SCRAP OR BOLSTER U.S. OFFICE DIRECTING DRUG-CONTROL POLICY

In 1988, then-Sen. Joe Biden led the effort to create a "czar" to
oversee and coordinate the U.S. "drug war." Compromises during the
drafting of the original law, and action and inaction by congresses
and administrations since, have left the drug czar little more than a
toothless bureaucratic tiger.

If reducing the carnage caused by the use of drugs and the battles to
decrease their use is the goal, the office of the drug czar should
either be scrapped or its mandate rewritten to give it actual
responsibility.

By law, the Office of National Drug Control Policy is to set
priorities, implement a national strategy and certify federal
drug-control budgets. Since the 1980s, the office has mediated and
influenced the argument between law-enforcement professionals,
drug-treatment experts and international-affairs authorities on where
to focus U.S. efforts - how much should be spent to stem the flow of
drugs to the marketplace versus how much should be spent to decrease
use through education and drug treatment.

When the office was created, massive amounts of cocaine and other
substances were seeping into this country from Colombia and other
South and Central American countries. The supply-siders reigned in the
early years, and the United States invested billions in drug
interdiction. The demand-reduction lobby won some arguments in the
late 1990s and saw modest gains in funding.

Resources for supply reduction (interdiction of drugs, source-country
programs and law enforcement) grew by almost 57 percent during the
Bush years, while demand-reduction resources (prevention and
treatment, including resources for research for agencies such as the
National Institute on Drug Abuse) grew by only 2.7 percent. Prevention
programs realized a 25 percent cut in funding.

While the results of U.S. efforts in source countries such as Colombia
are debatable, the negative impact on U.S. relations with these
countries is less so. Last week, a commission led by three former
Latin American heads of state called the decades-long U.S.-led war on
drugs a failure and recommended a new approach that, in part,
de-emphasized law enforcement and interdiction efforts. Former
presidents Ernesto Zedillio of Mexico, Cesar Gaviria of Colombia and
Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil said this "war" was pushing Latin
American societies to the breaking point. The commission's report
argues that police and military interdiction is fueling the growth of
organized crime, drug-related violence and political corruption, yet
is having little impact on the world consumption of drugs.

As important as the commission's findings, drug use in the United
States has changed. While there have been noted declines in the use of
drugs by youth, drug use among adults has continued or even risen in
some areas. The amounts of home-grown substances, those manufactured
here such as methamphetamines, and illegally and improperly used
pharmaceuticals have reached all-time highs. Drug-treatment centers
continue to have long waiting lists, and the recidivism rate for those
completing drug treatment is appalling.

President Barack Obama is expected to appoint R. Gil Kerlikowske,
Seattle's chief of police, as the new director of the Office of
National Drug Control Policy. Kerlikowske, if selected and confirmed
by the Senate, will lead an office that oversees little and lacks
management of any significant program.

In this time of economic crisis, the Obama administration would be
wise to evaluate the $27 million spent on the Office of National Drug
Control Policy's salaries and expenses and how it allocates $420
million (more than half of which goes to supply-side efforts) to other
agencies to fight this nation's longest-running war.

Chief Kerlikowske comes from Washington state, where there is a
decided preference for drug prevention and treatment over prosecution
for drug offenses. It is likely Kerlikowske's appointment signals a
switch to a more demand-side strategy, but here's hoping our
administrator in chief will rethink how much the United States spends
funding an agency with little influence to bring about change at all.