Since the early 20th century, production, distribution, and use of heroin and cocaine have been illegal in the US. It was thought that making drugs difficult and expensive to obtain could reduce addiction. Since the 1960s, when drug use increased and Richard Nixon declared a "War on Drugs," the US has continually intensified efforts to control the supply of drugs. Yet as the government put billions of dollars into crop eradication (destroying the plants), drug interdiction (stopping the drugs before they get here), and drug enforcement (criminal prosecution of dealers and users), drugs have become cheaper and more available, rather than the other way around. Meanwhile, drug treatment is shamefully unavailable for many who request it.

Plan Colombia

According to a 1994 study by the RAND Corporation, coca and poppy crop eradication is the least effective method for controlling drug supply: treatment and prevention is 23 times more cost effective than source country eradication. Nonetheless, forced aerial eradication of coca and poppy crops is a central part of the US aid package to Colombia.

The Balloon Effect

While Colombia has been a major processor and trafficker of cocaine for many years, it was not until recently that Colombia became the world's leading producer of coca. Crop eradication efforts in Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru -- which did not include aerial fumigation -- were effective in eradicating crops in those countries, but the supply of drugs into the US showed no signs of decline because countries such as Colombia increased production. Just as squeezing a balloon makes the air bulge on the other side, crop eradication merely shifts coca production. Source eradication is a tremendous waste of taxpayer money if the goal is to reduce drug use in the US.

When Ineffective becomes Countereffective

A study conducted by the United Nations, at the request of the Colombian government, found that coca crop production has actually increased since the US began aerial eradication. US State Department figures show coca increasing in Colombia by 268% since large-scale spraying started in 1995, and ONDCP figures showed a 25% increase in coca production in 2001, despite widespread fumigation. As coca growers move into more isolated areas to escape fumigation, their transportation costs increase and they must grow more plants to make the same amount of money. For every acre of coca crops eradicated in southern Colombia, three acres of Amazon rainforest are cut down to replace them. Exacerbating the problem, drug producers are interested in keeping supply constant and, in times of increased enforcement, will grow and produce more drugs to make up for expected losses.

Imposing our "War" on Colombia

Within the United States, the "War on Drugs" has reached capacity. Of eight million prisoners worldwide, two million are in the US, making the US the world leader in overall prison population. One quarter of those prisoners are in jail for nonviolent drug offenses. And yet drugs are more available than ever. Since our domestic drug policies have failed, we are lashing out at producing countries, like Colombia. Supply side policies will have no more success than drug enforcement here in the US as long as the demand for drugs remains constant.

The National Mobilization on Colombia

We call for dramatic expansion of drug treatment and prevention in the US. Any sincere effort to curb illegal drug use in the US must seriously address the issue of demand, and must de-emphasize the destructive and ineffective supply-side policies, including punitive and racist mandatory minimum drug sentencing.

What Others Have Said

To achieve a one percent reduction in US cocaine consumption, the United States could spend an additional $34 million on drug treatment programs, or 23 times more, $783 million, on efforts to eradicate the supply at the source. Source: Rydell & Everingham, Controlling Cocaine, RAND Corporation 1994

Aerial Eradication: Health and Environmental Effects

The US has long supported aerial eradication, or fumigation, of illegal crops like coca and poppy. In 2000, the large new US investments for Colombia under "Plan Colombia" included a significant escalation in funding for aerial eradication efforts in southern Colombia. Aerial eradication -- in which spray planes drop herbicide on coca fields -- is designed to reduce the amount of coca and poppy harvested, and therefore reduce the total amount of cocaine and heroin reaching the US. But as more and more acres are fumigated, legitimate concerns have been raised about the efficacy of aerial eradication, and its social, environmental and public health side effects.

What are we spraying?

The main ingredient in the herbicide being used in Colombia is called glyphosate. Mixed with other chemicals, it is an enhanced version of the garden-store brand Roundup called Roundup Ultra. While normal Roundup has been shown to be hazardous to the environment, animals, and humans (see box), Roundup Ultra seems to have even more dire effects due to additives (called "surfactants"), including a chemical called Cosmoflux, which is not approved for use in the United States. In addition, Roundup was designed to be applied manually -- and in small doses -- not aerially, by the hundreds of gallons.

Effects on Local People

Although the State Department claims glyphosate is harmless for humans, doctors throughout the impacted areas have been reporting a drastic increase in health complaints, many of which are assumed to be from the additives, including Cosmoflux. Mostly, they are respiratory, skin, and gastrointestinal problems, particularly in children. Despite the warnings issued by Monsanto, maker of Roundup, the Roundup Ultra is drifting into fishponds, drinking water sources, and rivers and streams after it is sprayed. Legal crops and government-planned alternative development fields have been sprayed and destroyed (twelve alternative development projects were sprayed in 2001, according to the Colombian government). Livestock, particularly chickens and fish, have been killed. Without alternative food sources, hunger is imminent in some areas.

Damaging Amazon Bio-diversity

Aerial eradication threatens aquatic life in Amazon waterways as toxic chemicals flow downstream from Colombia. The chemicals sprayed are also toxic to beneficial soil microbes that support all plant life. Furthermore, for every acre fumigated, it is estimated that three acres of rainforest are cut down, as the coca growers are pushed into more remote areas. This deforestation and the defoliation resulting from spraying causes a loss of habitat for all species, increased fragmentation of intact forests, soil erosion, and degradation of streams and rivers.

All That, For What?

A study by the conservative RAND Corporation in Washington found that crop eradication was the least effective way to lower drug use in the United States. Drug treatment was actually 23 times more cost effective. As long as illegal drugs are demanded, they will be supplied. And as long as there is dire rural poverty, there will be people willing to grow illegal crops around the world.

US fumigation policy has also not reduced drug cultivation in Colombia. According to the US Office on National Drug Control Policy, coca cultivation increased 25% in 2001, despite widespread fumigation.

From the horse's mouth:

Warnings from the Roundup Website:

"Ingestion may produce irritation of the digestive tract as demonstrated by signs and symptoms of mouth membrane irritation, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea."

"As stated on the label, Roundup should not be applied to bodies of water such as ponds, lakes or streams as Roundup can be harmful to certain aquatic organisms."

"We recommend that grazing animals such as horses, cattle, sheep, goats, rabbits, tortoises and fowl remain out of the treated area for two weeks."

The company recommends waiting 30 days before replanting some crops.