A MOMENT OF RIGHTNESS FOR BUSH ON THE DRUG WAR

AUSTIN, Texas -- That was quite a remarkable moment that George W. Bush had
in Mexico. You may have missed it or even assumed he was just pointing out
the obvious again, but consider the implications of the president of the
United States saying in Mexico, "One of the reasons why drugs are shipped,
the main reason why drugs are shipped through Mexico to the United States,
is because United States citizens use drugs." And that's not the first time
that Bush has pointed out that our problem is not supply but demand.

Now, this does not necessarily mean that Bush has thought through the
policy implications of his statement. Policy does not, actually, interest
him much.

And it is also possible that he's suffering from cognitive dissonance on
the subject, a disconnect common to politicians of all stripes. But the
futility of the War on Drugs is apparent to everyone except politicians
terrified of the dread accusation "Soft On Drugs."

The sad history of efforts to eradicate drug use in this country is
pockmarked with recurring waves of hysteria, usually involving the
association of some drug with some minority group. The Chinese and their
opium dens, Mexicans and marijuana, blacks and crack -- we literally scare
ourselves silly, getting so scared of the menace of drugs that we react
stupidly. That politicians feed our fears, milk them for electoral
advantage, is another part of the sad pattern.

At the very least, I think we can expect Bush to support scrapping the
annoying and presumptuous process of certification -- our annual passing of
judgment on Mexico's anti-drug efforts. At best, Bush may see the real
political opportunity here.

The cost of the War on Drugs, both in lives and dollars, is staggering. And
people know it isn't working. The first party to stand up and say so will
get a real windfall.

Bill Clinton, on his way out of office, told Rolling Stone magazine that he
supports decriminalization of small amounts of marijuana and an end to the
disparity of sentences for crack use vs. cocaine use. Of course, it wasn't
terribly helpful of him to say this on his way out the door. Now he
questions mandatory sentences for nonviolent drug offenders.

But it is possible for practicing politicians to take these stands as well.
The Republican governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson, is famous for his
crusade against draconian drug laws.

The terrific new film "Traffic" underscores the futility of the War on
Drugs. We have a million people in prison on drug charges -- more than the
entire prison population of Western Europe. Federal spending has increased
from $1 billion in 1980 to $20 billion on the drug war last year, and the
states spend even more.

Yet drugs are as available as ever. Both cocaine and heroin have gotten
cheaper and purer during the past 20 years. This is not working.

The bad news is that Attorney General John Ashcroft has a terrible record
in this area. He is a noted practitioner of the Git Tough school of
political pandering. When he was in the Senate, Ashcroft denounced the idea
of spending money on drug treatment as a trick to take money away from the
War on Drugs.

According to "Drug War Facts," compiled by Kendra Wright and Paul Lewin, 55
percent of all federal drug defendants are low-level offenders, such as
mules or street dealers. Only 11 percent are classified as high-level
dealers. Since the enactment of mandatory minimum sentencing for drug
offenders, the Bureau of Prisons' budget has increased by 1,350 percent --
from $220 million in 1986 to about $3.19 billion in 1997.

One of the most outrageous aspects of this is the seizure of property.
During a 10-month national survey, it was discovered that 80 percent of the
people who had property forfeited were never charged with a crime.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that it is legal to take property from an
owner who had no knowledge of its illegal use. There is no presumption of
innocence, no right to an attorney and no objection to hearsay. The burden
of proof of innocence is on the property owner.

For all the money, time and hysteria spent on the problem of illegal drugs,
all illegal drugs combined kill about 4,500 Americans a year -- 1 percent
of the number killed by alcohol and tobacco. Rehabilitation is not only
much cheaper than prison but also more effective in reducing drug use.

Powder cocaine and crack cocaine are two forms of the same drug with
exactly the same active ingredient. The average sentence for low-level and
first-time offenders for trafficking crack is 10 years and six months;
that's 59 percent longer than the average sentence for rapists.

So we are looking at a colossal, stupefying, incredibly expensive failure.
Don't you think it's high time that we stopped pouring good money after bad?