HYPING THE DRUG WAR

Judging by the Clinton administration's latest drug-war battle plan
and Republican rebuttals to it, the American people are given this odd
choice: Give the feds more money and authority to target illegal
narcotics here and overseas or give the feds even more money and
authority to do those very same things.

Earlier this month, Vice President Al Gore outlined the White House's
latest anti-drug strategy, which he called an "all-out effort to
banish crime, drugs and disorder and hopelessness from our streets,"
complete with ambitious targets, such as cutting drug availability and
use in half by 2007.

The plan calls for educating children, helping addicts get treatment,
adopting a "zero tolerance" program for testing and punishing
drug-using prisoners and parolees, stepping up border patrols and
finding ways to reduce the supply of drugs from domestic and
international sources. Congressional Republicans didn't dispute the
specifics, but mainly question whether the administration is devoting
enough resources to accomplish its goals.

Banishing, or at least slashing in half, drug use and attacking
related crime, disorder and hopelessness is no short order. It's
unlikely that any proposal would earmark enough federal funds to make
real headway into such deeply rooted and ill-defined social problems.

The real issue is whether America should continue to step up its drug
war, as the administration's proposal would do, or seek out less
politically expedient, but more promising approaches. Two
administration proposals have merit - focusing on drug treatment and
targeting parolees - even though they are not federal matters. But the
bulk of the Clinton-Gore plan concentrates on law enforcement and
interdiction, approaches that have been largely unsuccessful in the
past. What's missing is the realization that most low-level drug use
poses no harm to society, and that attacking supply without reducing
demand only drives up drug prices and induces addicts to commit crimes
to pay for their habits.

Most disturbing about the administration's plan: It uses the specter of a
teen drug epidemic to maintain popular support for these policies. Mike
Males, the Irvine-based author of "Framing Youth: Ten Myths About the Next
Generation," told us that the nation's drug problem is most severe among
aging baby boomers and that focusing on the teen drug problem is dishonest.

In 1997, there were 12 teen-age deaths in Orange and Los Angeles
counties attributed to drug overdoses, Mr. Males said. That compares
to 768 adult deaths in both counties for all overdoses. "If I were
(drug czar) Barry McCaffrey, I would stop saying teens have a drug
problem."

Rather than doing an honest assessment of the "structure of the drug
abuse problem," and finding ways to direct effective treatment toward
hard-core addicts, Mr. Males said the administration is busy arresting
casual drug abusers and "scar(ing) suburban parents."

Mr. Males' comments confirm what we have long argued: The drug war has
become a self-perpetuating government crusade that exploits legitimate
fears to maintain its funding and to justify its oftentimes unjust
policies. The latest U.S. proposal is nothing more than a repackaging
of the same old tried-and-failed policies.

Given political realities, we don't expect U.S. officials to be
willing to abandon their misguided drug policies. But we do expect
them to tone down the battle rhetoric and calmly analyze the nature of
the problem. An honest self-appraisal might be the first step on the
road to recovery for the government's drug-war addiction.