a nation of addicts >> by g.j. lau >> *spark-online issue eleven

There is nothing more startling than the sudden perception of the obvious. The other day I had such a moment. It involves two items that have been in the news quite a bit lately: drugs and gasoline.

Most of us are familiar with the rising price of gasoline. In the Midwest especially, prices rose dramatically over a very short period of time, prompting Federal investigations into possible price-gouging by big oil companies. Only the recent promise of a price reduction by the Saudi government has staved off legislative remedies, for the time being at least.

While all this has been going on, Congress found the time to pass an ''emergency'' spending bill that among other things allocates $1 billion to help Colombia reduce its coca crop, which accounts for 90 percent of the cocaine and about two-thirds of the heroin that reaches the United States. The idea is to give the Colombian government the means to more aggressively patrol the coca growing regions, regions which are under the control of rebels who rely on coca as a source of income to finance their military actions against the Colombian government.

Here's where the sudden grasping of the obvious comes into play. The availability of gasoline and drugs is a simple matter of supply and demand. Reduce the demand for gasoline and reduce the demand for drugs, two things will happen. First, the price of gasoline will drop as supplies of crude rise. Second, the reduced demand for drugs will lead to smaller crops, thereby reducing the income of the rebels.

Simple enough. But as we saw with the Gulf War and now in Colombia, the United States is much more willing to go after the supply side, even if it means sending American men, money and machines abroad. Why is that?

Why won't this country tackle the demand side? Wouldn't the money we are ready to spend in Colombia be better spent providing cures for those who are already addicted to drugs and preventing the addiction of those who are not? Wouldn't it be better to produce even more fuel-efficient cars and to make the use of public transportation even more attractive and affordable?

Instead, we choose to deal with the problem on foreign soil instead of our own. The answer lies in the politics of the two problems.

It would take a brave politician to tell America's middle class that in the midst of unparalleled prosperity your country was asking you to make the ultimate sacrifice by driving a smaller, more fuel-efficient car. ''GIVE UP YOUR SPORTS UTE" is not a winning slogan. I can see the bumper stickers now: ''You can have my Ute when you pry the steering wheel from my cold dead hands.''

And is it realistic to expect the Republicans--who couldn't even see it in them to approve a harmless program like midnight basketball, and who think the answer to the drug problem is to build more jails--is it realistic to think they will suddenly fund major programs to reduce addiction, to treat addicts instead of imprisoning them, to give inner city and suburban kids better education and more opportunity so that drugs don't look like the only way out?

It is much simpler for the politicians to send a billion dollars to Colombia so they can burn coca crops. It is much simpler for the politicians to blame OPEC for pumping up the price at the pump.

The recent move by the Saudis is an interesting gambit. Saudi Arabia suddenly broke ranks with its fellow OPEC members and announced that it was increasing production of crude oil, with the aim of driving the price down from $30 a barrel to around $25 a barrel. It said the move was in the best long-term interests of the oil-producing cartel.

Now why do you suppose that is so? I think the Saudis displayed a shrewd understanding of the American mindset. As Americans, we are addicted to our pleasures, licit and illicit, and addicts won't voluntarily give up that which they are addicted to unless under extreme duress.

Knowing this, the Saudis made a calculated decision that it is better to lower the price so that we remain hooked on their commodity rather than letting high prices drive us to the desperate measure of finding an alternative. Our politicians don't want to face the political consequences of conservation measures that might inconvenience voters, and the Saudis, who are completely reliant on oil revenues to maintain their hold on power, are willing to let the price drop to maintain market share. All in all, it a perfect marriage of convenience between the dealer and the enabler.

The politics of the "drug war" are equally squalid. Addiction to drugs is an illness, just like alcoholism or cigarette smoking. Funny thing, though. We don't send alcoholics to prison for getting drunk in their own home. We don't put you in the slammer for having a cigarette. But smoke a joint or use cocaine or crack or heroin and you become part of the largest prison population of any nation on the planet.

Politicians who have made a career out of decrying the evils of drugs aren't about to come out and say that the junkie on the corner isn't really that much different from your Uncle Al who pounds back a six-pack of brewskis every night. Politicians who have made a career out of sending junkies to jail aren't about to turn around and start coddling them with treatment programs.

So let's send $1 billion to a bunch of generals in Colombia. Let's send helicopters and advisors, and let's kid ourselves that the Colombian Army and the right-wing militias won't use them as a cover to go after their political rivals.

Let's keep doing what we have been doing. Let's turn our gaze outward rather than inward. Let's search the globe for scapegoats and surrogates. Sooner or later it may get bad enough to where we Americans have to face the problem. Until then we will do what we always do. We will buy our way out of it.

G.J. Lau toils deep in the bowels of the Washington bureaucracy. A long-time observer of American politics and mores, he now edits his own e-zine, Singleminded, which can be found at http://www.singmind.com/singleminded/ .