Colombian Bio-War?
 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8156573/

Scientists believe insects would kill coca crops
Environmentalists warn against use of moth caterpillars

The Associated Press
Updated: 8:55 a.m. ET
June 9, 2005

BOGOTA,Colombia - A group of Colombian scientists believe they've found a way to wipe out cocaine production: unleash an army of hungry moth caterpillars. But critics of the proposal say the chance for "ecological mischief" is high.

The plan envisions breeding thousands of beige-colored Eloria Noyesi moths in laboratories, packing them into boxes and releasing them into steamy coca-growing regions of Colombia, the world's main supplier of the drug. The moths, about twice the size of a fly, are native only to the Andean region of South America.

Colombian Environment Minister Sandra Suarez told The Associated Press that the government considers the proposal an "interesting alternative" to existing eradication methods.

Carlos Alberto Gomez, president of the privately funded National Network of Botanical Gardens, made the proposal last week. He said the moths would naturally make a beeline for the coca plants and lay their eggs on the leaves. About a week later, caterpillars would emerge and destroy the plants by devouring the leaves.

Each moth could lay eggs on more than a hundred plants in one month, said Gonzalo Andrade, a biology professor with Colombia's Universidad Nacional, who has been working with the botanical garden group. He called it a natural solution to eradication. "It would be like fumigating the crops with moths," Andrade said.

But the idea has already drawn criticism. Ricardo Vargas, director of the Colombian environmental group Andean Action, contended that while the moths may be native to this region, there's nothing natural about releasing thousands of them into small areas. The tropics have the world's most diverse plant life, he said, so the moths would likely threaten other plants as well. "With a plan like this, the chance for ecological mischief is very high and very dangerous," Vargas said.

Gomez's association also recommended the use of other natural enemies of coca such as fungus.

The proposal, and the Colombian government's interest, comes five years into a massive fumigation program of coca crops in Colombia, paid for and mostly carried out by the U.S. government.

A record number of acres was fumigated by the crop dusters last year, but the total number of acres under cultivation at the end of 2004 was slightly more than the number left over in 2003 after spraying. Peasant farmers have been simply replanting the fast-growing coca, frustrating the eradication efforts.

Andrade said moths would better counter the replanting problem because they would continue to reproduce and attack the plants.

The idea to use biological agents to eradicate coca is not new. In 2000, the Colombian government rejected a proposal by the United States to introduce a fungus called Fusarium oxysporum to coca plants as a means of eradication. Colombia said it was concerned about possible mutations and adverse affects on people and the environment in the delicate Amazon basin, where most of Colombia's coca is grown.

What's next, Frogs? Rivers running red with blood? :D

I like the idea even if it doesn't work just to give the bad guys something to worry about for a while. If it does work don't discuss it on the internet or press, just do it, kinda like the Nike commercial mantra.

The next question is how can science help us with liberals in the U.S.? :p

Doc

Killer bees, killers ants - now killer moths? Bad idea to be jacking around with Madre Nature.

Oxytocin - trust me :D

never mess with Mother Nature.

we really need to tighten up our border security, and address the problem from the demand side. It is the only thing that makes sense after decades and billions of dollars chasing a chimera abroad.

better to spend the money on treatment, enforcement, interdiction, and security here at home.

I used to be a fan of interdiction and suppression efforts abroad....until I saw them failing at close range in Perú in the early 1990's.

Economic development overseas can also play a role, but...we are talking about massive, Marshall Plan dimensioned initiatives, and with our current priorities, there is no global will for that sort of engagement and investment.

We should treat it as a medical problem. Make use and possession civil offenses, use the fines to finance treatment for those who seek it or for those whose use becomes such a problem that treatment is mandated. Hit FARC, the Taliban, and the various criminal syndicates HARD in their pocket books, free up the courts and the prisons, reduce corruption, and save a fortune on interdiction, prosecution, and incarceration. Never happen, but definitely the way to go.

