Posted on 06/07/2006 4:58:25 PM PDT by Wolfie
Drug Warriors Push Eye-Eating Fungus
USA -- Why are members of Congress advocating the use of a dangerous crop-killer in Columbia?
On April 16, the New York Times ran a full-page ad from contact lens producer Bausch and Lomb, announcing the recall of its “ReNu with MoistureLoc” rewetting solution, and warning the 30 million American wearers of soft contact lenses about Fusarium keratitis. This infection, first detected in Asia, has rapidly spread across the United States.
It is caused by a mold-like fungus that can penetrate the cornea of soft contact lens wearers, causing redness and pain that can lead to blindness—requiring a corneal replacement.
That same week, the House of Representatives passed a provision to a bill requiring that the very same fungus be sprayed in “a major drug-producing country,” such as Colombia. The bill’s sponsor was Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.) and its most vocal supporter was his colleague Dan Burton (R-Ind.), who has been promoting the fungus for almost a decade as key to winning the drug war.
The Colombian government has come out against it. And those entities of the U.S. government that have studied the use of Fusarium for more than 30 years don’t recommend it either: The Office of National Drug Control Policy, also known as the Drug Czar’s office, CIA, DEA, the State Department and the USDA have all concluded that the fungus is unsafe for humans and the environment.
“Fusarium species are capable of evolving rapidly. … Mutagenicity is by far the most disturbing factor in attempting to use a Fusarium species as a bioherbicide,” wrote David Struhs, then secretary of Florida’s Department of Environmental Protection, in a 1999 letter rejecting the use of the fungus against Florida’s outdoor marijuana crop. “It is difficult, if not impossible, to control the spread of Fusarium species.”
Mutation of the fungus allows it to attack other “hosts.” The eye-eating Fusarium seems to be a result of such a mutation. After all, the soft-contact lenses that it grows behind are a recent development—having only been commercially available since 1971.
The DEA stopped funding Fusarium research in the United States during the early ’90s after it learned that Fusarium infections can be deadly in “immunocompromised” people—not only AIDS patients and those with other illnesses, but also those who are severely malnourished. The University of the Andes in Bogotá has recently reported that 12 percent of Colombian children suffer from chronic malnutrition. Spraying this fungus on a vulnerable population could be perceived as using a biological weapon.
The CIA has been against the use of Fusarium to kill drug crops since at least 2000. At that time, one official told the Times, “I don’t support using a product on a bunch of Colombian peasants that you wouldn’t use against a bunch of rednecks growing marijuana in Kentucky.”
A top scientist from the USDA, which has studied the fungus the longest, said that his agency “cannot support” its use. And the State Department, whose Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement carries out drug crop eradication all over the world, does not support it, either.
In 2000, when Congress first passed “Plan Colombia,” the Colombian aid package that ordered the use of the fungus in Colombia, President Clinton waived the part of the bill that dealt with the fungus because he thought its use would be perceived as biological warfare. At the same time, the Andean Community of Nations, an organization comprising Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela, banned it within their territories.
So, who does support the spraying of the eye-eating fungus over other countries? Only a few adamant drug war jihadists in the House, led by Burton, who are frustrated by the lack of progress in the drug war.
The fungus provision has already passed the House, but the Senate version of the bill contains no similar language. Responsibility for a final decision rests on the conference committee where the House and Senate bills will be reconciled—scheduled to happen before this summer.
Burton has shown compassion to at least one drug offender.
DAN BURTON II--Son of U.S. Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN): In January 1994, Dan Burton, Jr., was arrested in Louisiana for transporting nearly eight pounds of marijuana in the trunk of his car. Rep. Burton is the chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee. Six months later, Burton was arrested again, this time at his Indianapolis apartment, where police found thirty marijuana plants and a shotgun with ammunition. Federal prosecutors declined to prosecute the case; Indiana prosecutors recommended dismissal of the charges against Burton; and a Louisiana judge sentenced him to community service (Associated Press, "Congressman's Son Arrested With 7 Pounds of Marijuana," GARY POST-TRIBUNE, January 14, 1994, p. B5; Eric Schlosser, "More Reefer Madness," ATLANTIC MONTHLY, April 1997, pp. 90-102).
