4 - The Michigan Daily - Monday, May 15, 2000 Edited and managed by GEOFF GAGNON PETER CUNNIFFE students at the 46 Editor in Chief JOSH WICKERHAM University of Michigan JEditorial Page Editors a Unless otherwise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the opinion of the 420 Maynard Street naJoritsv of the Daily's editorial board. All other articles, letters and Ann Arbor, Ml 48109 cartoons do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Michigan Dail. A t what point does the cost of escalating US efforts to eradicate drugs by force eclipse the benefit? Many would argue that the toll on our own population, from an exponentially increasing prison population, to a multi billion dollar "War on Drugs"engaged to combat the expansive black market has done little to curb drug use. After three decades of fighting drugs with force, thousands of Americans still dealwith addiction and face death because the govern- ment refuses to consider reasonable and viable alternatives to a costly, all-out assault on substance abuse. In addition to annual budgets of $17.9 billion federally and $20 billion from states, the Senate is considering supporting drug czar Barry McCaffrey's goal of "supply reduction" abroad by using questionable herbicides and fungal agents to wipe out crops of illegal plants. "Fifty-two thousand Americans die every year from drugs'" Clinton said in a speech May 2nd, pushing a $1.6 billion aid package, which would provide arms, resources, and capital to Colombia's democratic govern- ment in their war with guerrillas and drug cartels. Called "Aid Colombia," the package would also step up US efforts to eradicate cocaine and opium by spraying herbicides Fungicidal feds Drug war expanding to ecological attack and fungal agents on Colombian coca and poppy farms. Because 90% of US cocaine comes from Colombia, reducing the amount of coca grown in that region is the main goal under the current drug elimination plan. But according to a study by the conserv- ative RAND Corporation, treating cocaine users is 23 times more effective, dollar for dollar, than eliminating coca at its source. The Senate, as it debates the amount and terms of this aid package, should consider allocating less to the eradication of drugs and more to providing treatment. Drug eradica- tion may temporarily cut cocaine flow, but for how long and at what cost environmentally? The environmental concern stems from an amendment to the Aid Colombia pro- gram, which requires Clinton and the Colombian government to agree to "imple- menting a strategy to eliminate Colombia's total coca and opium poppy production" with, in addition to herbicides, "tested, envi- ronmentally safe mycoherbicides." According to Mother Jones' News Wire, abundant evidence shows that the only mycoherbicide, or plant-killing fungus, being considered is Fusarium oxvspoi-um, which Florida refused to test for its own drug eradication efforts after warnings from a state official that it could mutate, spread rapidly and kill other plants. With a fragile ecosystem and an economy based largely on rural agriculture, using oxvsporum may be devastating to the long-term stability of the Colombian environment and its farming economy. In addition, this fungus may cause lethal infection in humans with weak immune systems in certain circumstances. Another effect of the US-sponsored her- bicide use to eradicate coca and poppy fields is a threat to the stability of the farming pop- ulation as well. The New York Times report- ed this month that many of the-planes cur- rently spraying Colombian coca and poppy farms are hitting legitimate crops as well, having the opposite effect on the level of cocaine production. While the US denies these allegations, farmers who agreed to grow legal crops may have little choice but to plant cash crops like coca when faced devastating financial losses from crops hitby herbicides. It is becoming ever clearer that the pre- sent "war" is a misappropriation of resources. It is apparent that such militaristic efforts are incapable of producing significant change in the flow of drugs in this country. These heavy-handed tools of social manage- ment are eating capital and threatening the environment with the futile hope of eliminat- ing illegal drugs instead of addressing the human side of the issue. With the numbe* deaths from drugs in the thousands, the United State's willingness to funnel more money into draconian interdiction initiatives instead of sane programs of drug education and rehabilitation ignores the reality of the situation. Involvement in supply reduction pursuits is dangerous to the environment and pro- duces scant long-term benefits. Hope' our government can learn from past mistas in the War on Drugs and will not engage in such unwise interdiction efforts in Colombia. icro ft's money Safer SUV's Quick resolution would benefit consumers Ford admits safety, environmental problems W ith the a federal court's m-ve into the penalty stage of the Microsoft antitrust case, it has become clear that Microsoft should be appropriately disciplined for its monopolistic behavior, such as lessening consumer choice, fixing prices, eliminating competition and stifling innovation. With state and federal prosecutors pushing to break the company into two distinct entities, one producing operating systems and the other manufacturing all other software pro- grams, Microsoft faces an intense legal bat- tle to remain a united company. Last week Microsoft announced an alter- native