“We’ve been talking about a war on drugs for over 40 years,” he said. “I don’t think the American public sees a huge level of success — not that there hasn’t been some — in a war on drugs.”

Calling it a war really limits your resources. And, essentially, the greatest resource in a war is some type of force. Looking at this as both a public safety problem and a public health problem seems to make a lot more sense.

I know, in talking about these policies with my colleagues, former colleagues —  police chiefs and sheriffs and the directors of state police authorities throughout the country — they have become quite frustrated at recycling people through a criminal justice system.

Kerlikowke, who previously headed Seattle’s police force, also noted the economic advantages of treating addiction like an illness instead of a crime.

We also know that … incarceration is very expensive, and that if there are treatment programs — and we know there are — that can be successful in treating drug addiction and keeping communities safe, that those treatment programs are about one-half the cost of incarceration.

And that’s music to the ears of states facing the toughest budget problems in a generation.

The National Conference of State Legislatures, in conjunction with the University of Maryland and the Center for Integrative Environmental Research, is releasing reports that also show that economic and environmental interests are aligning in other states.

The studies lay out the rising economic costs of global warming on states’ agriculture, water resources, public health, tourism, transportation, forestry and infrastructure. In some states, cutting greenhouse gas emissions has reduced these costs and fostered economic growth.

The conference recommends that all states pursue tougher environmental regulations because a state’s economy is invariably linked to the economies of its neighbors.

Among the states featured in the new reports are North Carolina, Tennessee, North Dakota and Pennsylvania (pdf here). (Cost-analysis reports for Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey and Ohio were released in July at the conference’s Legislative Summit in New Orleans.)

As in California, energy-efficiency policies are the most cost-effective options for states seeking to reduce greenhouse gases, according to the reports. Minnesota, for instance, saw a return of $3 in economic gains for every dollar spent on its energy-efficiency programs. Other states are considering legislation that would require new buildings to meet certain efficiency standards, while renovations of existing ones would have to meet green standards. You can read the cost reports for 12 states here.

The policy recommendations of the National Conference of State Legislatures will probably encounter some resistance from industry forces. But if California’s example shows anything, it’s that industry can benefit from tougher environmental protections.