NEW PIECES OF THE DRUG PUZZLE

To the Editor:

Re "Adjusting Drug Policy" (editorial, Feb. 27):

For years, drug treatment experts have argued for more money to be spent
on demand reduction over interdiction and enforcement, and for years,
study after study has supported their argument that treatment is the
most cost-effective approach to reducing drug use.

Perhaps President Bush can reassure nervous supporters wary of looking
soft on crime that treatment is far from the easy option for addicts. In
particular, long-term residential treatment is a rigorous, demanding and
life-changing experience. In addition to abstinence, family integration,
job readiness and social values are fundamental outcomes. Has this ever
been a claim for most prison systems?

Peter Provet

President, Odyssey House
New York, Feb. 27, 2001

To the Editor:

"Adjusting Drug Policy" (editorial, Feb. 27) does not mention the most
cost-effective and long-range answer to reducing drug consumption:
substance abuse prevention.

Over the last 10 years, several rigorously research-based drug abuse
prevention programs have demonstrated impressive results in helping
teenagers resist peer and media pressure to use drugs.

I applaud President Bush's plan to provide an additional $1 billion over
five years for treatment. However, to spend the bulk of almost $20
billion annually on limiting supply and only a fraction of that amount
on curbing demand is shortsighted and misguided.

Elizabeth Paul

New York, Feb. 28, 2001

The writer is an adjunct professor of health education at Columbia
University.

To the Editor:

In "Adjusting Drug Policy" (editorial, Feb. 27), you note the limited
value of our attempts to interdict drugs and reduce drug production. I
would suggest an alternative.

In a Feb. 23 news article, you point out that the fall in commodity
prices for corn, coffee and cacao in Peru has increased farmers'
incentives to grow coca for cocaine. The United States, Peru and
Colombia should consider supporting the prices of coffee, cacao and corn
in Peru and Colombia so that farmers can live on earnings from these
commodities and not be tempted to go back to growing coca.

Such subsidies may be a positive, low-risk, cost-effective way to reduce
the drug supply from Colombia and Peru.

Mark Fichman

Pittsburgh, Feb. 27, 2001

The writer is an associate professor of industrial administration,
Carnegie Mellon University.

To the Editor:

Re "Adjusting Drug Policy" (editorial, Feb. 27):

Are we forgetting that the government failed miserably at prohibition
once before? Are we making the same mistake of not separating the issues
of addiction and crime? Can it be that the inability to pass legislation
is quite simply because too many people stand to make money: street
vendors, drug bosses, law enforcement officers and, finally, leaders in
high places?

Rouben C. Cholakian

New York, Feb. 27, 2001

To the Editor:

Re "Adjusting Drug Policy" (editorial, Feb. 27):

The great majority of American drug users are occasional, adult smokers
of cannabis. They use marijuana grown in the United States, do not need
treatment, and are educated about the risks of cannabis use. They hold
jobs; they raise children; they pay taxes. They are indistinguishable
from their friends, colleagues and neighbors, except that they
occasionally smoke cannabis.

It is unlikely that we can, or should, interdict, treat or educate
ourselves out of the demand problem created by these users. Nor can we
arrest our way out of the problem. We must accept that recreational drug
users are here to stay, that they do not belong in jail and that if
merchants do not supply them, criminals will.

Gregory Y. Porter

Washington, Feb. 27, 2001