DON'T FORFEIT WAR ON DRUGS

John Walters, President Bush's pick as the next drug czar, comes before the
Senate amid a lot of loose talk in our country about the war on drugs. Much
of what its critics say about U.S. anti-drug policy is wrong and is put out
by people whose true agenda is drug legalization, not better drug-control
policy.

Most Americans, when presented with the straightforward case for or against
legalizing drugs, are very firm: They do not want these destructive
substances legalized. Recognizing this, many legalization advocates have
taken to disguising their arguments as something else. This lack of candor
now passes itself off as concern that the war on drugs is the problem, and
not the drugs themselves.

Supposedly, our efforts to keep kids off drugs are futile, and our only
rational choice is some version of what is called "harm reduction."
Stripped of its sheep's clothing, this would mean teaching American kids
how to use drugs "responsibly," and promising treatment for those who fail
to do so.

Call it what you will, this so-called harm-reduction strategy is really
only harm redistribution. Imagine what such a national policy would mean in
our homes, schools, neighborhoods, and on our streets: It would mean
condoning drug use and it would increase drug use. It is de facto legalization.

The advocates of condone-but-contain try to argue that, since kids will use
drugs anyway, if we would just "go with the flow" and provide treatment in
the worst cases, the result will be less drug use, fewer people in jail,
fewer needing treatment, less crime and better international cooperation.
That's quite a collection of large promises to make and deliver on. They
offer them while denouncing our present efforts as bad policies that have
failed. But to make their case, they practice rhetorical sleight of hand
and make promises they cannot keep but that others will have to pay for.

They want people to believe that our prisons are full of simple drug users
who deserve treatment and not jail. In the first place, most people in
prison for drug offenses are not there for use. They are there for dealing
drugs. To empty our prisons of these dealers in response to wholesale and
repeated misrepresentation of the facts does not serve the public interest.
(As it happens, it does serve the users.)

Many users do get arrested, to be sure. Few of these, however, go to jail.
Many are sent to treatment. Americans need to know that one of the most
effective routes into treatment for addicts is the criminal justice system.
Addicts only rarely enter treatment voluntarily. Our courts are among the
most serious tools we have in separating users from dealers and seeking
appropriate outcomes for each. Legalizers, however, hope to disguise this
fact. A media sympathetic to their arguments doesn't point it out much,
either. The result is that the criminal justice system is portrayed as
useless in the difficult job of discouraging drug use.

This is the environment in which we find ourselves. And drug use in the
last several years has been on the rise among our young people. This
unwelcome fact, and the advent of a well-funded and disingenuous
legalization lobby, are reasons we need a strong counter voice fighting for
sensible policies.

Mr. Bush's nominee, Mr. Walters, is the right man for the job. He is a
bright, articulate, forceful spokesman. It is just those qualities that
have aroused the ire of the legalization lobby. They oppose his confirmation.

They misrepresent Mr. Walters' record and try to portray him as part of the
problem. His sin? He believes in doing as much as we reasonably can to keep
drugs out of this country. His detractors call this concern uncaring and
one-sided. He does not believe, they say, in demand-reduction programs. Not
true. What he does not believe in is harm-reduction programs. He opposes
efforts to legalize drugs, under whatever false flag they fly. That makes
legalization advocates unhappy.

Mr. Walters' fervent promotion of treatment for addicts when he served in
the first Bush administration doesn't thrill them, either. It becomes
tougher to demonize him as hard-hearted. Treatment funding when he was at
the drug czar's office in the first Bush administration more than doubled.

What Mr. Walters recognizes, what the president understands and what
Congress has consistently supported is that we need a strong policy that
addresses the range of problems confronting this country on drug use. With
well-funded legalization efforts misrepresenting the facts, we need a
strong voice as drug czar now more than ever.

Mr. Walters is the last of President Bush's Cabinet appointees. His
nomination has been before the Senate for months. It is time to move
swiftly to confirm him in this critical job at this crucial moment. The
only ones who profit from delaying and trying to block his confirmation are
those who would like to teach our kids how to use drugs better. That is not
what Americans want as national policy.

Sen. Charles Grassley and Sen. Jon Kyl are from Iowa and Arizona, respectively.