MANY CASUALTIES, NO VICTORIES

The war on drugs has been an abysmal and costly failure. But instead of
stopping the crime, we focus on punishment.

Legalize drugs? That strategy sounds so daring in this day and age, when
tough-talking politicians are determined to send drug law violators to jail,
along with the gun law violators.

Yet here comes New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, who boldly proposes regulating
narcotics, but not imprisoning drug users who should be in a rehabilitation
program.

"For the amount of money we're putting into the war on drugs, it's an
absolute failure," said Johnson, a Republican businessman. He says the
cost-benefit analysis figures show just how big a failure the drug war has been.

Federal spending to combat drugs has skyrocketed from $1.5 billion in 1981,
when President Ronald Reagan launched a full-scale attack and his wife Nancy
made. "Just say no" a battle cry.

Ten years later, the government was spending about $11 billion -- most of it
for enforcement and antismuggling efforts. Only about a third was spent on
drug treatment and education programs.

Meanwhile, drug dealing and drug smuggling are up. And no wonder:
Iron-fisted efforts to eliminate the supply have had little impact.

And Now? Taxpayers are wasting $50 billion a year to fight drugs, with no
noticeable reduction in drug use. Those dollars could be better spent on
education, health care and other social needs.

The drug war has been profitable for folks in law enforcement and crininal
justice, though: We need to hire more cops and prosecutors, to arrest and
convict all the drug-law violators. We build more courtrooms to hear their
cases, along with the judges, clerks, bailiffs and other support staff. And
we build more maximum-security prisons to house all the drug users and
dealers sentenced to mandatory terms under new laws passed by talk-tough
lawmakers keeping their campaign pledges to get drugs off our streets.

Johnson has a simple proposal: Make drugs a regulated substance, like
alcohol. Control it and tax it, and use the money to educate young people
about the dangers of drug abuse, and greatly expand drug treatment programs.

That makes sense to me and to other observers who realize it's time to test
some new weapons in the war against drugs. Stiff penalties haven't worked.

Johnson's candor is refreshing compared with the evasiveness of Texas Gov.
George W. Bush, who won't admit or deny rumors that he used drugs when he
was younger.

Johnson, 46, said he used marijuana and cocaine when he was a student at the
University of New Mexico. But Johnson says he never used drugs after
college, and doesn't even drink. Now he's a serious athlete who plans to
compete in the Iron Man triathlon.

Yet there are stubborn proponents of the failed anti-drug strategy,
including President Clinton's "drug czar" Barry McCaffrey, who claims
Johnson's proposal "would put more drugs into the hands of our children and
make drugs more available on our nation's streets."

That's poppycock. So is the anti-drug policy announced last week by
Elizabeth Dole, who is challenging Bush for the Republican presidential
nomination.

"I will utilize all the law enforcement, military and diplomatic tools
available to eradicate the production of drugs in foreign nations and choke
off the flow of poison through neighboring countries," the former Red Cross
chief promised.

Sounds good, but supply-side attacks in the drug war have proved to be
costly failures. It's time to take aim at a different target: reducing
Americans' demand for illegal durgs.

Society is reluctant to legalize even marijuana--and even for medical use to
help ease pain and nausea. It'll be a long time before people--and
lawmakers--give serious consideration to Johnson's proposal to decriminalize
"hard" drugs like heroin and cocaine.

But we should at least re-examine our drug-war strategy. And shift a lot
more of those tax dollars into drug treatment and prevention programs.