OVERDOSING ON EXTREMISM

ACCORDING to a recent study by the Centers for Disease Control, drug
overdoses have increased almost six-fold in the last 30 years. They
now represent the leading cause of accidental death in the United
States, having overtaken motor vehicle accidents for the first time on record.

One might expect such news to spur politicians to explore new options
for drug abuse treatment, prevention and enforcement. Instead, at
precisely the wrong time, extremists on both sides have taken over
the conversation. Unless we change the tone of the debate to give
drug-policy centrists a voice, America's drug problem will only get worse.

Indeed, moderates have historically been key contributors to both the
debate and the practice of effective drug policy. In 1914,
Representative Francis B. Harrison, a New York Democrat, worked with
Republicans and President Woodrow Wilson to pass the first major
piece of federal anti-drug legislation, in response to a surge in
heroin and cocaine use.

Other moderates, from Theodore Roosevelt to John F. Kennedy, made
drug policy an important part of their domestic agendas. President
Bill Clinton worked closely with Bob Dole, the Republican Senate
majority leader, on sensible measures like drug courts and community
policing. And Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. is the reason there
is a drug czar in the first place, having pushed the idea for years
before President Ronald Reagan approved it.

So where are the moderates now? Certainly, the current political
climate makes it hard to come together on any question. Republicans
are too timid to touch any domestic policy issue, like effective drug
prevention and treatment, that might appear to cost taxpayers more
money. And too many Democrats have yet to recognize that drugs are an
issue that they and their constituents should care deeply about:
after all, drug abuse and its consequences affect the most vulnerable
in society in especially harmful ways.

In their place, a few tough-on-crime conservatives and die-hard
libertarians dominate news coverage and make it appear as if
legalizing drugs and "enforcement only" strategies were the only
options, despite the fact that the public supports neither.

This stalemate comes just as a new range of cost-effective,
evidence-based approaches to prevention, treatment and the criminal
justice system are within our reach. We know much more about
addiction than we did 20 years ago; with enough support, we could
pursue promising medications and behavioral therapies, even a
possible vaccine against some drug addictions.

Meanwhile, smart, innovative law enforcement strategies that employ
carrots and sticks - treatment and drug testing complete with swift
but modest consequences for continued drug use, or incentives for
abstinence - have produced impressive results, through drug courts or
closely supervised probation programs.

And drug prevention has moved from a didactic classroom exercise to a
science of teaching life skills and changing environmental norms
based on local data and community capacity. We now know that recovery
from addiction is possible, and that policies that give former
addicts a second chance are in everyone's interest.

Most recently, R. Gil Kerlikowske, President Obama's top drug policy
adviser, introduced a sensible four-point plan to curb prescription
drug abuse: educate prescribers, parents and young people about the
dangers of overdose; shut down illegitimate "clinics" that freely
sell these drugs; establish electronic monitoring at pharmacies; and
encourage the proper disposal of unused medications. Yet his plan
received little attention from the news media or Capitol Hill.

Of course, there is no magic bullet for America's drug problem. The
magnitude and complexity of our drug problem require us to constantly
refine and improve our policies through thoughtful analysis,
innovation and discussion.

Moderates should lead that conversation. To remain silent not only
betrays widely shared values of compassion and justice for the most
vulnerable. It also leaves policy in the hands of extremists who
would relegate a very serious and consequential discussion to
frivolous and dangerous quarters.