UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) executive director Antonio Maria Costa used the occasion of the October 8 meeting of Ministers Responsible for Public Safety in Mexico City to again blame the drug trade for the crime and violence caused by drug prohibition. In so doing, he also took a pot-shot at drug reformers, calling them the "pro-drug lobby."

"As a hemisphere, the Americas face the world's biggest drug problem," Costa told the assembled drug fighters in a speech opening the event." Whether we measure it in hectares of cultivation, tons of production, its market value or even by the gruesome number of people killed in the dirty trade," the drug crisis affecting the security of the ordinary people in the area is huge.

"Your citizens indeed say that what they fear the most is not terrorism, not climate change, not a financial crisis. It is public safety. And in the Americas, the biggest threat to public safety comes from drug trafficking and the violence perpetrated by organized crime," he stated.

But Costa ignored the incontrovertible fact that the threat to public order and safety from illicit drug trafficking is a direct result of drug prohibition, which creates the conditions in which such lawlessness and violence thrives, and not of some property inherent to currently proscribed drugs. He blamed everything from urban violence in the US to Canadian biker gangs to Mexican drug wars to Colombia's insurgency and Brazil's drug "commandos," on "drug crime," not drug prohibition.

And even as more and more Latin American governments, tired of trying to achieve UN and US drug policy goals, ponder drug decriminalization and/or legalization (see related story here), Costa sounded the tocsin about the temptations of legalization. "At this point, we know what some people -- the pro-drug lobby, for example -- would say: 'Legalize drugs and crime will disappear.' In other words, while facing an undeniably tough problem, we are invited to accept it, hide our head in the sand and make it legal."

In the face of decades of failed international drug control policies that rely on prohibition enforcement, demand reduction, and to a lesser degree, drug treatment and prevention, Costa called for more of the same, although he seemed to admit that the world could not enforce its way to total sobriety. "Until more resources are put into drug treatment and prevention as well as viable alternatives for illicit crops, narco-traffickers will continue to ply their lucrative and deadly trade across the Western hemisphere," Costa warned.

The White House Office on National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP -- the drug czar's office) has failed on its own terms when it comes to marijuana policy, according to a pair of reports examining government data by a noted marijuana researcher. It has not significantly reduced marijuana consumption despite constantly increasing annual arrest numbers and ongoing propaganda campaigns, while at the same time it twists and distorts figures on people in treatment for "marijuana dependency" in order to falsely claim that marijuana is a dangerous drug, while in reality, less than half of all people treated for marijuana even fit the standard criteria for substance abuse.

too much ''happy talk'' from John Walters

Based on the government's own numbers, ONDCP has failed to achieve its stated 2002 goal of reducing marijuana use by 25% by 2007, Gettman found. According to the national survey, last year there were 14.5 million pot smokers, compared with 14.6 million in 2002. From 2002 to 2007 annual use of marijuana declined slightly from 25.9 to 25.1 million. The number of Americans who have used marijuana at some point in their lives actually increased, from 95 million in 2002 to over 100 million in 2007.

Similarly, teenage marijuana use -- the reduction of which is one of ONDCP's stated goals -- remains high. More than one in nine (12%) of 14- and 15-year olds and one in four (23.7%) 16- and 17-year-olds used marijuana in 2007. But disturbingly, there were 472,000 12- and 13-year-olds and 627,000 14- and 15-year-olds who did not use marijuana in 2006 but still used illegal drugs. Nearly half of them used inhalants and illegally obtained pain relief drugs.

More broadly, there were 35.7 million annual illicit drug users in the United States in 2007, 14.4% of the population. Of all illicit drug users, 41% used only marijuana. Another 29% used marijuana and at least one other illicit drug, while 30% used other illicit drugs, but not marijuana.

"The Bush Administration has failed to reduce or control marijuana use in the United States," Gettman concluded. "Marginal changes in marijuana and other drug use have been distorted to support false claims that incremental progress in reducing marijuana and other drug use has been achieved. Marijuana use is fundamentally the same as when the Bush Administration took office and illicit drug use overall has increased. Drug use data do not support Bush Administration claims that its policies have had a significant impact on illicit drug use in the United States."

