REFORM OF DRUG POLICY IS WELL PAST DUE

To the Times: "There are no easy solutions in fighting the war on
drugs," was the headline of your March 5 editorial.

The problem is not one of solutions, but rather political will.

Former President Bill Clinton opened himself up to "soft on drugs"
criticism when he admitted to smoking pot but not inhaling.

Clinton sent a message to the American people that he was indeed tough
on drugs by appointing ex-Gen. Barry McCaffrey as drug czar. And
thousands of Americans have paid the price in the form of shattered
lives. More Americans went to prison or jail during the Clinton
administration than during any past administration. Nearly 60 percent of
those sentenced to federal prison under Clinton are there for drug
offenses.

As an admitted former problem drinker and alleged illicit drug user,
President George W. Bush is also politically vulnerable when it comes to
drugs.

While youthful indiscretions obviously did not stop Clinton or Bush from
assuming leadership positions, an arrest surely would have. The health
effects of a relatively harmless drug like marijuana are inconsequential
compared to the long-term effects of criminal records.

Fortunately, Bush hinted that he has his priorities in order.

Bush made mention of the over-proliferation of prisons in his inaugural
address, has repeatedly stressed the need for drug treatment, and
recently conceded that U.S. demand for drugs finances Mexican drug
trafficking.

Clinton waited until the end of his presidency to address such
controversial issues. As a result, his legacy now includes the dubious
distinction of helping give the "Land of the Free" the highest
incarceration rate in the world. There will soon come a time when
politicians no longer feel obligated to prove their "tough on drugs"
credentials. Last November millions of Americans sent a clear message
that they have lost faith in the nation's war on drugs.

In five out of six states where drug-policy issues were on the ballot,
voters decided in favor of major change regarding treatment instead of
prison for non-violent offenders; medical marijuana for patients when
recommended by a doctor; and civil asset forfeiture law reform.

When it comes to drug policy, the people are way ahead of the
politicians.

Drug-related crime is used to justify increased drug-war spending, when
in fact the relationship is largely misunderstood. When the supply of
illicit drugs is successfully limited while demand remains constant,
drug trafficking becomes more profitable. The obscene profits to be made
guarantee replacement dealers.

In the short-term, drug prices are higher, which means desperate addicts
increase criminal activity to feed desperate habits.

Those who get caught are placed in prisons that serve to transmit
violent habits and values rather than reduce them. Just as alcohol
prohibition once did, the drug war fuels crime, while failing miserably
at preventing use. With no controls for age, the thriving black market
is very much youth-oriented.

There are cost-effective alternatives to the current approach.

Despite dramatically lower per capita spending on the drug problem, the
Netherlands has successfully reduced overall drug use by replacing
marijuana prohibition with regulation. Dutch rates of drug use are
significantly lower than U.S. rates in every category. Separating the
hard and soft drug markets and establishing age controls for marijuana
has proven more effective than zero tolerance. As the most popular
illicit drug in America, marijuana provides the black-market contacts
that introduce users to hard drugs.

This "gateway" is the direct result of a fundamentally flawed policy.

Given that marijuana is arguably safer than legal alcohol, it makes no
sense to perpetuate policies that undermine the Constitution, finance
organized crime, and facilitate the use of hard drugs like heroin. Drug
policy reform may send the wrong message to children, but I like to
think the children themselves are more important than the message.

As more Americans become aware of the drug war's inherent failure,
politicians will have no choice but to drop the counterproductive
preaching in favor of cost-effective pragmatism. A dated comparison of
Dutch vs. American rates of drug use can be found at:
http://www.netherlands-embassy.org/c_drugstat.html. More recent figures
can be found at: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/thenethe.htm.

Robert Sharpe, M.P.A.
Program Officer The Lindesmith Center-Drug Policy Foundation
http://www.drugpolicy.org