DRUG WARS AND CYNICISM

John P. Walters, director of the federal Office of Drug Control
Policy, was in town this week, along with U.S. Attorney General
Michael Mukasey. They came to attend an international conference
called the National Methamphetamine Chemicals Initiative.

Missouri no doubt was chosen as the gathering place because of its
unrivaled leadership in meth lab busts. The state accounted for more
than 20 percent of the national total in 2007.

Mr. Walters and the attorney general boasted about what they see as
progress in beating back the meth menace. They point to national
surveys that show meth use by youngsters down 64 percent since 2001,
while the number of lab seizures decreased 70 percent from 2004 to
2007.

The big news: a joint statement signed by representatives of the
United States, Mexico and China. It contains a list of ways the
nations plan to cooperate in controlling production and combatting
trafficking in so-called "precursor chemicals" -- material cooked into
methamphetamine.

These could prove to be fine accomplishments if they bring lasting
progress, especially in light of the federal government's
long-standing neglect of the meth problem. For years, Congress and
regulators were cowed by the lobbying might of pharmaceutical
companies and then by retail drug chains who resisted efforts to ban
or restrict sales of pseudoephedrine.

Elsewhere, as the so-called "war on drugs" approaches its 37th
anniversary, the news is not so hopeful.

The lion's share of federal anti-drug resources are devoted stemming
supply through law enforcement, interdiction and work in foreign
nations to disrupt traffickers. At best, the results are mixed. Even
Mr. Walters' agency acknowledges that drug use in America, with all
its associated pathologies, remains high.

Critics of the war on drugs long have argued that the war's emphasis
should be shifted. Devoting more resources to treatment -- especially
of hard-core users -- and less toward interdiction and enforcement
would result not only in better management of drug dependency but also
in more effective use of taxpayer money.

Few people have spent more time at the center of national drug policy
than Mr. Walters, who has served as "drug czar" since December 2001.
Before that, he was chief of staff to William Bennett, who was drug
czar in the George H.W. Bush administration.

In a meeting with members of the Post-Dispatch editorial board, Mr.
Walters said all the right things about the importance of treatment
programs. He praised the role that drug courts have played in reducing
drug use. Such courts monitor the progress of criminal drug abusers
attempting to break their habits. The best ones recognize that it may
take several attempts before some addicts break free from dependency.

Mr. Walters concedes that the demand for treatment programs far
outstrips the resources available for them. He acknowledges that law
enforcement has been a much higher budgetary priority.

He blames Congress for this, claiming that it has not funded treatment
programs at the level requested by President George W. Bush. He says
that cynicism is the great enemy of an effective drug policy, noting
that many politicians and ordinary Americans believe treatment doesn't
work. Further, he said, many Americans don't believe substance abusers
to be worthy of public assistance.

Mr. Walters is right about one thing: Being drug czar is a difficult
job, because he doesn't have the absolute power that the real czars
had. Today's czars must take political risks and passionately sell
unpopular truths. But just putting the best face on a failed system
only breeds more cynicism.