The stability -- not reduction -- in marijuana use comes despite at least 127 different anti-marijuana TV, radio, and print ads by ONDCP, in addition to at least 34 press releases focused mainly on marijuana and at least 50 reports from ONDCP or other government agencies on marijuana or anti-marijuana campaigns.

For ONDCP head John Walters, slight reductions in teen marijuana use meant that "teens are getting the message about the harms of marijuana and are changing their behavior -- for the better", as he noted in a September 2007 press release. Still, he was forced to admit in the next breath that "youth abuse of prescription drugs remains a troubling concern."

Similarly, in a July press release, Walters called for an "intervention" against adult marijuana use, and tried to define the pot experience as he did so. "Marijuana is the blindspot of drug policy," said Walters. "Baby Boomers have this perception that marijuana is about fun and freedom. It isn't. It's about dependency, disease, and dysfunction. As the data released today reveal, marijuana is a much bigger part of our Nation's addiction problem than most people realize. While teen marijuana use is down sharply [sic], adult use, with all the social, economic, and health consequences that go along with it, will not improve until we start being more honest with ourselves about the seriousness of this drug. Too many of us are in denial, and it is time for an intervention."

"The government's own statistics demolish the White House drug czar's claims of success in his obsessive war on marijuana," said Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) in Washington, DC. "The most intense war on marijuana since 'Reefer Madness,' including record numbers of arrests every year since 2003, has wasted billions of dollars and produced nothing except pain and ruined lives."

If ONDCP has failed to reduce marijuana use, it has been quite successful in driving up the number of people forced into drug treatment for marijuana use. The problem is that many of the people seeking treatment for "marijuana dependency" aren't dependent and don't need treatment. The percentage of admissions in which marijuana was the primary substance of abuse referred by the criminal justice system increased from 48% in 1992 to 58% in 2006. But less than half (45%) of admissions met the criteria for dependence established by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychological Association.

"Increases in drug treatment admissions for marijuana, often cited by officials as evidence that marijuana is dangerously addictive, are driven by criminal justice policies rather than medical diagnosis," Gettman noted. "These policies increase public costs for providing drug treatment services and reduce funds for and availability of treatment of more serious drug problems."

Your tax dollars are paying for unnecessary drug treatment for marijuana users. Government programs will pay for drug treatment in 62% of admissions where marijuana is the primary drug of abuse, and 60% of marijuana treatment admissions referred by the criminal justice system.

"In thousands of cases, taxpayers appear to be funding treatment for non-addicts whose only problem is that they got caught with marijuana," said Gettman.

Based on the official data, Gettman also found that ONDCP had demonstrably failed to meet its 2002 two-year goal of a 10% reduction in drug use by teens and by adults or its five-year goal of a 25% reduction in drug use among those two groups. Teen drug use did decline, but by less than ONDCP goals. There was a 7% population reduction in current illegal drug use from 2002 to 2004, and a 16% reduction from 2002 to 2007. But among adults, while the population of current illegal drug users fell 1.5% from 2002 to 2004, it actually increased 4.8% from 2002 to 2007. That increase in adult use of illicit drugs was due to the use of opioid pain relievers, according to the national use survey.

And so goes the war on America's most popular illicit drug. While the drug czar rails against pot, the kids and the adults are turning to pain pills. That's progress?

With election day less than two months away, the battle over California's groundbreaking "treatment not jail" initiative is heating up. Known as the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act (NORA) and appearing on the ballot as Proposition 5, the initiative would divert thousands of drug users and drug-using lawbreakers into drug treatment and away from the state's bulging and budget-draining prisons. In doing so, it would build upon and greatly expand the effort begun with the passage of the "treatment not jail" Proposition 36 by voters in 2002.

According to NORA supporters, the initiative:

• Requires the state to expand and increase funding and oversight for individualized treatment and rehabilitation programs for nonviolent drug offenders and parolees.
• Reduces criminal consequences of nonviolent drug offenses by mandating three-tiered probation with treatment and by providing for case dismissal and/or sealing of records after probation. Limits court's authority to incarcerate offenders who violate probation or parole.
• Shortens parole for most drug offenses, including sales, and for nonviolent property crimes.
• Creates numerous divisions, boards, commissions, and reporting requirements regarding drug treatment and rehabilitation.
• Decriminalizes possession of less than an once of marijuana.

