SHIFTING STRATEGY IN THE DRUG WAR

With little noise the Bush administration is shifting the tone and
direction of the debate about substance abuse. Some changes proposed by
Bush are long overdue, others innovative, still others not aggressive
enough. But they hold the promise of a needed re-evaluation of the fight
against illicit drugs.

That fight ought to be firmly grounded on what works. Let research and
results--not rhetoric, moralizing or politics--guide any new federal
strategy against substance abuse.

When Bush announced the nomination in May of John Walters as the new
drug-policy adviser, critics quickly charged that the nominee represented
the old lock-'em-up school of fighting drugs. Looking at Walters' record as
deputy drug czar under the president's father, there are grounds for such
fears.

But if you follow the money--and the president's statements--it's hard to
miss a significant shift toward treatment of drug addiction as a disease
rather than mostly a police problem.

"This administration will focus unprecedented attention on the demand side
of this problem," said Bush, who pledged to spend an additional $1.5
billion over the next five years on drug-treatment programs. This is a
modest commitment but a good start.

Since the war on drugs began, funding has been tilted in favor of law
enforcement by about a 3-to-1 ratio. The present budget of $19 billion
reflects this imbalance, but Bush's words and proposals promise that
treatment's share may increase. Encouraging too is Bush's promise to target
5 million hard-core users. The majority of them are poor, and many don't
have medical insurance. It's estimated that half of these addicts have no
access to treatment. In addition, Bush has ordered a Cabinet review of all
federal anti-drug efforts to determine their efficacy.

This is all long overdue. Scientists at the Substance Abuse Policy Research
Center, a project of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, argue that if
street prices and availability of hard drugs are any indication, this
country's costly, supply-side war against drugs has been a bust.

But on the treatment side, new drugs have become available to tackle some
types of addiction, and scientists have made strides in understanding how
addiction and drugs affect the brain. Additional funding is needed to more
clearly understand the physiological underpinnings of addiction and how
this disease can be treated.

Bush's controversial effort to open federal funding to faith-based groups
that address a wide variety of social needs may prove particularly helpful
in fighting substance abuse. The most successful rehabilitation programs
traditionally have had a strong spiritual component that, combined with
medical interventions, still offer the best hope for helping addicts. In
this case, a bias for or against religion ought not be the guiding
criterion. Again, the most important factor should be who or what gets results.

For decades, the war on drugs has been grinding on--and burning up billions
in federal funding--with distressingly meager results. Even if it turns out
to be a limited effort, no one should begrudge President Bush for trying to
add some new thinking to this enterprise.