BOLD PLAN FOR AN EXIT STRATEGY FROM FAILED WAR ON DRUGS

SEATTLE -- Is it time to forge an "exit strategy" for our prolonged
"war on drugs"?

That question -- normally considered a "no-no" in legal circles,
especially among prosecutors and police -- has been raised by the
prestigious King County (Wash.) Bar Association since 2000. And the
results have been impressive. King County is sending minor street
drug users and sellers through drug courts instead of incarcerating
them; its average daily jail count is down from 2,800 to 2,000. The
Washington Legislature was persuaded to cut back drastically on
mandatory drug possession sentences, apportioning funds to adult and
juvenile drug courts, and family "dependency" courts. Tens of
millions of dollars have been saved.

"This project isn't for fringy ponytailed pot smokers," insists Roger
Goodman, director of the bar's Drug Policy Project. "We did it for
the courts. We can't get civil cases heard for three years. And the
drug cases are mostly so petty."

The uncomfortable truth is that despite decades of aggressive
government crackdowns, U.S. drug use and drug-related crime are as
high as ever. Made profitable by prohibition, violent criminal
enterprises that purvey drugs are flourishing. Harsh criminal
sanctions, even for minor drug possession, have packed jails and
prisons. Public coffers have been drained of funds for critical
preventive social services.

Internationally, we're discovering that the U.S.' heavy-handed
campaign of illegal drug eradication in countries such as Colombia is
about as successful as we've found our parallel military adventure
into Iraq. Despite the stunning $4.7 billion we've spent since 2000
on planes fumigating Colombia's coca crop, farmers there are
producing just as much cocaine as before our aerial assault.

Back home, "street" prices for cocaine have dropped and purity
remains high. Prohibition has failed equally to stamp out markets and
quality, or increase street prices for heroin, methamphetamine and
marijuana. The drug war kicked off by President Nixon in the 1970s,
and copied by state and local governments nationally, costs $40
billion or more a year. It is a massive, embarrassing, destructive failure.

But politicians are normally afraid to question the system for fear
of being called illegal drug apologists. So how did the King County
Bar get the ball rolling? "It's the messenger, not the message" --
the credibility of the bar association, says Goodman. The King County
Bar in fact assembled a nationally unprecedented coalition of
supporters, ranging from the Washington State Bar Association to the
King County and Washington state medical associations, the Church
Council of Greater Seattle and the League of Women Voters of Seattle
and Washington.

And the first-stated goals weren't scuttling drug laws. Instead, the
bar association announced its platform as: (1) reductions in crime
and disorder -- "to undercut the violent, illegal markets that spawn
disease, crime, corruption, mayhem and death"; (2) improving public
health by stemming the spread of blood-borne diseases; (3) better
protection of children from the harm of drugs; and (4) wiser use of
scarce public resources.

Now the bar association and its allies are asking the Washington
Legislature to establish a commission of experts to design how the
state can switch from punitive approaches to a focus on treatment,
shutting down the criminal gangs that now control the drug trade.

As controversial as it sounds, programs for victims (most likely
adults) of such dangerously addictive drugs as heroin, cocaine and
methamphetamine may be easiest to fashion. Rather than leaving them
to the streets and black market exploitation, there may -- as some
European models suggest -- be ways to register addicts, provide
controlled amounts of drugs in medical settings, and try to guide
them into treatment.

For marijuana, control by cartels that now provide huge quantities
might be broken by state licensing of home production and
noncommercial exchanges. Or a state distribution system like state
liquor stores, demonstrably effective in denying sales to youth,
could be established.

The toughest issues may surround protection of children. Today, it's
noted, they get contradictory messages -- "Take a pill to feel
better," and "Just say no, except when you're 21 and then you can
drink." Youth see commercial advertising pushing a wide variety of
mind-altering, pleasure-inducing substances, even while society
leaves control of so-called "illicit" drugs to criminal gangs. Plus,
kids do like to experiment.

A realistic program could start with respecting young people,
providing them honest information, on uses -- and the demonstrable
dangers -- of alcohol, tobacco and drugs. Goodman notes that in the
13 states where medical use of marijuana is authorized, teen use is
down. "It's not as cool when grandma uses marijuana for cancer pain," he says.

There's surely no risk-free "exit" from today's terribly destructive
drug war. But we have to try -- and should thank communities and
states with the courage to lead.