The complex, ambitious proposal would not be cheap -- estimated annual costs to the state to implement it would be about $1 billion per year. But according to a July 1 analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office, that spending would be more than offset by savings to the state of more than $1 billion annually in reduced prison and parole costs and a net savings of $2.5 billion in prison construction that would no longer be necessary.

NORA has broad support from a long list of California groups and individuals, including not only the entire treatment and recovery community, but also the League of Women Voters, labor unions, the former warden of San Quentin, and former US Secretary of State George Schultz.

"The treatment community gave Prop. 36 only mixed support at the time," said Al Senella, chief operating officer of the Tarzana Treatment Center and president of the California Association of Alcohol and Drug Treatment Program Executives, both of which have endorsed Prop 5. "But as far as I can tell now, there is total support for the initiative in the treatment community. I don't know any treatment organizations opposing it."

"When you look at the Yes on 5 coalition, you find a wide array of addiction and public health advocates, youth advocates, the League of Women Voters, consumer federations, and on and on," said Margaret Dooley-Sammuli, Southern California deputy state director for the Drug Policy Alliance, which has spearheaded the Prop. 5 effort. "It really shows the breadth and diversity of Yes on 5; it really gives you a sense of what California has to gain and from how many perspectives," she said. "When you look at the 'no' side, it is dominated by law enforcement. That's very revealing."

While NORA has broad support from the treatment and recovery community and beyond, it is opposed by a formidable array of law enforcement and drug court interests. It has drawn the ire of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, which slammed it in a position paper earlier this year, as well as the opposition of virtually all of California's sheriffs, district attorneys, police chiefs, prison guards, and probation officers.

Although the opposition had been relatively quiet until this month, last Friday it fired a broadside over NORA's bow when noted actor Martin Sheen penned a "no on NORA"
op-ed in the Sacramento Bee. Sheen wrote that he opposes Prop 5. because "it will do so much harm to so many people" because it lacks the teeth to punish offenders who fall off the wagon. "Successful rehabilitation needs accountability and so often demands direct intervention in the life of someone who is addicted to drugs, rather than waiting for them to seek treatment 'when they are ready,'" he wrote.

Prop. 5 is the product of "harm reduction theory" and would shift resources from programs that meet his approval, such as Narcotics Anonymous, Sheen complained. "The real problem with Proposition 5 is that it is not about stopping drug use," he wrote. "If it were, it would mandate funding for ongoing drug testing instead of prohibiting that funding, and it would not give drug sellers a reward for the harm they do to so many." The initiative is "poorly designed and dangerous," Sheen warned.

"I certainly respect Martin Sheen's feelings and experiences, but to generalize and universalize them to public policy is the wrong approach," responded Dooley-Sammuli. "We don't want to decide what's best for 36 million Californians based on one man's perspective. He's concerned that Prop. 5 won't work, just like he was concerned that Prop. 36 wouldn't work, but we know now that it did work. I'm not so sure Martin Sheen is up to speed on the research in these areas, and he's wrong again. I'm disappointed he isn't any closer to achieving understanding."

"Martin Sheen is a celebrity, and perhaps that will sway some folks, but he did the same thing with Prop. 36, and he didn't sway enough folks," said Senella. "I respect the fact that he and his son had issues and overcame them, but his position is driven by his personal views, not by the data and expert opinion. And while he wrote an op-ed, I don't see him putting up millions for an effective opposition campaign. He is just giving the opposition a voice, not financial muscle."

Sheen isn't alone. While the powerful state prison guards' union, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, hasn't taken an official position on Prop 5 -- mainly because it is busy trying to recall Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) over budget issues -- it will do so soon, said union spokesman Lance Corcoran.

"We haven't taken an official position, but we have done an analysis, and we see this as basically a get out of jail free act," he said. "We think Prop. 36 has arguably not been successful, and we think Prop. 5 will be a failure, too. This is not something that will be good for California," he warned.

Susan Blacksher is executive director of the California Association of Addiction Recovery Resources, the largest residential treatment care provider organization in the state. For Blacksher, NORA is a necessary deepening and broadening of Prop. 36, whose success was limited by lack of resources, she argued.

