IT'S TIME FOR STRAIGHT TALK FROM THE CANDIDATES ON DRUGS

As a former longtime agent in the Drug Enforcement Agency, I was recently
both surprised and pleased to hear a U.S. president having a meaningful
televised discussion about drug policy. Unfortunately, the "president" was
the fictitious Josiah Bartlet and the forum for this conversation was NBC's
award-winning drama "The West Wing."

The time has come for our presidential candidates to engage in the same
meaningful discussion.

Despite the fact that the nation's substance abuse problem costs us $246
billion each year, both Al Gore and George W. Bush have been conspicuously
silent regarding their ideas and plans for addressing the issue. And the
media haven't been much help: A month before the presidential election, I
know that Al Gore smoked marijuana in his youth, and that George W. Bush is
evading questions of his own possible drug use, but I've yet to hear either
candidate's views on the future course of U.S. drug policy.

Clearly, America's drug problem has not gone away. From mostly rural states
like Wisconsin to the urban heart of New York, public health officials are
reporting that drug-related deaths have reached epidemic proportions. A
recent White House report reveals that 15,973 people died from drug-related
causes in 1997 -- an increase of 1,130 people from 1996. The report also
shows that cocaine and heroin prices are at some of the lowest levels in
two decades.

Yet while an estimated 5 million drug users today require immediate
treatment, only 1.2 million of them will receive it. Why? Because the
United States continues to allocate the lion's share of its drug control
budget to a policy that's strong on law enforcement but weak on treatment
and prevention. After 25 years with the DEA, I'm not advocating not
enforcing the law. Legalizing drugs would result in more drug use than we
have now.

Addressing America's drug problem is simply a matter of supply and demand.
And while treatment and prevention programs have been shown to have a real
impact on the demand for drugs, billions of dollars in law enforcement
measures have failed to make even a dent in the supply of illicit
substances flooding into our country each year.

Nevertheless, the new 2001 Drug Control Budget allocates most of its
resources toward reducing the supply of drugs. In fact, more than 60
percent of state and federal anti-drug spending goes toward drug seizures.

During my DEA days, however, we conducted a number of surveys and found
that the average illicit drug enterprise could afford to lose 90 percent of
its product and still be profitable. Imagine a company like General Motors
producing a million Chevrolets, not selling 900,000 of them and still
turning a profit! Not even the mega-corporations of the world can compete
on that level, much less the DEA.

And the drug lords know it.

In the new "Frontline" documentary "Drug Wars," former drug smuggler Carlos
Toro says, "We were invincible, we were totally untouchable. When the
Medellin Cartel was in full power, DEA was just like the sun: It's there
every morning, we have to live with it, but we are not that afraid of it."

That's straight from a smuggler's mouth. And that's exactly why I have a
problem with the government's objective of spending the majority of its
drug-control dollars on interdiction.

I've heard enough about the dope-smoking days of our candidates. I've heard
enough about their lukewarm positions on medicinal marijuana and substance
abuse treatment. What I would really like to hear now is how Al Gore and
George W. Bush plan to keep 12 year olds from doing drugs.

I guess my best bet for receiving a candid response to the issue, however,
is to tune in to "The West Wing." Maybe President Bartlet has ideas.

Stutman is chairman of Employee Information Services. The former special
agent in charge of the New York office of the Drug Enforcement Agency,
Stutman is featured in the "Frontline" special series "Drug Wars," produced
in collaboration with National Public Radio and airing tonight on KPBS-TV.