Drugged out.

Could the global war on drugs be doing more harm than good? Don't try asking at the UN.

In the lobby of the UN Building in Manhattan is a display of children's artwork illustrating the dangers of substance abuse (a dead addict), the satisfaction of waging a war on drugs (kids punching and kicking syringes, bottles, and cigarettes), and the happiness of a life untainted by psychoactive chemicals (three smiling faces in a row). The theme of the exhibition is "A Drug-Free World ... We Can Do It."

That is also the theme of the UN's three-day drug summit, officially known as the 20th Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly Devoted to Countering the World Drug Problem Together. Held in early June, it is to be followed by an International Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking, which is part of the UN Decade against Drug Abuse. The decade, in turn, has its own slogan: "No, Absolutely No!" Apparently, "Just Say No" was too wishy-washy.

According to a press release from the UN Drug Control Program (UNDCP), the Special Session has "a bold objective: a drastic simultaneous reduction of both illicit supply and demand for drugs by the year 2008." Pino Arlacchi, executive director of the UNDCP, explains that "global coca leaf and opium poppy acreage totals an area less than half the size of Puerto Rico," so "there is no reason it cannot be eliminated."

Now, the fact that a tiny percentage of the earth's surface is needed to satisfy the demand for cocaine and heroin might give pause to the timid. After all, even if existing crops could be completely destroyed, enterprising drug traffickers could always find other places to grow their raw materials. Then, too, the track record of previous UN drug-control initiatives is not exactly encouraging. The 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs said illegal opium poppies should be eliminated by 1979, marijuana and illicit coca by 1989. Instead, production of these drugs has expanded.

But Arlacchi, an Italian sociologist and politician who was appointed to head the UNDCP last September, is undaunted. On the opening day of the drug summit, he praises "the level of consensus" seen during preparations for the gathering, calling it "almost unique in UN history." In fact, things went so smoothly that the immediate goal of the Special Session--promises to work together on matters such as crop eradication, control of precursor chemicals, prosecution of drug traffickers, and investigation of money laundering--has already been accomplished. That leaves three days for representatives of 153 countries to condemn drug use and call for international cooperation.

Each country is allotted 7 minutes. President Clinton takes 12, ignoring the red light on the podium. "This is ultimately a struggle for human freedom," he says of the effort to forcibly prevent people from ingesting politically incorrect chemicals. "We can turn this evil tide." Clinton decries "finger pointing," which "does not prevent a single child from trying, and perhaps dying from, heroin." The former pot smoker says we must teach our young people that "drugs are wrong and can kill you."

After Clinton speaks, almost all the U.S. reporters leave the press gallery, nicely expressing the American attitude toward the rest of the world. On the way out, ABC White House correspondent Sam Donaldson loudly praises the President's speech, saying it will go down in history with the Gettysburg Address as an example of fine oratory. I assure a drug-policy researcher from Canada that "the man with the eyebrows" is joking.

At a press conference after the speech, Administration officials talk about the need for a "balanced," "cooperative," "long-term," "comprehensive" approach. Drug czar Barry McCaffrey emphasizes that "the notion of cooperation is going to be fundamental." Attorney General Janet Reno declares, "We must teach our young people that using drugs is a dangerous road to nowhere." Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala reminds us that "there is no silver bullet." Secretary of Education Richard Riley stresses that "it's clearly not only a supply but a demand effort, indeed."

Some rain falls on the parade of platitudes when a reporter asks about a two-page ad in the New York Times declaring that "the global war on drugs is now causing more harm than drug abuse itself." The ad features an open letter to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan signed by hundreds of prominent scholars, judges, politicians, activists, journalists, and former law-enforcement officials from around the world. The letter describes the disastrous consequences of prohibition--including violence, crime, corruption, the spread of disease, and the routine violation of individual rights--and notes: "Too often, those who call for open debate, rigorous analysis of current policies, and serious consideration of alternatives are accused of `surrendering.'"

Right on cue, Secretary Shalala responds to the ad by saying "there's no chance that we're going to throw up our hands and walk away." She describes opposition to the war on drugs as "a kind of pseudo-intellectualism." New York Times columnist Abe Rosenthal worries aloud that "the pro-drug ... movement is getting more and more powerful" and wonders what "we in the anti-drug community" can do about it. Mr. McCaffrey assures him that "it's the mouse that roared." Even on editorial boards and among Hollywood executives, he says, "we find a great deal of support for a non-drugged, non-stoned America."

McCaffrey is right. If the pro-drug pseudo-intellectuals hope to make any headway, they need to come up with a slogan.

Mr. Sullum is a senior editor at Reason and the author of For Your Own Good: The AntiSmoking Crusade and the Tyranny of Public Health (The Free Press).