As Gomer would say, "Well, su-prize, su-prize!"
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Since when does the government want to win the war on drugs?
Especially when advocated by Americans that claim to be conservatives.
Especially when advocated by Americans that claim to be conservatives.
I thought that name sounded familiar...you can add "hypocritical" to the terms "vicious and stupid".
Dan Burton, II (18), son of Representative Dan Burton (R-IN), was busted in January of 1994 on charges of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.
Allegedly, Burton II was transporting seven pounds of marijuana in a car from Texas to Indiana when he was caught in Louisiana.
Burton II plead guilty to felony charges of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.
Rather than face ten to sixteen months in federal prison, Burton was sentenced to five years probation, 2000 hours of community service, three years of house arrest and random drug screening.
Five month later police found 30 marijuana plants and a shotgun in Burton's apartment in Indianapolis. Under federal mandatory minimum rules, Burton should have received at least five years in federal prison, plus a year or more for arrest while on probation.
State prosecutors decided that the total weight of marijuana from the 30 plants was 25 grams (about one ounce), thus reducing the charge to a misdemeanor.
The Indiana prosecutor threw out all the charges against him saying, "I didn't see any sense in putting him on probation a second time."
Politicians' Children's Encounters with Marijuana Prohibition
Those rules are only meant to apply to the great unwashed masses.
Ironically, he posted his clarification at #11, before you unleashed an ad-hominem attack utilizing the tried and true "pro-Drug Warrior" strawman.
This, of course, is something that the author of the article would never do when he implies that the fungus would be sprayed onto the cannabis in order to eat out the eyes of those who use it....
Why does my state keep sending these statist fools to Washington?
The rules don't apply to the ruling class, only to the serfs.
I think we need to spray over DC.
Perhaps you could quote the section of the article where this is implied.
USA -- Why are members of Congress advocating the use of a dangerous crop-killer in Columbia?On April 16, the New York Times ran a full-page ad from contact lens producer Bausch and Lomb, announcing the recall of its “ReNu with MoistureLoc” rewetting solution, and warning the 30 million American wearers of soft contact lenses about Fusarium keratitis. This infection, first detected in Asia, has rapidly spread across the United States.
It is caused by a mold-like fungus that can penetrate the cornea of soft contact lens wearers, causing redness and pain that can lead to blindness—requiring a corneal replacement.
That same week, the House of Representatives passed a provision to a bill requiring that the very same fungus be sprayed in “a major drug-producing country,” such as Colombia. The bill’s sponsor was Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.) and its most vocal supporter was his colleague Dan Burton (R-Ind.), who has been promoting the fungus for almost a decade as key to winning the drug war.
That happy juxtaposition of "eye-eating fungus" and "drug war spraying" is not mere coincidence.
And if that weren't good enough for you, we need only read the headline of the article: "Drug Warriors Push Eye-Eating Fungus."
he implies that the fungus would be sprayed onto the cannabis in order to eat out the eyes of those who use it
Show me where the author implies intent.
You might also explain the "those who use it" part of your statement, since the article does not say that the mold is spread through the use of sprayed drugs (which are supposed to be killed by the mold), but instead hits the people in the areas where it is sprayed.
Argue all you want -- the headline, and the selection of paragraph order -- says different.
I've got to agree with r9etb. I think that if you examine the other stories in the original on-line publication, it has a pretty liberal viewpoint. If we disregard the pro-vs-anti pot issue for the moment, the general trend of the on-line publication is anti-establishment. People with this viewpoint tend to believe that the U.S. is the bad guy in all things.
Now pull in the juxtaposition of the "Kill the Pot"/"Eat the Eyes"/"Kill the Kids while you are at it" themes. Of course, every story needs a hero, so we get to bring in the wise and protective Columbian government. It seems to be a pretty transparent propaganda piece.
As I tried to convey above, there is a lot of unrelated and certainly not science-based information pulled together to create a nice hit piece. Most Freepers can see through the Islamist propaganda pretty clearly, this is the same tactic in a different subject area.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.