CONSENSUS REMAINS ELUSIVE IN NATION'S DRUG WAR

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.

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.