|
|
| Local Doctor Questions U.S. Drug Policy |
|
Posted by FoM on July 30, 2001 at 11:49:14 PT By Clint Cooper, Staff Writer Source: Chattanooga Times 
Dr. Fred Wright looked at the mottled gray stick he brought back from Colombia. "This is yucca plant defoliation," he said, pointing out the white spots. Defoliation, or chemical killing of foliage, is one of the wrong-headed byproducts of the current United States anti-drug policy toward Colombia, Dr. Wright said. What is supposed to be killing drug-producing plants, he said, is wiping out rain forests and sickening people. The Chattanooga psychologist was one of 21 U.S. citizens who visited the South American country recently with Witness for Peace. The group is described by members as a politically independent, grass-roots organization committed to support peace, justice and sustainable economies in the Americas. Dr. Wright said the $1.3 billion aid package Colombia is getting from the U.S. is being misused. The money is doing little to fight the illegal drugs flowing out of the country and into the United States and would be better used in treating addicts in this country, he said. "We're doing more harm than good," he said. Instead of pulling out, though, U.S. officials said last week that there are far more cocaine- and heroin-producing crops in the country than previously believed. And U.S. Ambassador Anne Patterson said additional training of Colombian army counter-narcotic troops was planned. "We think we can do a lot to professionalize the army," she said. However, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., told the Los Angeles Times he was afraid the new plan would lead the U.S. deeper into Colombia's civil conflict. "What it sounds like is that we may be in the process of erasing the line between the civil war, the rebel activity and counter-narcotics initiative. It's not going to lead us in a good direction." Dr. Wright said Rand Corp. research estimated the $1.3 billion aid package would reduce drug use 5 percent in the United States, while the same money put into drug treatment here would cut use 27 percent. However, Wayne Smith, a Chattanooga resident and former Drug Enforcement Administration agent in Colombia, said taking money out of the country and diverting it to treat addicts is unrealistic. "The problem is you can only treat people who want to be treated," he said. "Unless a party seriously wants help, all the help in the world is not going to do any good." The aid package, signed into law by President Bill Clinton one year ago this month, also was to assist Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador and other countries, as well as help in other programs. However, 65 percent of it -- $860.3 million -- was to go to Colombia. Of that amount, 60 percent was to go for military assistance and 14 percent for police assistance. Only 6 percent was to be spent on human rights, 4 percent for aid to the displaced and less than 1 percent for peace purposes. Mr. Smith said the U.S. government has had to start all over again in Colombia. He said in the 1980s the DEA was "doing a tremendous job" in assisting, training and motivating local law enforcement officers there. He said the organization was helping stop shipments of coca, the crop from which cocaine is made, to the lab and shutting down the hydrochloride labs, which produce the largely pure cocaine product. However, he said, President Clinton hired an administrator who wanted to spend the agency's money domestically. "Anytime there's a sea change," he said, "it dilutes effectiveness. So for seven years, we were basically out of business in South America." Both Dr. Wright and Mr. Smith said the current situation in Colombia reminds them of early U.S. intervention in Vietnam, but they differ on what should be done. "It's their problem to work out," Dr. Wright said. "This (government instability) has been going on for 50 years. What started as an issue of ideology and religion has turned into a problem of power, greed and money." Mr. Smith, however, said, "We lost in Vietnam because we didn't have the fortitude to do what needed to be done. (The government) kept changing the game plan. That's what is happening to a large extent in South America." Things are not perfect in the country, Mr. Smith acknowledged, but he said it would be worth it if the U.S. aid is 50 percent effective. "It's foolish to think it won't take some effort to help control the problems that impact on us," he said. "We know some will fall through the cracks and buy some general a Mercedes, but 50 percent is a huge strike." Source: Chattanooga Times & Free Press (TN) Related Articles & Web Sites: Witness for Peace Colombia Drug War News Spraying Blitz Cripples Colombian Drug Crop A Witness Against War on Drugs Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #2 posted by Doug on July 30, 2001 at 15:58:47 PT |
| "The problem is you can only treat people who want to be treated," he said. "Unless a party seriously wants help, all the help in the world is not going to do any good." But we are told over and over again that prison and the threat of prison is necessary to get "these people" into treatment because otherwise they would never go in, and some recovered addicts praise prison for saving their lives (which reminds me of comdemned witches praising their inquisitors for saving them from Satan, but I'm sure that's not an approved comparison). [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by Sudaca on July 30, 2001 at 12:01:47 PT |
| "said, "We lost in Vietnam because we didn't have the fortitude to do what needed to be done. (The government) kept changing the game plan. That's what is happening to a large extent in South America." What exactly does he mean by that? that the US should have dropped a nuke on Vietnam? That instead of backing away from mercenary employment in Colombia it should be embraced? Then nuke Colombia? What was going on in the 80's in Colombia that was so successful? Operation Pseudo Miranda? the Drug Weapons Money exchange for the Contras? oh hell.. [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |