THE NEW WAR AGAINST DRUGS

BEFORE SPENDING $18 billion on an ambitious new war on drugs that
would have the bulk of the money going toward law enforcement,
eradication and interdiction, the Clinton administration should
reassess past failures and successes.

What drug czar Barry McCaffrey will find is that treatment is more
successful than putting addicts in jail, trying to kill crops at the
source or attempting to shield 88,633 miles of shoreline, 300 ports of
entry and 7,500 miles of border with Mexico and Canada from drug runners.

A 1994 Rand Corp. study found that treatment is seven times more
cost-effective than arresting people, 10 times more effective than
keeping drugs from entering the country and 23 times more effective
than attacking drugs at their source.

To achieve a 1 percent reduction in U.S. cocaine consumption, the
United States could spend an additional $34 million on drug treatment
programs or $783 million on efforts to eradicate the supply at the
source, according to Rand researchers.

But treatment is in short supply because politicians fear being
labeled as soft on crime.

In his book, ``The Fix,'' author Michael Massing, who for 10 years has
been investigating U.S. efforts to eradicate drug use in the country,
concludes that President Nixon had the right approach: providing
treatment for every hard-core drug addict who wants it.

But the treatment must be available. Otherwise, the window of
opportunity to end drug addiction could be lost.

Clinton and McCaffrey are proposing an ambitious program that includes
educating children, reducing supply, securing the nation's borders and
expanding alternatives to jail for drug users -- another approach that
has shown positive results. The goal is to reduce the use and
availability of drugs by 50 percent in eight years.

Nobody is going to argue against such a goal. The argument is about
how the money to end drug use is spent.