AMERICA'S WAR ON DRUGS NEEDS A NEW PLAYING FIELD

Ever since Ronald Reagan declared war on drugs more than two decades
ago, and appointed his vice president, George Bush, to wage that war,
this nation has failed to achieve much in the way of success. What
should be a domestic war has been pursued also as an international
conflict.

While it has failed to stem the deluge of drugs entering this
country, it has succeeded in involving us in messy relationships
involving Latin American nations, accentuated earlier this month by
our involvement -- however debatable our exact role in it -- in the
shooting down of an American missionary plane by Peruvian jets, and
the deaths of an innocent mother and her child.

What are we doing flying around other countries and advising the
military of those countries about potential drug flights? (Also, what
are we doing flying surveillance planes close to China, when we have
satellites sensitive and penetrating enough to photograph our downed
plane on the Chinese runway?)

The senior Bush -- first as vice president, then as president --
continued to pursue a U.S. policy of drug intervention, sometimes
declaring victory, often claiming great inroads in the war.

We all know this was balderdash. We were losing the war then; we are
losing the war now. Drugs are as attainable as bubble gum. We have
become involved in sending our military and our covert agencies into
harm's way in countries such as Colombia and Peru, and have very
little to show for it other than others' nationalistic acrimony.

That record drug busts take place at U.S. ports of entry almost daily
is proof enough that the struggle on our part to prevent the drugs
from being produced in the first place is an absolute failure. That
we have ways to block the entry of some of those drugs is an
indication that we can stem the tide better at home than we can
outside the country.

Let us admit to ourselves that there never will be a way we can stop
illegal drugs entirely any more than we can completely stop
corruption in our political system or child abuse in our homes. We
can try to manage it and punish those we catch at it, but we can't
eliminate it entirely.

That we are spending so much money trying to assist drug-producing
countries in stopping the growing of illegal drugs -- and, at times,
getting deeper into the internal affairs of those nations than we
ought to -- has been shown to be wasteful and futile.

We have tried to convince foreign farmers that it is better to grow
papaya and corn than coca and marijuana, but market price prevails.
They're going to keep growing the stuff as long as it is more
profitable.

Our option is to do a better job of keeping illegal drugs from
entering the United States and to deal more harshly with those who
traffic in it here, both purveyors and users.

The senior Bush's battle plan for the war on drugs did include many
dollars and personnel to fight on the domestic front, but they were
not enough -- are not enough. As recently as last June, the U.S.
Coast Guard was forced to cut back its operations by close to 10
percent because of budget concerns. This impacts not only on the war
on drugs but the never-ending flow of illegal aliens.

We'll never know how much money the CIA is spending to fly around
Peru, Colombia and elsewhere to try to catch drug dealers at their
bases, because CIA expenditures are secret. Suffice it to say it's a
lot.

Wouldn't it be better to take that money, and plenty more -- courtesy
of the U.S. Congress and the White House -- to beef up our defenses
close to home, at the shorelines and borders where drug dealers sneak
in? There we have a greater control and do not infringe on the
territories of other countries.

The drug war should be continued but on the home front, when the
crimes against U.S., state and local civil and criminal laws are
committed. The Coast Guard and Drug Enforcement Agency have a tough,
almost impossible, war to fight, and they're being asked to fight it
on a too-broad -- and dangerous -- playing field.