"Prop. 36 didn't anticipate the sheer volume of need, and similarly, many counties did not fully recognize the magnitude of their addiction problems," she explained. "They assumed they would be picking up people who were early in their drug-taking careers, but almost from the beginning we began to see that the people coming through the program had more severe problems than anticipated. There were just not enough resources for the volume of people and the severity of their problems."

Arguments made by law enforcement and the drug court organizations that NORA should be opposed because it did not offer sufficient sanctions for relapses was "like throwing out the baby with the bathwater," Blacksher said. "NORA has been brilliantly crafted taking into account all the issues we've been discussing over the past six years, and there was a lot of discussion about sanctions. Some of us in the recovery movement think short term sanctions like flash incarceration can make sense if used as part of treatment, and not just punishment," she said, "but why are we making such a big deal about this when the rest of it makes so much sense?"

Blacksher said she understood the frustration of law enforcement and drug courts over the issue of sanctions, but it was not enough to invalidate NORA. And, as she noted, "Their jails and prisons are so full, something has to happen."

"You would think the judges and prosecutors who led the way on drug courts would support what will be the nation's largest expansion of drug courts," said Dooley-Sammuli. "I'm disappointed there as well. What I think we're really seeing is a turf battle, where folks would rather protect their turf than support what will be an expansion of drug courts. Unfortunately, the folks who run those courts are resisting what have been proven to be the best practices."

"The drug court people believe strongly in accountability, and so does the treatment community," said Senella, "but the drug court people believe they should have full authority. Prop. 36 didn't give them that, and neither does NORA. NORA does give them a great deal, it gives them additional authority, but not as much as they want. And although drug courts will get substantially more funding under NORA, they oppose it because it imposes some criteria on them about when they can impose their sanctions."

"I was alive in the 1960s when we went through this drill before," said Michael Rushford of the conservative, victims' rights-oriented Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. "Crime rates tripled while we were diverting felons to the streets. Not everyone remembers that and, unfortunately, if you don't learn from history, you're doomed to repeat it," he said.

"Sure, I could see some diversion for juveniles, but when you're talking about felony offenders, there need to be consequences," Rushford continued. "Prop 5. would let somebody with $50,000 worth of meth avoid prison; it would let a repeat car thief avoid prison. It's a bad deal."

"These kinds of arguments are simply not based on facts or an accurate reading of the initiative," said Senella. "You can't have $50,000 worth of meth and just walk away; you can't go around stealing cars and just walk away. For these kinds of cases, judges will have complete discretion. If the judge decides this guy is stealing cars because he's strung out on something, he may be a good candidate for diversion, but it is in no way a free ticket out of trouble."

Despite five years of evaluations and annual reports on the efficacy of Prop. 36, neither the legislature nor Gov. Schwarzenegger have taken the initiative to implement the recommendations of the various reports. That's why it's up to the public, said reform advocates.

"People say California needs this, but something this big should go through Sacramento," said Dooley-Sammuli. "We say yes it should, but it hasn't. The federal courts have already taken over medical care in our prisons and there is a November 17 hearing to see if they should put the entire California Department of Corrections under receivership as well. The state government has proven incapable of action on this."

"The legislature and the governor can't or won't acknowledge what the public believes is important and what the science has demonstrated," said Senella. "In approving Prop. 36, the public showed that it was important to voters and their loved ones that treatment was a priority instead of prison as a method of dealing with addiction," he said.

"The only way to move forward on this is through the initiative process," he said. "That's why we need and support NORA. What has gone on in California corrections is clearly not working -- we have the second highest recidivism rate in the nation. Our current approach is not what the science indicates is necessary. It's absolutely clear that if you treat the addiction, you do a great deal for the recidivism rate."

"One way or another, the future of prison overcrowding in California will be decided in November," said Dooley-Sammuli. "Either by the voters on election day or by three federal judges later in the month. Rehabilitation and treatment has a lot of support among California voters. So far, we have let addiction drive our record-setting incarceration rates. The voters understand that."

The US Congress Joint Economic Committee yesterday held a historic hearing on the economic costs of US drug policy. The hearing, titled Illegal Drugs: Economic Impact, Societal Costs, Policy Responses, was called at the request of Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA), who in his opening remarks described the all-too-familiar failure of US drug policy to accomplish the goals it has set for itself. It was the second hearing related to incarceration that Webb has convened under the auspices of this committee.

