THINK HARD BEFORE CHANGING STRATEGIES IN WAR ON DRUGS

The Issue: There is a move away from attacking the illegal drug
supply toward decreasing demand.

Our Opinion: Programs to reduce demand or legalize drugs also have
serious drawbacks.

A sea change in the war on drugs is in the offing, and we're not sure
whether that means smoother sailing or rougher waters ahead.

The Obama administration's drug czar nominee and others, including
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Homeland Security
Secretary Janet Napolitano, have announced a new emphasis on reducing
demand, rather than simply attacking the supply of illicit drugs.

As Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske, the drug czar nominee, put
it, "The greatest contribution we can make toward stability would be
to reduce our demand for illicit drugs."

Meanwhile, more people from all walks of life are raising the issue of
turning from a punitive, law-enforcement based approach to combat drug
use, to a medical model, which treats addiction as an illness.

It has gotten to the point that hundreds of economists, including
Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, have endorsed legalizing marijuana.

Doing so, proponents say, would turn marijuana use from a $7.7 billion
burden on the criminal justice system to somewhere between $2.4
billion to $6.2 billion in sin taxes.

Whether it will be legalized is debatable, but with other changes
imminent, should we be worried? Considering that the war on drugs
costs an estimated $1 billion a year - $1 trillion since its inception
- - and that addiction still rages throughout many communities, we
already are worried. Obviously we need to do something different or
better, but we must proceed cautiously.

Although we applaud the government's decision to attempt to reduce
demand, addiction is a devilishly difficult disease to overcome - even
to prevent. A number of studies cite long-term recovery rates for
addicts between 16 percent and 20 percent.

With such low success rates, can we cripple the drug trade by reducing
demand?

As the National Institute on Drug Abuse noted in a recent report,
declines in the use of one illicit drug are accompanied by rising use
of others. For example, while marijuana use among young adults
declined, abuse of prescription pain relievers such as OxyContin and
Vicodin went up.

As for legalization - a remote possibility that still must be taken
seriously - decriminalizing drugs could have far-reaching social
consequences. Certainly, we can undermine the criminal trade in these
drugs - co-opt might be a better term - but some studies show that
easier availability means increased drug abuse and addiction rates.
Are we simply to accept this as the human cost of doing business?
Should we legalize drugs just because it's the cheapest
alternative?

One could argue we already have done so with alcohol, which once was
illegal. But alcohol is one drug. The list of illicit drugs includes
stimulants, hallucinogens, opiates, tranquilizers and more, as well as
cocktails that mix two or more substances. Would allowing the legal
sale and consumption of these substances outweigh the damage - in
violence and social problems - done now by the illicit drug trade?
Would the addiction rate and its consequences increase?

We don't know. Nobody has tracked drug usage and consequences in a
system where drugs are legal. A host of questions remain, and until
rigorous research provides those answers, any move would be into
uncharted territory, with no assurances that more people would be
helped than hurt by the change.