ADOPT LESSONS FROM SPORTS TO DECREASE DRUG DEMAND

The economics behind our government's war on drugs render it
self-defeating. Our focus on reducing supply keeps drug prices high
for drug lords, increasing their incentive to supply them and kill
both competitors and the government officials trying to stand in
their way. Thursday's announcement from Mexico that an astounding
30,196 people have been killed in the country's 4-year-old war
against the drug cartels should compel us to consider a new approach
to the war on drugs.

There are essentially three ways to fight the drug problem:

. The supply-based approach, which has been the cornerstone of U.S.
anti-narcotics policy since the Nixon administration in 1969, has
irresponsibly passed the blame for our drug-consumption problem onto
suppliers in other countries. This makes for great politics, but
attempts at supply reduction will never solve the drug problem.

Undeniably, our supply-based policy has had extraordinary impacts: It
has caused drug mobsters to infiltrate the political and justice
systems of Latin American countries such as Mexico, Guatemala and
Colombia, turning them into cesspools of corruption and violence. The
number of deaths in Mexico from the offensive against the drug
cartels far exceeds the U.N. definition of a civil war. Supply
interdiction is rooted in a nonsensical economic logic that operates
in lockstep with the interests of the drug cartels: It keeps the
market profitable and worth killing for.

. Legalization, an alternative proposed by civil libertarians, but
politically unviable as the majority of Americans have serious qualms
about legalizing recreational drugs. If legalizing marijuana can't
pass in California, a more widespread legalization of drugs at a
national level has about the chance of a bong at a Bible study.

. A demand-side approach, which offers a viable alternative to the
futility of the supply-side approach and the moral apprehensiveness
over legalization. It would reallocate resources from destroying drug
cartels toward a combination of carrots and sticks to dissuade drug
use. To work, it must involve testing, similar to what exists today
in professional sports.

It might be possible to implement creative demand-based policies that
are politically palatable. What if people who passed a free, random,
non-mandatory drug test at a local clinic received a "clean card,"
yielding a tax credit of, say, $500. The clean card would become what
economists call a "signal." Employers could surmise that those
without one value getting high more than getting a generous tax
credit. This would give users an incentive to clean up. No clean
card? No welfare check, no driver's license. Ouch.

Demand reduction lowers drug prices and reduces incentives for
violence. Moreover, a study by the Rand Corporation finds drug
treatment to be 23 times as cost effective as eradication or rounding
up drug dealers.

Critics will complain that the policy violates individual freedoms.
In this respect, so does the requirement to serve on a jury or smog
check your car. Individual freedoms have to be weighed against the
common good. A new demand-based drug policy is arguably the greatest
favor we could do our southern neighbors as well as ourselves.