Not to be adversarial, and please do not interpret my remarks that way, but when you make statements like "hit FARC, and Taliban, and the various criminal syndicates hard in their pocket books," I cringe.

Let's break it down:

1. Hit FARC.

This is beset with sovereignty issues, and incidentally, Colombia has been at war for decades against FARC. I am not saying that it cannot be done. I am saying that it is a snarled undertaking, one that requires a fresh look, new thinking, and by no means is it amenable to resolution with a glib wave of the hand. We need a modern incarnation of Edward Lansdale here.

2. Hit the Taliban.

Well, we pretty much invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban were harboring UBL and AQ. It has finally dawned on policy makers that this was trivial in comparison to the allocation of national will, resources, and troops that would be required to sincerely address the opium problem in Afghanistan. Yes, I just said what I said. The invasion of Afghanistan pales in comparison to the potential dimensions of a sincere effort to definitively resolve opium cultivation in Afghanistan.

3. Hit the criminal syndicates.

Well...where to begin. (*Sigh*). We have entire agencies and umpteen bureaucracies dedicated to doing exactly this, and their victories have historically been shallow, ephemeral, and ultimately inconsequential. Again, I am not saying that it cannot be done. I am saying that the way that we have been doing it has failed, and not just a little bit. Our historical approach to combating the cultivation, trade, and abuse of illegal substances has failed massively. We need a whole new mojo, a completely new paradigm. Anything else...is merely throwing more good money after bad.

4. Free up the courts and prisons.

This one....well, let's just talk about America and prisons for a moment. Guess what? They are full. We have a huge slice of America behind bars, and law enforcement is not able to stem the onslaught. Cops are overwhelmed. Prosecutors are buried. Courts are jammed. What exactly do you propose? Building more prisons? Hiring more cops? Hiring more prosecutors and judges, and running the courts 24/7? Fine. If nothing else, the construction and the expansion creates jobs. But the numbers of criminals behind bars has never been higher, and simply building more prisons, and incarcerating more criminals, is not going to fundamentally change the dynamics of the problem. Again, throwing more good money after bad. A fundamental reassessment is required, and this is tantamount to re-evaluating all social relations. In short, it will not happen until the Next Revolution.

5. Reduce corruption.

My favorite. All that I am going to say on this one is that anyone who is not familar with Alfred McCoy is not equipped to have an informed conversation. His classic, Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, is required reading.

Again, do not interpret my remarks in a personal manner.

This problem of illegal substances....goes far deeper, and is much vaster, than most Americans can imagine. We are very much in tinfoil hat territory here.

Just my opinion.

Seems appropriate to ask this here. I have been wondering about this retired Texas LEO . I agree with Medical Marijuana, but complete legalisation? Not sure...I'm sure there are plenty of opinions on this board.

Magic Man,

I don't take anything you've said as any kind of attack. It's quite clear from your response that either I didn't make my point very clearly, or you missed it almost entirely. If we were to decriminalize drugs and treat drug possession and use as civil offenses we would to a very great extent take the money out of business.

The cost of illicit drugs has more to do with the costs and risks of importiing, transporting, storing and protecting them than it does with producing them. If we're not interdicting and prosecuting for possession, these costs should fall precipitously. THAT will hit FARC, the Taliban, and the various criminal syndicates in their pocket books.

I'm not so foolish as to see this as a panacea, we would be trading one set of problems for another, but we'd definitely be "trading up." FARC and the Taliban won't go away and the criminal enterprises will also only be diminished. (The crime associated with illegal drug use is actually many different types of crime. There is the possession and use which would go away entirely. There is the theft and other crimes [e.g., prostitution] that users commit to finance their habits, this would be reduced, but certainly won't go away, There is the violence between gangs over turf, punishing snitches and welchers, hijacking each other's product, etc., this too, would be reduced, but won't disappear. There is the stupid shit that people do when they're high on drugs, this not only won't go away, it's likely to increase in the short term. There is the bribery and corruption of police, customs, judges and prosecutors and the system as an organism, this will be reduced enormously. Finally, there are the people who, for whatever reason, feel compelled to make their living outside the law, they will simply be displaced.)

