BUSH'S RECOVERY SHOULD SHAPE HIS DRUG POLICIES

If only America's so-called war on drugs could be recast in the spirit of
my chance meeting with President Bush last year in the White House Rose Garden.

"Mr. President, my name is William Moyers, I'm from Minnesota and I am a
person in recovery," I said.

Without batting an eye, the president grasped my hand and replied, "Sounds
like we have something in common."

I was all but a complete stranger to Bush. But in that moment we connected.
And because I told him nothing else about me, I assume it was from the
commonality of our experiences of having overcome the desperate condition
of drinking too much.

I am a recovering alcoholic and addict. Whether the president labels
himself the same, I don't know. But on that day at least, Bush knew exactly
where I was coming from because, by his own account, he once drank too much
and now he doesn't drink at all.

Ironically, our handshake occurred just after the president had announced
his nomination of John Walters as the nation's drug czar. Critics within
the drug policy reform movement denounced the appointment, saying Walters'
record showed he was no friend of addicted people. What's more, Walters has
said he sees addiction as a moral or criminal issue, rather than an
illness. In policy terms, that translates into funds going to law
enforcement, not to treatment programs.

But flush with optimism that finally we had a president who understood the
power of addiction and the possibility of recovery, I urged restraint in
opposing the Walters nomination. Maybe now, I argued to my fellow policy
reform advocates, the president's own experience would allow his
administration to refocus the war on drugs, promoting effective prevention
and treatment programs. My position was met with criticism from my
colleagues in the addiction treatment field and sparked disdain from some
of my fellow recovering alcoholics.

Ultimately, the Senate approved Walters' nomination, after both he and the
president spoke repeatedly about narrowing the treatment gap for the 3.5
million people that the federal government estimates need treatment but are
not seeking help. For a while at least, it appeared that the
administration's approach had been tempered by the reality that America's
war on drugs required a more balanced approach.

And then Sept. 11 happened, which abruptly rewrote the national agenda.
Suddenly the war on drugs became an adjunct to the war on terrorism. The
Office of National Drug Control Policy has run distasteful television ads
equating teen-age drug use with support for terrorists, part of a $185
million-a-year media blitz that Walters now admits has been ineffective.
Proposed funding for prevention and treatment of drug addiction did
increase in the president's 2003 budget -- as did federal dollars for
interdiction and law enforcement. But two-thirds of the $19 billion the
Bush administration wants to spend fighting drugs merely targets the supply
- -- rather than treating the demand.

I had hoped for a more balanced approach. The first family knows all about
underage drinking and the problems it causes. And earlier this year the
media reported that a relative of the president was arrested and ended up
in treatment after forging a prescription for a tranquilizer in Florida.
Surely these personal experiences would resonate at the White House,
leading to a saner drug policy for all of us.

Alas, it was not to be. In April, the president spoke out in favor of more
equitable insurance coverage for people struggling with debilitating mental
illnesses like depression and bipolar disorder. But he left out any mention
of the illness that his family and mine know well -- alcoholism and drug
dependence.

The nonprofit foundation I work for extends about $5 million a year in
financial aid to addicted people and their families seeking treatment.
Ironically, most of this assistance goes to employed people whose private
health care insurance won't pay for the professional and comprehensive help
they need to overcome their illness. In Congress, legislation to fix this
disparity draws strong opposition from some of Bush's biggest political
supporters, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the insurance
industry. When it comes to the politics of addiction, it seems the
president has more in common with his campaign contributors than he does
with people like me.

Yet treatment for addiction does work. According to the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, treatment cuts drug use by about 50 percent.
Reported alcohol and drug-related medical illnesses decline by more than
half, and criminal activity drops by as much as 80 percent.

And recovery benefits all of society. When people like me stop using and
abusing, we stop demanding Colombia's cocaine, Afghanistan's heroin and
Mexico's marijuana. We get back to work, pay taxes, obey the law and vote.
And once in a rare while, one of us who changed our drug or alcohol habits
gets a chance to be president of the United States.