THESE PAGES HAVE oft endorsed the need for the nation to devise a comprehensive strategy for combating that destructive demon known as methamphetamine. It now appears that some in Congress are making such an effort, but have so far been unsuccessful.

That is a terrible shame.

Methamphetamine -- or meth, as it is called -- is one of the most devastating drugs on the planet and it is ravaging our nation. It has some of the same addictive properties as cocaine, but it lasts much longer and is much less expensive and easier to obtain. It is also extremely difficult for an addict to kick. Users of the drug often become violent, irrational and disruptive while on it.

Insiders in the Contra Costa County legal system know that meth is literally costing taxpayers millions of dollars. Many of the people currently housed in the county's detention facilities are there either directly or indirectly because of meth.

Meth has an additional danger. It is often "manufactured" in houses, apartments or motel rooms, and the process for such manufacture is highly toxic and extremely flammable, and often results in serious explosions and fires.

But meth is not just a Contra Costa problem, or even a California problem. It is a national problem. A report by the National Association of Counties released recently said that nearly 60 percent of the counties in the nation consider meth to be their biggest drug problem.

These folks, at the local level, know that to be true because they are the ones fighting it. They see the drug's impact every day as it increases the crime rate and swells jail popultions.

Unfortunately, it seems that there still must be some enlightenment among federal policymakers. This has caused a philosophical rift on how best to spend the nation's drug-fighting money in the prosecution of the drug wars.

Many local agencies want to direct far more money toward fighting meth, while policy makers at the federal level seemingly take the more traditional approach that focuses more on marijuana, cocaine and high-level drug rings.

California's own Sen. Dianne Feinstein is to be commended as one federal leader who understands the danger. Feinstein and Sen. James Talent, R-Mo., are pushing legislation that would limit purchases of cold medicine that contains pseudoephedrinem, a key ingredient in meth.

The Feinstein-Talent measure would require logs to be kept and identification to be checked.

So far, many retailers have fought similar measures that have been proposed in many states because they say it would be a hardship on their operations.

Although it would be more work for the retailers, we believe it is worth it. But we also believe that such measures are only a beginning in the fight against meth.

Measures such as Feinstein's, while admirable, do not go far enough. Like most drug policy instituted by the federal government, this measure seeks to limit the supply of meth but does little to thwart the demand.

For the nation to have any hope of combating the meth epidemic, we must attack the problem on both fronts.

The government must seek to limit the supply through laws and adequately funded policing techniques, but it also must endeavor to lessen the demand by making effective drug treatment readily available for anyone who needs it.

Only then can we truly have a hope of winning this war on methamphetamine.