Jim Webb at 2007 incarceration hearing (photo from sentencingproject.org)

"Our current policy mix is not working the way we want it to," Webb declared. "The ease with which drugs can be obtained, the price, the number of people using drugs, the violence on the border all show that. We need to rethink our responses to the health effects, the economic impacts, the effect on crime. We need to rethink our approach to the supply and demand of drugs."

Such sentiments coming from a sitting senator in the US in 2008 are bold if not remarkable, and it's not the first time that Webb has uttered such words:

In March of last year, he told George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program This Week: "One of the issues which never comes up in campaigns but it's an issue that's tearing this country apart is this whole notion of our criminal justice system, how many people are in our criminal justice system more -- I think we have two million people incarcerated in this country right now and that's an issue that's going to take two or three years to try to get to the bottom of and that's where I want to put my energy."

In his recently-released book, A Time to Fight, Webb wrote: "The time has come to stop locking up people for mere possession and use of marijuana," "It makes far more sense to take the money that would be saved by such a policy and use it for enforcement of gang-related activities" and "Either we are home to the most evil population on earth, or we are locking up a lot of people who really don't need to be in jail, for actions that other countries seem to handle in more constructive ways."

Still, drug reformers may be impatient with the level of rethinking presented at the hearing. While witnesses including University of Maryland criminologist Peter Reuter, author of "Drug War Heresies," and John Walsh, director of the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) offered strong and familiar critiques of various aspects of US drug policy, neither of the words "prohibition" or "legalization" were ever uttered, nor were the words "tax and regulate," and radical alternatives to current policy were barely touched upon. Instead, the emphasis seemed to be on adjusting the "mix" of spending on law enforcement versus treatment and prevention.

The other two witnesses at the hearing, Kings County (Brooklyn), New York, Assistant District Attorney Anne Swern and community coordinator Norma Fernandes of the same office, were there to talk up the success of drug court-style programs in their community.

[The written testimony of all four witnesses is available at the hearing web site linked above.]

"US drug policy is comprehensive, but unbalanced," said Reuter. "As much as 75% of spending goes to enforcement, mainly to lock up low-level drug dealers. Treatment is not very available. The US has a larger drug problem than other Western countries, and the policy measures to confront it have met with little success," he told the committee.

Reuter said there were some indications policymakers and the electorate are tiring of the drug war approach, citing California's treatment-not-jail Proposition 36, but there was little indication Congress was interested in serious analysis of programs and policies.

"Congress has been content to accept rhetoric instead of research," Reuter said, citing its lack of reaction to the Office of National Drug Control Policy's refusal to release a now three-year-old report on drug use levels during the Bush administration. "It's hardly a secret that ONDCP has failed to publish that report, but Congress has not bothered to do anything," he complained. "We need more emphasis on the analytic base for policy."

But even with the paltry evidence available to work with, Reuter was able to summarize a bottom line: "The US imprisons too many people and provides too little treatment," he said. "We need more than marginal changes."

"US drug policies have been in place for some time without much change except for intensification," said WOLA's Walsh, noting that coca production levels are as high as they were 20 years ago. "Since 1981, we have spent about $800 billion on drug control, and $600 billion of that on supply reduction. We need a stiff dose of historical reality as we contemplate what to do now," he told the committee.

With the basic policies in place for so long, some conclusions can now be drawn, Walsh said. "First, the balloon effect is real and fully relevant today. We've seen it time and time again, not just with crops, but also with drug smuggling routes. If we want to talk about actually reducing illicit crops and we know eradication only leads to renewed planting, we need to be looking for alternatives," he said.

"Second, there is continuing strong availability of illicit drugs and a long-term trend toward falling prices," Walsh said, strongly suggesting that interdiction was a failed policy. "The perennial goal is to drive up prices, but prices have fallen sharply. There is evidence of disruptions in the US cocaine market last year, but whether that endures is an open question and quite doubtful given the historical record," he said.

"Third, finding drugs coming across the border is like finding a needle in a haystack, or more like finding lots of needles in lots of different moving haystacks," he said. "Our legal commerce with Mexico is so huge that to think we can seal the borders is delusional."

