We're only three months into Gil Kerlikowske's tenure as head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy-a position commonly referred to as "drug czar"-but already there have been a number of steps toward reforming some of drug policies that I highlighted as most in need of change in my ACS Issue Brief, which is now available in the new issue of Advance: The Journal of the ACS Issue Groups.

Since President Obama took office, we've seen positive developments in the areas of sentencing reform, needle exchange funding, medical marijuana, and overseas crop eradication programs, just to name a few. With respect to sentencing reform, the Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act, which would eliminate the 100-to-1 disparity between crack and powder cocaine penalties, and the Ramos-Compean Justice Act, which would allow courts to sentence below the mandatory minimum sentence in some circumstances, have both made read progress through committees in Congress. A few weeks ago, the House of Representatives voted 218-211 to lift the ban on federal needle exchange funding. Attorney General Eric Holder has repeatedly said he will discontinue the Bush Administration's medical marijuana raids (while the DEA executed paramilitary-style raids of two dispensaries in Los Angeles just last week, reportedly allegations of tax evasion are being used to try and distinguish them from previous dispensary raids.) And, the U.S, envoy for Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke, has announced an end to the failed poppy eradication program, calling eradication "a waste of money" that had "just helped the Taliban."

Perhaps even more encouraging than developments with respect to any specific policy, however, was the Senate's confirmation two weeks ago of addiction expert A. Thomas McLellan for the post of Deputy Director of National Drug Control Policy. This is because the nomination of McLellan, previously a professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, to such an important position is a hopeful indication that the Administration may be interested in exploring making broader changes to our drug abuse strategy and pursuing a public health approach to the problem.

McLellan is committed to the view that addiction is a medical problem, not a criminal or moral problem, and has spoken out strongly in favor of the use of methadone to treat opiate addiction. To get a sense of why McLellan's confirmation is such a positive sign for those of us who believe that treatment and prevention, not mass incarceration, is the most effective strategy for reducing drug demand, this interview he gave to Bill Moyers in the late 1990's is worth a look. 

The entire interview reads like a breath of fresh air amidst the toxic "war" dialogue about drugs, but the following passage in particular exemplifies his evidence-based approach to the issue: "When you evaluate substance abuse treatment on its ability, not to eliminate but to reduce crime, to improve social function, to reduce healthcare costs, substance abuse, time and time again, we see it can be very effective in all those ways. But you know what? That's still an obfuscation, really. 'Cause, you know, even if I told you or convinced you substance abuse treatment did that, it still doesn't mean that it's the best thing to do. Right? Maybe the best thing to do is put them in a labor camp. Put them in jail. Lock 'em up. Maybe that would be even more effective. Well, there's lots and lots of studies of just that issue .... And time and time again, you find that incarceration does only one thing: postpones return to substance abuse and in some cases actually increases crime. And while that's going on, you're spending thirty to forty thousand dollars a year."

This is not to say that the Obama administration's drug policy efforts have all been worthy of praise. Far from it: on a recent visit to California, for example, Kerlikowske declared marijuana to be a "dangerous" drug that "has no medicinal value" (he's since walked-back his "no medicinal value" remark.) And, even more unbelievable, last week Homeland Security Janet Napolitano claimed that the U.S. and Mexico are currently "winning" the war against the drug cartels. If this is "winning," I sure don't want to think about what "losing" would look like!

But, for all the administration's faults, when one looks at the overall picture, I honestly don't think it would be hyperbolic to say that when it comes to federal drug policy, there has been more progress this calendar year than there was in the previous 25 years combined.

Still, one wonders whether the changes will be limited to narrow and specific issues like needle exchange funding or crack vs. powder sentencing, or whether the administration will seek more fundamental change.

By all measures, our current drug strategy has failed. It has been chiefly responsible for the explosion in our prison population and costs taxpayers billions each year. Yet, more than three times as many teenagers have tried marijuana in the United States than have in the Netherlands. And more kids say it is easier to buy marijuana than alcohol.

If we hope to get ourselves out of this mess, reforms on no-brainer issues like needle exchange, sentencing reform, and medical marijuana are a good start. But, ultimately, in order to dig ourselves out of the mess the failed "war on drugs" strategy has caused, we'll need to change our entire strategy to the problem of drug abuse.

What might a new, more humane and effective strategy look like? In my issue brief I leave this as an open question because it is a difficult problem and there are many different alternatives worthy of significant study and consideration. But one story that especially merits the Obama administration's attention is Portugal's successful decriminalization system.

Portugal's innovative approach to drug policy made headlines in the United States earlier this year after the release of a CATO Institute report by Glenn Greenwald. Under the Portuguese system, in effect since 2001, the possession of drugs for personal use or consumption is not a crime. If a police officer catches an individual with drugs for personal use-defined as less than a 10-day supply for one person-they cannot arrest her and will instead issue a citation to appear before a "dissuasion commission" within 72 hours. The dissuasion commission, typically comprised of one attorney and two healthcare professionals, meets with the individual to determine whether they have a drug abuse problem and to decide on the best course of action, which can range from a warning, to a recommendation for treatment, to a fine. In his report, Greenwald examined the effects of decriminalization in Portugal and concluded that "judged by virtually every metric, the Portuguese decriminalization framework has been a resounding success."

Earlier this month, while on vacation in Lisbon, I had the wonderful opportunity to meet with João Castel-Branco Goulão, the director of the Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência, Portugal's principal drug policy agency to learn more about their system.

The contrast between Portugal's drug director and our own leaders was clear as soon as I sat down. One of the first things Goulão told me during our conversation was that he did not want to demagogue the issue by claming that Portugal had found a silver bullet approach to drug abuse. And, he was careful to emphasize that he did not believe decriminalization by itself was the cause of Portugal's drug policy successes. Rather, Goulão explained, decriminalization had provided the framework to facilitate success by creating an atmosphere where addiction is treated as a medical problem, where those with abuse problems are not afraid to seek out government help, and where the government has the resources to fund a first-rate treatment system.

In other words, Goulão said, demand and supply reductions are now treated separately-the former as a medical issue and the latter as a criminal issue. In Portugal, drug addicts in possession of drugs are not treated as enemies or criminals in a drug war, but as law-abiding citizens who suffer from a medical problem. The dissuasion commissions provide a mechanism for coaxing and coercing addicts into treatment, but it is a civil system that does not carry the sigma or excessive costs of the criminal system.

So, how did Portugal decide on its unique and effective approach? Their policy was the result of a blue-ribbon commission convened by the Portuguese government in the late 1990's, when drug abuse was among the country's top concerns. Instead of politicizing the issue with bravado about going to "war" against drugs, as happened here in the United States, the commission diligently studied all of the different policy options based on the available studies and facts. Indeed, Goulão told me, the notion of decriminalization was first raised by a commission member who was actually opposed to the idea. Nevertheless, the member thought it was a concept worth studying and considering. The result was an evidence-based strategy that has proved to be both successful and humane.