According to the Economist, something like a third (been awhile since I read the article, so I can't be more precise) of all those incarcerated in the US are there essentially for marjuana possession. Half or more are there for crimes that would cease to be crimes under this proposal. The savings in incarceration, prosecution, and interdiction costs would be enormous. While we should expect to spend a great deal in treating those with substance abuse problems, it would amount to a tiny fraction of what we now spend and could to some extent be offset by a system of fines for possession (e.g., $100/ gram [or part thereof] for cocaine, $200/ oz [or part therof] for marijuana, $20/ pill for MDMA, amphetamines, and barbituates, etc.)

If someone is caught using or possessing drugs, they get a ticket. If they pay their fine and don't get any more tickets for a year (at which point their slate gets wiped clean), end of story. If within a year of getting a ticket, they get another, the fine doubles and they must either attend AA or NA daily for a month, see a court approved counselor/ shrink weekly for six weeks, or enter into a resident treatment program (these last two at tax payer expense.) If within a year of the second offense the person is caught a third time, they must enter a residential treatment program (usually 30 days) and for a year thereafter are subject to random testing. If, during that year, they test positive for illicit substances, it's back to the treatment facility and then a year in jail, during which they get tested weekly. If during any one of these tests they test positive, their sentence starts over.

Committing a crime while under the influence gets treated as an aggravating, rather than a mitigating, circumstance and is punished more harshly. The overall message is that you won't be prosecuted for getting high, you'll be given plenty of chances to adjust your behavior, but not getting help when it's offered and harming threatening or endangering others, damaging, destroying or stealing property will be punished.

The overwhelming majority of users would never reach the point where they were incarcerated. Most would likely never reach the point where they had to attend a treatment program. The cost of a program as outlined, while not cheap, would be only a tiny fraction of what we now spend. This is not only a more humane way of addressing the problem, it serves to undermine our enemies, for not only would they suffer a huge revenue hit, they would also lose the existing alliance with smuggler's and dope dealers and access to these networks.

I've got McCoy's book and agree it should be required reading.

When they make me king, the above will become law, along with raises for teachers and the military and the outlawing of bras on college compuses.

thanks for your cordial reply.

these are interesting ideas.

we definitely need new approaches, new paradigms....and most of all, leadership.... to start thinking outside the box.

I cannot tell you what mix of tools that we need to start over, but I am fairly convinced that a demand-side rather than a supply-side revision is required.

How is that working out for the Dutch?

What is the effect on their addiction, incarceration, economy, and crime rates?

TR

LOL

THat is perfect Cincy... all these law abiding drug users in your civilization will surely complete their "programs", pay their fines, and follow the law... just like they are doing right now. After all, why wouldn't they just follow the law,right? :rolleyes:

What are you going to do with the people that CAN"T simply pay their fines ( b/c they are cracked up addicts with no job), can't pay their "double fines" for the 2nd offense, don't show up for counseling, and refuse to particpate in an intervention? You do realize that most of the people who actually end up in prison are very low income citizens in the first place right? How does the court get blood from a turnip with these wonderful little fines? What is next, a "time out" program? Maybe they should have to sit in the naughty chair? Where is that damn supernanny from TV when these drug dealers need her?

Your solution sounds like a great plan for the wealthy rich kids and those that have since grown up into wealthy rich adults with drug habits who can actually afford to pay the fines and attend treatments while missing work.

BTW- How many times have you been IN a prison and talked with these drug offenders? I don't think your plan is going to hit the target market....

not an attempted attack on you, just your plan.

Reaper,

I've only anecdotal evidence to draw from on the Dutch experience, but I don't think that it serves as a valid example in this case. The Netherlands has relaxed laws on marijuana and hashish, but they have relatively open borders and are surrounded by countries with less enlightened attitudes. So they get a disproportionately high percentage of users/ abusers. Also, there is the phenomenon akin to that of a vacation city (think NOLA during Mardi Gras) where people behave in a manner that they would never do at home.

