STATUS QUO ISN'T WORKING IN THIS WAR

Illegal drug production and trafficking is, at $400 billion annually,
one of the largest "industries" in the world. In the United States,
it's believed to account for $60 billion in annual sales. Yet the top
two presidential candidates hardly speak, with any degree of
substance, about America's untoward, and devastating, love affair with
illicit drugs.

The greatest democracy in the world has not merely a monkey, but a
King Kong-size gorilla on its back. However, we've grown accustomed to
its face.

After 30 years of our government's so-called "war on drugs," drug
abuse -- though generally on the decline in some age groups -- is
still a raging monster that demands to be fed, frequently, and at any
cost. It continues to tear apart families, to ruin individuals or
claim their lives, and to cost billions annually in law enforcement,
court and incarceration expenses in every city in the United States.

The No. 1 Superpower in the world remains the No. 1 consumer of
illicit drugs. The United States also is edging out Russia as No. 1 in
the number of people incarcerated in prisons and jails, according to
the fascinating "Frontline" documentary, "Drug Wars," that aired this
week on PBS.

Somehow, this doesn't speak well for the Land of the
Free.

Sure, we are the enlightened First World country that beats its chest
and spreads its military might, and billions in U.S. taxpayer dollars,
across the globe for this cause or that fight. Yet, when it comes to
funding an all-out homefront "assault" in the "war on drugs," our
leaders continue, myopically, to underfund drug-treatment.

After 30 years, as the excellent "Drug Wars" documentary showed -- and
former Drug Enforcement Administration agents bluntly explained on the
program -- U.S. leaders are stubbornly sticking with a status quo
approach that is only marginally successful. And it's costing U.S.
taxpayers billions of dollars annually.

Aren't we a smart enough and wealthy enough country to strike a
common-sense balance between interdiction efforts and drug treatment?

Yes, but only if the American people force their political leaders to
yank off the blinders. Only 15 percent of the Office of National Drug
Control Policy's hundreds of millions are set aside for drug
treatment. Two-thirds of the budget goes toward law-enforcement efforts.

The Clinton administration a couple of weeks ago earmarked $1.3
billion to help support interdiction efforts in Colombia, the cocaine
capital of the world. While it makes sense, to an extent, to make it
harder for the nasty cartels to narco-traffic, it's likely a majority
of Americans would've preferred to see that $1.3 billion spent here --
for drug treatment, drug-education and other self-help programs.

Our successfully capitalistic culture understands the law of supply
and demand. The more demand drops, the more it will slow the flow of
drugs into the United States, of people into jails/prisons and of
billions of U.S. tax dollars into a failing "war on drugs."

And don't forget about the $60 billion annually in U.S. drug sales
that flow into Mexico, Colombia and, increasingly Asia and even
Afghanistan; money that's destined to support insidious cartels and
corrupt governments.

It's estimated that about 6 percent, or 13 million, Americans use
drugs. Of those, 5 million are believed to be hardcore users. These
numbers should appall the American public -- and its leaders. But they
do not.

America's drug battle, while making gains in some areas, is far from
over. The "Drug Wars" documentary reported that illegal drug use and
trafficking cause about $100 billion (we're way past millions now) in
damages per year. Taxpayers are paying for this. We're paying to watch
the fabric of our society unravel in the ugliest of ways, with
children often bearing the brunt of their parents' addiction and
irresponsibility.

With the United States' First World brainpower, educational
achievements and financial might, can't we figure out that if we
attack the lust for chemical escapism, as well as attacking the myriad
social problems that contribute to drug use, in the long run it will
be a cheaper, less bloody and more effective "war" on drugs?