FORGET WAR ON DRUGS; FIND SOLUTIONS

We are not going to win the war on drugs. Our odds are better in the
mountains of Yugoslavia. At best, we can battle drugs to a stalemate and
limit the collateral damage.

The war on drugs has cost billions of taxpayer dollars, clogged our courts
and filled our prisons. And yet, in recent years, the demand for drugs has
held discouragingly steady, down from the 1970s and '80s when casual
drugging was more acceptable, but also down to the hard-core, serious
customers.

People have been chasing the perfect buzz, the fiercest rush and the
greatest escape since the dawn of time, in weeds, mushrooms, cactus and
chemicals. A certain percentage of people will become addicted to the
pursuit or the effect and wreak all sorts of havoc as a result. A smaller
percentage will take advantage of the addicts for power or money.

So it has been and so it will be. Drugs are as American as apple pie. Maybe
more so. According to the 1999 National Drug Control Strategy report, about
13.9 million Americans use illegal drugs, or at least were willing to admit
in a survey that they had done so in the past month. That's probably more
than had a piece of apple pie.

The numbers have held steady since about 1996, which is disturbing, because
it reflects an increase in drug use among young people; older addicts
recover or die, falling off the charts either way.

The national strategy recognizes capitalism at work in the drug trade, the
law of supply and demand. Drug dealers have no interest in delivering the
perfect euphoria for a troubled humanity, only in keeping users in the hunt
for it. The last thing a dealer wants is a satisfied customer. Estimates are
that about a fourth of all drug users can be considered addicts, but they
suck up two-thirds of all the illegal crap that's available to smoke, shoot,
snort or eat in quest of escape from reality -- a reality that's not very
pretty if you're hooked on smoking, shooting, snorting or eating illegal
crap.

"In a perfect world," says this 131-page national strategy report, "if we
could bring demand to zero, the economic incentive to traffic drugs would
evaporate and supply would disappear. This strategy recognizes, however,
that in the real world, some demand for illegal drugs will always be
present."

What the nation also has recognized through this long war is that if we
back-burner it for a while to tend to other matters, drug use goes back up,
with all its attendant effects on crime, education and health care. There is
a 100-year record of drug use rising and falling with the level of national
vigilance, as reflected in law enforcement efforts and public health
campaigns.

What has also been established is that drug use, like smoking, starts young
or not at all. People in their 50s are not experimenting with bongs.

Given the destructive force of drugs, we cannot let our guard down. Yet in
this war, we seem to be, at best, holding our own, at great cost, and even
losing ground where it matters most, among the young. "Just Say No" has
become a tired joke.

The National Drug Control Strategy that President Bill Clinton sent to
congress last month has five broad goals, three of which essentially involve
the supply side of the supply-and-demand equation: Securing the borders,
wiping out south american cocaine crops, attacking drug dealers. That's the
highly visible stuff that produces results measurable in arrests and kilos.
The fourth is about treating addicts.

Only one goal involves our best hope -- reducing the attraction of drugs for
young people.

Yet we'd be so much better off spending billions of dollars to discourage
drug use among the young than to treat the addicted or chase the dealers.
Nothing shuts off supply like lack of demand.

All the other goals will be so much easier to achieve if we can prevent the
creation of yet another drug-using generation.

How? Getting to young people with a relentless, meaningful, peer-driven
message about the consequences of drug use. Teaching hard lessons early to
those who don't know what they are getting into. Paying for programs that
fill idle time with productive activity. Coming down on the parents of
juvenile offenders, especially the young dealers. Tracking the results of
anti-drug programs and discarding those that cannot prove they work.

But what's also true -- and the national strategy acknowledges this -- is
that we must forget about a "war" on drugs. That implies the possibility of
eventual victory. What we have here is an ongoing challenge.