WHAT ABOUT BALANCED APPROACH IN DRUG WAR?

If only America's so-called war on drugs could be recast in the spirit of
my chance meeting with President Bush last year in the White House Rose Garden.

"Mr. President, my name is William Moyers, I am from Minnesota, and I am a
person in recovery," I said.

Without batting an eye, the president grasped my hand and replied, "Sounds
like we have something in common."

I was all but a complete stranger to Mr. Bush. But in that moment, we
connected. And because I told him nothing else about me, I assume it was
from the commonality of our experiences of having overcome the desperate
condition of drinking too much.

I am a recovering alcoholic and addict. Whether the president labels
himself the same, I don't know. But at least on that day, Mr. Bush knew
exactly where I was coming from because, by his own account, he once drank
too much and now doesn't drink at all.

Ironically, our handshake occurred just after the president had used the
Rose Garden ceremony to announce his nomination of John Walters as the
nation's drug czar. Critics within the drug policy reform movement
denounced the appointment, saying Mr. Walters' track record showed he was
no friend of addicted people. What's more, Mr. Walters has said he sees
addiction as a moral or criminal issue rather than an illness. In policy
terms, that translates into funds going to law enforcement and supply
suppression rather than to the kind of treatment programs that helped me
and thousands of others.

But flush with optimism that we finally had a president who understood the
power of addiction and the possibility of recovery, I urged restraint in
opposing the Walters nomination. Maybe now, I argued to my fellow policy
reform advocates, the president's own experience would allow his
administration to refocus the war on drugs, promoting effective prevention
and treatment programs over previous policies that emphasized interdiction
and tough law enforcement. My position was met with criticism from my
colleagues in the addiction treatment field, solicited an angry call from a
U.S. senator and sparked disdain from some of my fellow recovering alcoholics.

Ultimately, the Senate approved Mr. Walters' nomination, after both he and
the president repeatedly spoke about narrowing the treatment gap for the
3.5 million people that the federal government estimates need treatment but
aren't seeking help. At least for a while, it appeared that the
administration's approach had been tempered by the reality that America's
war on drugs required a more balanced approach.

And then Sept. 11 happened, which abruptly rewrote the national agenda.
Suddenly, the war on drugs became an adjunct to the war on terrorism. The
Office of National Drug Control Policy has run distasteful TV ads equating
teenage drug use with support for terrorists, part of a $185 million-a-year
media blitz that Mr. Walters now admits has been ineffective. Proposed
funding for prevention and treatment of drug addiction did increase in the
president's 2003 budget - as did federal dollars for interdiction and law
enforcement. But the fact remains that two-thirds of the $19 billion the
Bush administration wants to spend fighting drugs merely targets the supply
- - rather than treating the demand.

I had hope for a more balanced approach. The first family knows all about
underage drinking and the problems it causes. And earlier this year, the
media reported that a relative of the president was arrested and ended up
in treatment after forging a prescription for a tranquilizer in Florida.
Surely, those personal experiences would resonate at the White House,
leading to a saner drug policy for all of us.

Alas, it wasn't to be. In April, the president spoke out in favor of more
equitable insurance coverage for people struggling with debilitating mental
illnesses like depression and bipolar disorder. But he left out any mention
of the illness that his family and mine know well - alcoholism and drug
dependence.

The nonprofit foundation I work for extends about $5 million a year in
financial aid to addicted people and their families seeking treatment.
Ironically, most of that assistance goes to employed people whose private
health care insurance won't pay for the professional and comprehensive help
they need to overcome their illness.

In Congress, legislation to fix the disparity draws strong opposition from
some of Mr. Bush's biggest political supporters, including the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce and the insurance industry. When it comes to the politics of
addiction, it seems the president has more in common with his campaign
contributors than he does with people like me.

Yet treatment for addiction does work. According to the Health and Human
Services Department, treatment cuts drug use by about 50 percent, reported
alcohol and drug-related medical illnesses decline by more than half, and
criminal activity drops by as much as 80 percent.

And recovery benefits all of society. When people like me stop using and
abusing, we stop demanding Colombia's cocaine, Afghanistan's heroin and
Mexico's marijuana. We get back to work, pay taxes, obey the law and vote.
And once in a rare while, one of us who changed our drug or alcohol habits
gets a chance to be president of the United States.