IN ORDER TO BE EFFECTIVE, A NATIONAL DRUG STRATEGY SHOULD BE BOTH TOUGH AND SMART

We should be tough on drugs in law enforcement - but we also have to be smart as we deal with this problem.

About 90 percent of what we spend on the social monster of drugs is in catching people and imprisoning them. We spend about 10 percent of our funds on education and drug treatment.

It makes those of us who write the laws look good, look tough on those drug-users, and drug dealers.

But there are problems with this approach.

I talked to a friend recently who served on a jury, as I asked how she liked the experience. "It was a great experience," she responded. "Did you find the person innocent or guilty?" I asked her. "We found him innocent even though we knew he was guilty. He sold about $60 worth of illegal drugs and had no criminal record. If we had found him guilty he would have received a required sentence of 10 years. We thought he deserved some time in prison, but not 10 years, so we found him innocent."

When the law passed requiring 10 years, were we really being tough?

Today an 18-year-old boy with no criminal record who sells two ounces of crack cocaine to someone in the presence of his girlfriend must be sentenced to 10 years in prison without parole - and his girlfriend gets the same sentence.

That boy and girl may need help more than a long prison sentence .

I remember my first conversation with Chicago Police Superintendent LeRoy Martin about the drug problem. The first thing he told me was that the big push has to be on education. Tony Valukas, then the U.S. Attorney, told me the same.

In many states if you go to authorities and tell them you are a drug addict, and that you want treatment. you will have to get on a list and wait up to nine months for it. What do addicts do in the meantime to support their expensive habits? You know the answer.

I have introduced legislation, which has passed the Senate, to require drug testing in prison and two times after prison release. We want to catch people, but we also want to help people.

We now have more people in our prisons than any nation on Earth and a higher percentage of our people in prisons, South Africa being a distant second.

Most of the increase is because of drugs - and yet our approach of spending almost all of our drug dollars on law enforcement is costing taxpayers billions of dollars and not producing good results.

The USA Today article tells of a 23-year-old bank teller caught with a small amount of drugs, who received the required 15 years in prison. No previous offense. It will cost the taxpayers $256,000 to house and feed him.

What if we gave judges a little more discretion in sentencing, and spent more money on drug education and treatment?

The evidence suggests that we would have more success in reducing drug use, and reduce the crime rate at the same time.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 1981 there were 369,930 Americans in prison. In 1991 that figure grew to 823,414. Drug arrests were 471,165 in 1980 and 1,089,500 in 1991.

Should we continue strong law enforcement? You bet.

But has law enforcement without much of a program for education and treatment worked? No.

Those of us who make the laws had better ask not what makes us look good in the newspapers and on television, but what helps our country.

Paul Simon is a U.S. senator from Illinois and a former U.S. House member from Southern Illinois.