U.S. DRUG POLICY WASTES MONEY, RESOURCES

Heaven spare us from George F. Will's pious pontifications on pot ("Drug
war 's naysayers fail to see effort's overall worth," Forum column,
Thursday). Then-Labor Secretary George Shultz's message to Pat Moynihan,
then-adviser of President Nixon, 20 years ago that "so long as there is a
demand for drugs, there will continue to be a supply" is just as timely now
as it was then.

That we may be getting some "worth" for the $35 billion we annually spend
on the U.S. drug war is not the question. One would hope we are. Rather,
the No. 1 question is, could we spend that money more effectively in
creating jobs, improving people's lives and reducing the demand for drugs
in the first place? Or, how much could we reduce repeat demand for drugs if
we used just a small portion of that $35 billion annually for counseling
and treatment, instead of incarceration and interdiction?

Will alludes to the book An Analytic Assessment of U.S. Drug Policy, by
David Boyum and Peter Reuter, to support his case for today's drug war.
Actually, Boyum and Reuter concluded that America's drug policy should be
reoriented in several ways:

Enforcement should focus on reducing drug-related problems, rather than on
locking up large numbers of low-level dealers.

Treatment services need more money and fewer regulations.

They also concluded, "There is strikingly little evidence that tougher
enforcement can materially reduce drug use." Will apparently never read
beyond the cover.

Comparing drug Czar John Walters to President Lincoln is like nominating
Michael Jackson for "Father of the Year."

EDWARD J. ORLETT

Drug Policy Alliance in Ohio

Columbus