THE CASE FOR FRESH IDEAS ON WAGING THE DRUG WAR

Has the time come for the federal government to cede the "war on drugs" to
America's state and local governments?

A powerful case for devolving critical drug policy -- choices of which
substances to forbid, whether to focus police on drug cases, imprisoning
versus treating offenders -- has been made by two Florida State University
economists, David Rasmussen and Bruce Benson.

Of course, it's hard to imagine rational debate about drug policy as long
as President Bush and his ideologically driven attorney general, John
Ashcroft, are in office. Even the never-inhaling Clinton administration sat
quietly as both federal and state incarcerations for drug offenses skyrocketed.

But the common-sense case for fresh thinking has become overwhelming.
Largely because of drug cases, the United States, with 2,071,686 people
behind bars, had the world's highest incarceration rate in 2000. It cost
the country $26 billion that year to imprison 1.3 million nonviolent
offenders -- including hundreds of thousands of drug offenders.

Rigid prohibition remains federal policy even as substantial experiments in
decoupling hard and soft drugs, especially de-criminalizing possession of
small amounts of marijuana, are spreading in Europe and Canada. Ashcroft is
even cracking down hard on California co-ops that administer marijuana to
relieve the acute pain of terminally ill persons -- a policy specifically
approved by California voters in a 1996 referendum.

But it's not just authoritarian or moralistic ideology that drives harsh
drug policy. Our political system continues to condone stiff penalties,
long sentences -- even though there's ample evidence that treatment of
addiction, dollar for dollar, is far more effective. Indeed, a much-cited
RAND study that focused on cocaine use concluded that an added dollar on
drug treatment is seven times more cost-effective than a dollar more for
drug enforcement.

From 1968 to 1998, drug arrests per capita rose from 26 per 100,000
population to 615 per 100,000. Yet, illicit drug use is still flourishing.
Why aren't we objecting?

Most blame is usually thrown at politically opportunistic legislators. But
legislators, argue Rasmussen and Benson in a law review article, respond
largely to interest groups. And there's a massive lobby out there pushing
the drug war -- the police chiefs, sheriffs, prosecutors and their allies
in federal enforcement bureaus.

Indeed, goes this argument, bureaucrats instinctively fight to expand their
funds and turf, using direct lobbying, policy manipulation and selective
release of information and misinformation. Back in 1937, enforcement
agencies pushed for the Marijuana Tax Act, which proved pivotal in the
subsequent criminalization of marijuana. The federal Bureau of Narcotics
fed the "reefer madness" of the time, claiming -- contrary to scientific
fact -- that marijuana causes insanity, incites rape, causes delirious
rages and violent crimes.

More recently, police departments have tended to blame most local crime on
drug use, thus expanding their budgets as well as encouraging legislators
to pass increasingly strict sentencing for drug offenders. Which of course
keeps the prosecutors busy and pleases yet another lobby -- contractors who
build prisons.

On top of that, police and sheriffs' groups lobbied successfully to let
their departments retain proceeds from the sale of assets confiscated in
drug raids. Result: They profit directly from drug busts, a practice
raising serious ethical and constitutional questions.

The net result, argue Rasmussen and Benson, is "a tragedy in the criminal
justice commons," as drug enforcement dominates budgets, making funds
scarce for such unfolding needs as community policing and homeland security.

So how do we introduce new ideas, innovate, experiment, think afresh about
the drug issue? Only, the Florida State authors argue, by decentralizing
drug policy. They would leave the federal government to deal with such
issues as interstate drug shipments but revoke national rules (like blanket
prohibition of marijuana) and hold state legislatures, agencies and
bureaucrats more directly responsible for the costs and results -- positive
or negative -- of their policies.

Would such a move lead to wholesale liberalization of drug laws? Probably
no time soon, in most states. The same law-enforcement bureaucracies would
almost surely fight change.

Yet, we're not a uniform nation regarding drugs -- only marijuana and
cocaine are said to be used throughout the country, with other drug usage
varying dramatically, even within states. Different places may need quite
different approaches.

Plus, with a loosening of the federal hand, at least we could have debate
about new research in physiological effects of various drugs, consequences
of less regulation and dramatic treatment alternatives. Reform -- where the
public is willing -- would have a fighting chance. States could compare
notes, be "laboratories of democracy." Less Washington dictation plus more
local autonomy equals federalism at work. What's not to like about that?