DRUGS-FOR-ADDICTS IS SMART POLICY - IS IT DUMB POLITICS?

A Bold Plan From Campbell

THE line between courage and stupidity can be a fine one. Tom Campbell is
walking that line, hoping his U.S. Senate candidacy won't fall victim to
his candor.

Last week in newspaper interviews, the Republican congressman proposed an
experiment: fighting street crime by giving addicts the drugs they crave in
a government clinic.

"Our current policy isn't working," he says. If it's broke, why not try to
fix it?

Campbell, a Stanford law professor with a Ph.D. in economics, is not a
stupid man. And this is by no means a stupid idea: A three-year Swiss
heroin experiment cut crime and street sales without raising addiction rates.

But the conventional wisdom says that politicians can't talk about drugs
unless they foam at the mouth. It's supposed to be political suicide to say
that our drug policies are broken, if the fix doesn't involve throwing more
people in jail.

Is that really true? We'll see as the Senate race continues.

New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, also a Republican, spoke out in October,
calling for a debate on drug legalization. Johnson's not running for
anything. He's on his second term as governor and can't seek a third.

Campbell is running in the Republican primary against three Southern
California conservatives, all of them eager to portray him as a Northern
California hippie weirdo. He's the front-runner in the primary, or was. If
he wins, he'll have to beat Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who also
jumped at the chance to suggest Campbell is some kind of nut.

What's nutty is the American refusal to learn from our mistakes, or from
successes elsewhere.

In 1994, the Swiss government began giving heroin to hard-core addicts at
government-run clinics. More than 800 addicts inject heroin up to three
times a day in a nurse's presence. While in the clinic, they're offered
support services to get their lives together.

These were long-term addicts who'd failed at least two treatment programs,
"among the most troubled heroin addicts with the most chaotic lives," wrote
Robert J. MacCoun, a Berkeley public policy and law professor, and Peter
Reuter, a University of Maryland criminology professor, in the Sept. 20
Nation magazine.

After three years, there was no leakage of heroin into the illicit market,
the Swiss said. Some 69 percent of addicts remained in the program. Half of
those who left switched to methadone maintenance or to abstinence therapies.

The addicts' illicit drug buys went way down; they didn't need to buy from
street dealers anymore. They didn't need to steal for drug money, either.
Their crime rate fell by 60 percent.

As their lives stabilized, their health improved and those who were
homeless found permanent housing. Some of the jobless found work; the
addicts' unemployment rate declined from 44 percent to 20 percent.

The Swiss are now expanding the program to reach more heroin addicts.
Impressed by the Swiss success, the Dutch have started a pilot program.
Germany may follow suit.

Government-appointed health panels in Canada and Australia have recommended
heroin maintenance experiments there as well.

A similar strategy adopted in Britain in 1926 - doctors could prescribe
heroin to addicts - is often described as a failure. Actually, it worked
for nearly 40 years, MacCoun and Reuter argued. "When it was the primary
mode of treatment, the heroin problem was small."

Problems didn't emerge till the '60s, when a few doctors began prescribing
irresponsibly. Restrictions passed in 1967 have made it very difficult for
addicts to get heroin from their doctors. So they buy it on the streets. As
access to legal heroin went down, heroin addiction went up.

U.S. studies of methadone also show that giving drugs to addicts, even if
they never kick the habit, lessens the harm done by drug abuse. Under
methadone treatment, addicts cut their use of illicit drugs. They work more
and steal less.

Campbell says he's been thinking for years of introducing a bill to fund a
pilot program, but hasn't found a California city or county willing to give
it a try. Politics gets in the way.

Maybe it wouldn't work here. Maybe it would work for heroin, but not for
cocaine, amphetamines or other dangerous drugs. But surely it's worth a try.

There are many people in government (and in law enforcement) who are deeply
frustrated by the drug war's failure, and willing to talk off the record
about alternatives.

But few politicians think they can speak honestly about drugs without
becoming ex-politicians. Campbell's campaign may illustrate that their
nervousness is unjustified.

Campbell ran radio spots in April explaining his positions on issues,
including drug abuse and crime. Nobody paid attention.

Now they're paying attention. His political rivals are howling in
indignation. But where's the public outcry? Tom Campbell's still on the
high wire, looking pretty good.

Joanne Jacobs is a member of the Mercury News editorial board. Her column
appears on Mondays and Thursdays. Write to her at 750 Ridder Park Dr., San
Jose, CA 95190, or e-mail to JJacobs@sjmercury.com.