FRONTLINE REPORT: WE'RE STILL LOSING

In the movie "Traffic," Michael Douglas, portraying the new national drug
czar, is met with stares and shrugs when he urges aides to "think outside
the box." He has seen the tens of thousands of cars that enter California
daily from Tijuana, Mexico. He has been told that only a fraction of the
drugs being smuggled through this point are intercepted by authorities.
"Let's have some new ideas, now," implores the impatient Douglas character.

But there is no courage among his staff to acknowledge that victory is not
at hand in this war on drugs.

In real life, we know that our approach to controlling illicit
drugs--primarily through interdiction and punishment--has failed. Drugs
still are readily available to people who want them--though at a cost that
prompts too many users to commit crimes to obtain the money to buy drugs.

Nearly a half-million people are behind bars for drug-related crimes--a
tenfold increase since 1980. Yet, a typical teenager finds it easier to buy
marijuana than a six-pack of beer.

For the last six weeks, the Sunday Sun-Times has published excerpts from a
special report examining the war on drugs.

Ottawa Citizen editorial writer Dan Gardner paints a picture of a
well-intentioned effort--to keep Americans drug-free--that has spawned a
host of unwanted consequences, including fomentation of a $400 billion
criminal industry, violence in some of our poorest communities and official
corruption.

In an interview on CNN last week, Attorney General John Ashcroft listed
"reinvigorating the war on drugs" as one of his top priorities. If that
means devoting more resources solely to intercepting drugs, his plan has
been invalidated. More encouraging are President Bush's remarks that
indicate a willingness to re-examine certain aspects of the drug war. He
has noted that minimum sentencing for first-time users "may not be the best
way to occupy jail space and/or heal people from their disease." Bush also
said that authorizing medical use of marijuana should be a decision for
states, not the federal government. If these are hints that the Bush
administration will treat drugs as a health problem rather than primarily a
crime problem, they are welcomed.

Today's installment in Gardner's series (Pages 34-35) focuses on "harm
reduction": the idea that drug use has always existed, and always will, and
how do we reduce its harmful effects on society.

Some European nations have, in effect, decriminalized possession of small
amounts. More dramatic approaches include setting up ways for addicts to
safely ingest drugs.

In the United States, we are far from government-run "safe injection
sites," but the European experience is intriguing if not compelling.
Certainly, dropping mandatory prison for first-time nonviolent offenders
would be a good start, as would stronger efforts to redirect drug users
into treatment.

Bush has not yet appointed a drug czar, but a positive sign would be naming
someone who is well-versed in the health aspects of drug abuse.

As Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, the Clinton administration's drug czar, has
said, "America can't arrest our way out of the drug problem."

There is increasing criticism of our war on drugs--criticism offered up by
reasonable people motivated by a desire to reduce the unintended
consequences. Bush has acknowledged this divergence of views, and he should
establish a national commission to examine the arguments.

Let's have some new ideas.

Because stares and shrugs just aren't going to cut it.