settlement plan, which includes a number of insufficient rules of conduct, designed to protect it from the threat of breakup. Although the federal court and 17 states - including Michigan - that brought the antitrust charges upon the software giant may reveal a counterproposal as soon as this week, Microsoft promises to tie up disagree- able alternatives to their demands with lengthy court proceedings and legal recesses. To benefit consumers and keep the Microsoft juggernaut in check, a compromise must be reached, because a long period of debating Microsoft's penalty only stifles innovation and prolongs its Windows monopoly. While a breakup may be the best alterna- tive, the software industry moves too quick- ly for this to be a viable solution. Microsoft and its army of lawyers are prepared to hold out. By perpetuating a slow process of appeals and counterproposals, Microsoft would ensnare the courts, thus lessening the effectiveness of any actions the Justice Department eventually takes in punishing the company. If Microsoft is allowed to maintain its power over consumers and PC manufactur- ers for any longer than necessary, consumers will continue to pay too much for Windows. Microsoft will also continue to release unnecessary upgrades on Windows and Office, instead of allowing cheaper "updates" that are designed for compatibili- ty with new technology. Windows 2000, for example was promised to run on more stable "NT" technologies, but is instead still based on decades old DOS code as were Windows 95 and 98, confounding the logic of 2000 as an upgrade. Without competition in the field, consumers will be forced to use often-out- dated Microsoft technology and settle for incompatibility among competitor's operat- ing systems and office programs. Unless the Justice Department imposes some form of restraint on Microsoft, many new technological innovations may be stifled as Microsoft moves in to dominate. Already suffering from Microsoft's extension into new markets is Real Video technologies, for example, the streaming audio and video maker, forced to license Microsoft technolo- gy to remain viable. Palm Computing faces competition from Microsoft's Windows CE technology for personal digital assistants. While Microsoft argues that a breakup would ultimately hurt consumers, it should be remembered that this is the rhetoric of any monopolist. The Justice Department must act swiftly but work directly with Microsoft on a compromise if the rulings in this trial are to have any effect on promoting innova- tion and benefiting consumers. F ord's unexpected admission last week that its sport utility vehicles are heavy polluters, dangerous to the environment and dangerous to the drivers and passen- gers of normal cars was a welcome and encouraging sign that the auto industry may be beginning to take issues of social responsibility more seriously. However, while acknowledging some of the safety and environmental problems with SUV's, Ford, maker of the Excursion - one of the largest and most heavily polluting con- sumer vehicle ever produced - did not announce any immediate plans to fix these problems. Ford's Chairman, William C. Ford, said in a report to stockholders that the compa- ny would try to find technological solu- tions to the environmental and safety con- cerns regarding SUVs, but would continue to produce them unchanged in the mean time. While it would have been more hearten- ing to hear Ford announcing methods by which it intended to reduce the emissions and increase the safety of SUV's, the mere admission of the dangers posed by the company's most profitable products is important. It is likely a sign that Ford is taking these concerns seriously and not just paying lip-service to safety and environ- mental issues, as the auto industry has done for so many years. Car-makers have a poor record of adopting new safety features, as evidenced by their years of resistance to seatbelts and airbags. In the past, the only time auto companies would adopt new safety or emissions-reducing features was w r forced to by laws and regulatios Hopefully, Ford's decision not to wait foi regulators to address the problems wit SUV's and take action themselves is sig. naling the end of the era when car-makers fought tooth and nail against anything thal could cut into their profits. The safety of everyone on the road and the necessity of protecting the environmen are obviously more important than sag some extra money on each car. To explain this development, some crit ics pointed to Bill Ford's apparent fear tha environmental and safety groups will even tually do to auto-makers what has beeI done to the tobacco industry, suing then over those harmed by SUV's and for envi ronmental damage. This may be true, bu even if fear is the only motivating factor, i is still important that something has moti vated Ford to start cleaning up its act However, Bill Ford has talked a* making Ford more environmentally friend ly for some time and while potential law suits may have been one factor in this deci sion, he appears genuinely concerned witl the social responsibilities of his compan3 and should be commended for trying U< move Ford in a safer and greener direction Hopefully other car-makers will follov Ford's lead in the near future. It is certa ly possible to have cleaner and more A. efficient cars and auto-makers should b( working harder to make them a reality. Ford's admission is only a first step, bu it is undoubtedly a big one and we ar( happy to see it.