Pubdate: Fri, 16 Mar 2001
Source: National Review (US)
Copyright: 2001 National Review
Contact:  215 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York 10016
Website: http://www.nationalreview.com/
Forum: http://www.nationalreview.com/forum/forum.shtml
Author: William F. Buckley Jr.

HARD LESSONS FROM TRAFFIC?

The Drift Of Public Policy In The Matter Of Drugs.

The drug czar-elect in the movie Traffic has decided to look at the grit of 
drug trade and drug addiction first hand, to which end he forages about 
Tijuana and has a near overdose. Groggy from what he has seen, he accosts 
his staff on his posh private plane going back to Washington. Michael 
Douglas does one of his jut-jawed scenes, with which the movie is replete, 
and says he wants all ideas ventilated. Everything. The director, who is 
headed for Oscarland, wisely decided to cut away before any new ideas were 
in fact proffered, because the drift of the movie — like the drift of 
public policy in the matter of drugs — is: Continue, at breathless speed, 
to accomplish…nothing.

At a recent press conference, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was asked if 
the president had seen the movie.

Answer: Yes.

Have there been any policy changes on the matter of drugs?

Mr. Bush has said that in his view (personally tested), treatment is more 
effective than punishment. To this end, when talking about the subject with 
the president of Mexico, the idea was evidently tossed around to 
concentrate less on interdicting supply than on "reducing demand." How do 
you do that?

Well, of course, the conventional way is to punish those who make up the 
demand. If Johnny is thinking of buying some coke, the idea of a couple of 
years in jail is supposed to deter him, and certainly does deter some 
prospective users. The movie seen by the president glancingly acknowledges 
the point, but its dramatic focus isn't on Socratic monologues that weigh 
the lure of a snort over against the horror of a prison term. The focus, 
quite understandably, is on young people who would do anything for another 
fix and, in the movie, do.

Another deterrent is to expose the addict or near-addict to a depiction of 
what it is like to suffer the thralldom of drugs. Five recovering users in 
California were interviewed in Phoenix House, the fine drug recovery 
center, after being shown the movie. They discussed their own itineraries 
en route to addiction, and one 17-year-old said that if she had seen this 
movie, she probably would have found the strength to knock off from drugs.

And then, of course, what is universally acknowledged as necessary is the 
loyalty and devotion of parents. But, for the record, this didn't help the 
Traffic people one bit. Michael Douglas's 16-year-old daughter repaid 
parental concern not at all, adding wrinkles every few minutes to her 
father's concern.

The movie ends with a Little League baseball scene that suggests that there 
is a ray or two of sun out there waiting for those who hope hard enough. 
The baseball scene comes right after an Alcoholics Anonymous-type sequence, 
in which the daughter stands up before her fellow addicts, giving details 
of her ordeal and the steps she thinks useful in combating the temptation.

But the dramatic theme of the movie isn't about recovery; rather it is on 
hopelessness at every level, the hopelessness of the addict and of laws and 
mores that collapse under the pressure of money. "How can Mexico's drug 
lords begin to match the resources of the United States?" one naif asks. He 
is abruptly stopped by the war-weary official who says the drug lords are 
ten times as powerful as their adversaries. What they have working for them 
is Americans willing to pay $50 billion for their products.

Recent figures advise us that hard-core cocaine users ten years ago 
numbered 3.5 million. The figure today: 3.5 million. The key question then 
becomes: How many of those who ten years ago used coke are still doing so? 
Some continue to use the drug, some are cured, and some are dead. What is 
the interrelationship between public policy and the incidence of cure? What 
would that 3.5 million figure be if laws against coke were relaxed? What 
would it be if the $20 billion now spent on deterrence were instead spent 
on therapy? Ten years ago heroin users numbered 600,000. Now it is 980,000. 
What was the drug czar doing that let that happen? Did we run out of money? 
Manifestly the heroin makers have not run out of money.

One does not sense, in the new administration, any dramatic insights on how 
to redirect policies that would seem to have failed. President Bush is not, 
by background or disposition, a natural leader for a dramatic change in 
policy. Yes, by all means reduce the demand. And yes, it would help 
prospective drug takers to see the movie, Traffic. On the other hand, it 
would be prudent not to view it repeatedly. That would make the viewer 
reach out for any drug in sight.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D