If we as a nation were to decriminalize drug use we'd be unlikely to see any sort of, statistically significant, increase in users/ abusers rushing to our shores. If one state were to decriminalize drug use, they could count on an influx of users/ abusers, and those who prey on them, and would likely see at least some increase in crime (as is the case with jurisdictions that legalize gambling.)


Sacamuelas,

I made it clear that I recognized adapting a program such as I propose would not be a panacea, but I think some of your criticisms are unreasonable.

People who don't pay their traffic tickets, won't pay their dope tickets. When caught they get prosecuted. The majority of drug users are "casual users" who hold a job and are, at least marginally, productive members of society. Others are the rich kids and spoiled adults you mentioned. They will likely pay their fines and be more careful in the future. Some unemployed, and unemployable, people will use their unemployment, panhandle, con friends or family members into loaning them money, kite checks or steal it from the collection plate at church.

If they pay their fine, they get another chance. If they get caught stealing to pay their fine they're prosecuted, If they don't pay their fines, they're prosecuted. This can happen more swiftly because the courts aren't choked with drug cases. If they're convicted the jails now have room for them, because they are not filled to overflowing with people serving mandatory sentences for possession.

If upon getting ticketed they realize they've totally fucked their lives up and are in such dire straits that they will be unable to pay, they check in to one of the treatment centers, get clean, get out and move into a half way house, get a job and pay the fine off when they can. As long as it can be demonstrated that they are making progress the fine is held in abeyance.

Some people will be chronic fuck ups. They won't get clean. They'll use in jail if they can and their sentences will continually reset. The burdens of the system will weigh disproportionately on the poor.

All these problems are preferable to what we have now. We spend a staggering amount of money on interdiction, prosecution and incarceration, but the street price of drugs never rises. In our efforts to stem the flow of drugs we compromise other civil liberties (e.g., forfeiture of assets without due process, ever more restictive gun laws, etc.) and the problem doesn't get any better.

In addition to the above, there is the consideration of denying FARC and the Taliban the revenue stream. If street prices were to fall by only fifty percent, and that is a very conservative estimate, the blow to the finances of the narcotrafficantes would still be huge.

I've not spent any time in jail. I have spent a lot of time in NA and AA meetings. Almost fifteen years ago I organized an intervention on a friend of mine. He's been clean and sober ever since, is married, owns a home, has a bright and beautiful daughter, is active in the PTA. When he first got sober I made my self available to ferry him to meetings and in the first year or so probably attended 75-80 meetings with him. I think that I have a reasonable appreciation of the "target audience" and I recognize that some people are not salvagable. Many are, and while mine is an imperfect solution it's a hell of a lot better than what we're doing now.

A saying that one hears repeated in AA meetings is that "a pretty good definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting a different result." Though they are not necessarily talking about "the war on drugs" they might as well be.

Yeah, thank God that we are not surrounded by "countries with less enlightened attitudes".

I have to agree with Saca on this one. You are oversimplifying, optimistic, and expecting too much from fellow humans. Lowering the price and increasing the volume is an unsuccessful strategy for drug control.

Did repealing Prohibition reduce the number of alcoholics or alcohol related crimes? I don't think so. Did it end the reign of organized crime by the bootleggers? Hardly. They just moved on to other endeavors.

I am not dissatisfied with the number of Americans incarcerated. I think there are many more who should be off the streets. While it is expensive and they are non-productive, until they determine a better way to rid society of these people, it seems to be the best alternative. Build more prisons and fill them till everyone who cannot function legally in society is removed from it. Spend the effort trying to keep kids in school and rehabilitate them while they are still malleable. A 40-year old three time loser is not likely to get out and become a model citizen, regardless of what he went in for.

Just my .02, YMMV.

I am sure that AL will be along shortly with his usual well-reasoned argument fully supported by statistics and pie charts. :D

TR