CONSENSUS REMAINS ELUSIVE IN NATION'S DRUG WAR - DAY 5B

Experts agree that something needs to be done about illegal
substances. But finding solutions has been a problem.

After decades of fighting everything from alcohol to Ecstacy, you
might think the United States has had time to come up with a solid
plan to combat illegal drugs like methamphetamine.

Hardly.

Every time a new drug is deemed the latest enemy, it seems to renew
the discussion over how to fight the battle.

Crack down on dealers. Lock up users. Stop it at the border. Help the
addicts. Educate the public. Legalize it.

Back To The Series Home Page

Story Continued Below

Andrew Golub, lead researcher at the National Development and Research
Institutes Inc., a New York-based nonprofit research firm, compares
drug epidemics to a business cycle: They have a natural course that
includes peaks and valleys. They can affect one region more than
another. And predicting where they're going is more of an art than a
science.

In an effort to bring some structure to reading the tea leaves, Golub
developed a model of such epidemics.

First, the drug incubates in a small group of users and largely
escapes detection as a problem. Second, it gains broad acceptance and
heads into an expansion phase. Once the drug hits a saturation point
and begins to take a greater toll on its users, it plateaus. Finally,
drug use falls off.

Deciding the best way to fight drugs depends on where you are in the
cycle, Golub said.

The art comes in trying to figure that out.

A look at the methamphetamine numbers explains why.

Data on meth-related hospital admissions in Riverside and San
Bernardino counties suggest that its use hit a plateau in 1994. But
other parts of the nation are seeing an increase in such medical
visits, suggesting that use of the drug is expanding.

Jonathan Caulkins has spent years looking at drugs and drug laws. The
Carnegie Mellon University public policy professor says local, state
and national leaders have to take different steps in different parts
of the country.

When a drug is spreading, the best thing to do is throw resources into
law enforcement to stop the expansion, he said.

But when use of the drug plateaus, maintaining high levels of law
enforcement is not cost-effective in terms of preventing new people
from taking up the habit, he said. Enforcement should be scaled back,
and funding should focus more on treatment and prevention.

Just how far methamphetamine will spread is impossible to divine. But
Caulkins said the drug's ability to quickly destroy a person's life
could actually be a plus.

There is a "low-life" stigma attached to meth because it can trigger
health problems, family break-ups and job loss faster than other
drugs. Cocaine, for example, is viewed as a more "upper-class" drug,
and users often can maintain their lifestyles for years without
displaying the haggard signs of drug use.

California is working to make sure meth has a nasty "low-life"
reputation. The state Justice Department last year launched a
bilingual media campaign that declares meth unfashionable.

Jack Riley once spent his time tracking meth at the U.S. Justice
Department.

Now head of the Criminal Justice Program for RAND, a Santa
Monica-based public policy think tank, Riley says politics plays a big
role in deciding how to battle drugs.

"I think most people are very, very well-intentioned about
drug-control policy," he said. "Unfortunately, it is just a woefully,
dreadfully complicated issue to address, and you cannot separate
measurements or assessments of how effective efforts might be from the
politics."

New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson knows plenty about the
politics.

Last October, the Republican governor called for legalization of
drugs.

The drug war has been a costly failure, he said. Prohibition didn't
work for alcohol, and it's not working for drugs.

Predictably, his remarks to a group of George Washington University
students set off renewed debate about legalization.

After making the suggestion, Johnson served as keynote speaker at a
conference on the issue held by the libertarian Cato Institute.

"The law should treat substances like cocaine, heroin and
methamphetamine the same way we treat whiskey," said Tim Lynch,
director of the Cato Institute's Project on Criminal Justice. "Just
make sure there are restrictions."

Prohibition policies spur street crime, violence and a billion-dollar
black market, he said. And, for the most part, interdiction efforts
are largely futile.

Gen. Barry McCaffrey, the nation's drug czar, called the idea foolish.
Legalizing drugs legitimizes their use and would burden the country
with astronomical social costs.

"Drugs are illegal because they are dangerous not vice versa,"
McCaffrey said.