With respect to the anti-drug assistance package for Mexico currently being debated in Congress, Walsh had a warning: "Even with US assistance, any reduction in the flow of drugs from Mexico is unlikely." Instead, Walsh said, lawmakers should adjust their supply-control objectives and expectations to bring them in line with that reality.

Changes in drug producing countries will require sustained efforts to increase alternative livelihoods. That in turn will require patience and a turn away from "the quick fix mentality that hasn't fixed anything," Walsh said.

"We can't expect sudden improvements; there is no silver bullet," Walsh concluded. "We need to switch to harm reduction approaches and recognize drugs and drug use as perennial problems that can't be eliminated, but can be managed better. We need to minimize not only the harms associated with drug use, but also those related to policies meant to control drugs."

"It is important to be able to discuss the realities of the situation, it's not always a comfortable thing to talk about," Webb said after the oral testimony. "This is very much a demand problem. I've been skeptical bout drug eradication programs; they just don't work when you're supplying such an enormous thirst on this end. We have to find ways to address demand other than locking up more people. We have created an incredible underground economic apparatus and we have to think hard about how to address it."

"The way in which we focused attention on the supply side has been very much mistaken," agreed Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), who along with Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) were the only other solons attending the hearing. "All this focus on supply hasn't really done anything of any value. The real issue is demand, and prevention and dealing with people getting out of prison is the way to deal with this."

Reuter suggested part of the solution was in increase in what he called "coerced abstinence," or forced drug treatment. Citing the work of UCLA drug policy researcher Mark Kleiman, Reuter said that regimes of frequent testing with modest sanctions imposed immediately and with certainty can result "in a real decline in drug taking and criminal activity."

That got a nod of agreement from prosecutor Swern. "How long you stay in treatment is the best predictor of staying out of trouble or off drugs," she said. Swern is running a program with deferring sentencing, with some flexibility she said. "The beauty of our program is it allows us to give people many chances. If they fail in treatment and want to try again, we do that," she said.

As the hearing drew to an end, Webb had one last question: "Justice Department statistics show that of all drug arrests in 2005, 42.6% were for marijuana offenses. What about the energy expended arresting people for marijuana?" he asked, implicitly begging for someone to respond, "It's a waste of resources."

But no one connected directly with the floating softball. "The vast majority of those arrests are for simple possession," said Reuter. "In Maryland, essentially no one is sentenced to jail for marijuana possession, although about a third spend time in jail pre-trial. It's not as bad as it looks," he said sanguinely.

"There's violence around marijuana trafficking in Brooklyn," responded prosecutor Swern.

WOLA's Walsh came closest to a strong answer. "Your question goes to setting priorities," he said. "We need to discriminate among types of illicit drugs. Which do the most harm and deserve the most emphasis? Also, given the sheer number of marijuana users, what kind of dent can you make even with many more arrests?"

And so ended the first joint congressional hearing to challenge the dogmas of the drug war. For reformers that attended, there were generally thumbs up for Webb and the committee, mixed with a bit of disappointment that the hearings only went so far.

"It was extraordinary," said Sanho Tree, director of the Drug Policy Project at the DC-based Institute for Policy Studies. "They didn't cover some of the things I hoped they would, but I have to give them props for addressing the issue at all."

"Webb was looking for someone to say what he wanted to say with the marijuana question, that perhaps we should deemphasize law enforcement on that," said Doug McVay, policy analyst at Common Sense for Drug Policy, who also attended the hearing. "I don't think our witnesses quite caught what he was aiming for, an answer that arresting all those people for marijuana takes away resources that could be used to fight real crime."

Sen. Webb came in for special praise from Tree. "Perhaps because he's a possible vice presidential candidate, he had to tone things down a bit, but he is clearly not afraid to talk about over-incarceration, and using the Joint Economic Committee instead of Judiciary or Foreign Affairs is a brilliant use of that committee, because this is, after all, a policy with enormous economic consequences," Tree said. "Webb is clearly motivated by doing something about the high levels of incarceration. He held a hearing on it last year, and got the obvious answer that much of it is related to drug policy. Having heard that kind of answer, most politicians would walk away fast, but not Webb, so I have to give him credit."

Reversing the drug war juggernaut will not be easy. The Congressional Joint Economic Committee hearing Thursday was perhaps a small step toward that end, but it is a step in the right direction.