Pubdate: Tue, 15 May 2001
Source: Wall Street Journal (US)
Copyright: 2001 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Contact:  http://www.wsj.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/487
Author: William J. Bennett
Note: Mr. Bennett is co-director of Empower America and co-chairman 
of the Partnership for a Drug-Free America. He was director of the 
Office of National Drug Control Policy under President George H.W. 
Bush.

THE BUSH AGENDA

Don't Surrender

The drug war worked once. It can again.

George W. Bush recently announced the nomination of John P. Walters 
to serve as the director of the Office of National Drug Control 
Policy. The new "drug czar" is being asked to lead the nation's war 
on illegal drugs at a time when many are urging surrender.

The forms of surrender are manifold: Buzzwords like "harm reduction" 
are crowding out clear no-use messages. State initiatives promoting 
"medical marijuana" are little more than thinly veiled legalization 
efforts (as underscored by yesterday's 8-0 Supreme Court ruling 
against medical exceptions). The film "Traffic" portrayed the war on 
drugs as a futile effort. In a recent survey by the Pew Research 
Center for the People and the Press, 74% of Americans believe the war 
on drugs is a failure.

And yet recent history shows that, far from being a failure, 
drug-control programs are among the most successful public-policy 
efforts of the later half of the 20th century. According to a 
national drug survey, between 1979 and 1992, the most intense period 
of antidrug efforts, the rate of illegal drug use dropped by more 
than half, while marijuana use decreased by two-thirds. Cocaine use 
dropped by three-fourths between 1985 and 1992.

Why is this record described as a failure? For those who would 
legalize drugs, all drug-control efforts must be painted as 
disastrous. But for most Americans, frustration with the drug issue 
stems from the fact that over the past eight years we have lost 
ground.

During the Clinton administration, our nation's drug policy suffered 
a period of malign neglect. President Clinton's two clearest 
statements about illegal drugs were his infamous statement "I didn't 
inhale" and his immediate and dramatic cut in the size of the federal 
antidrug staff. Morale and political leadership were both 
compromised, and a national cynicism about drug use resulted. Hiring 
a four-star general may have fooled the public and the Washington 
press corps for a while, but it didn't add up to a meaningful 
program. To paraphrase Arthur Miller, attention was not paid, and the 
problem quickly worsened: Between 1992 and 1999, rates of current 
drug use--defined as using once a month or more--increased by 15%. 
Rates of marijuana use increased 11%. The situation was far worse 
among our children: Lifetime use of illegal drugs increased by 37% 
among eighth-graders and 55% among 10th-graders. We have reached the 
point where more than one-quarter of all high school seniors are 
current users of illegal drugs; indeed, rates of monthly drug use 
among high school seniors increased 86% between 1992 and 1999.

We must re-engage this fight. What we were doing in the 1980s and 
early 1990s--vigorous law enforcement and interdiction coupled with 
effective prevention and treatment--worked. It can work again.

The most important component of any antidrug strategy is prevention. 
Children who reach the age of 21 without using illegal drugs are 
almost certain never to do so. The Partnership for a Drug-Free 
America has crafted some of the most memorable and effective 
advertisements in history, encouraging children to turn down illegal 
drugs. The message that drug use is dangerous and immoral is the 
essential key to prevention.

In addition, we must continue to develop effective treatment 
programs. Many criticisms have been leveled at America's lack of 
treatment capacity, but more troubling is the lack of treatment 
efficacy. However, 12-step programs (akin to Alcoholics Anonymous) 
have been shown to be both inexpensive and effective in 
private-sector drug treatment. Hopefully, their success can be 
extended to public-sector treatment as well.

Everyone agrees on the necessity of effective treatment and strong 
prevention efforts. Some people, however, believe that law 
enforcement should have no role in the process. This is an altogether 
simplistic model: Demand reduction cannot be effective without supply 
reduction. It is true that there will always be a supply of illegal 
drugs as long as there is a demand. But forceful interdiction can 
help to increase the price and decrease the purity of drugs 
available, a critical means of intervening in the lives of addicts, 
who can only beg, borrow and steal so much to support their habit. 
Government reports document that recovering addicts are more likely 
to relapse when faced with cheap, plentiful drugs. Aggressive 
interdiction efforts, then, are not supply reduction so much as the 
first step in demand reduction.

Some people will admit that there is a place for law enforcement, but 
contend we spend too much on this effort, to the detriment of demand 
reduction. In fact, according to Robert DuPont, who led the nation's 
antidrug efforts under Presidents Nixon and Ford, there has never 
been as much federal money spent on prevention education as is being 
spent today. The U.S.'s total spending on drug-demand reduction far 
exceeds the amounts spent in the rest of the world combined.

A more pragmatic point: While treatment is often centered at the 
individual and local levels, interdiction and law enforcement must be 
federal responsibilities. Given the scope and complexity of drug 
trafficking, the federal government can and must assume the 
responsibility for stopping the traffic of drugs across and within 
our borders. The drug czar's first concerns, then, must be 
interdiction and law enforcement, if only because they are tasks no 
other agency can perform as effectively.

I believe that the position of drug czar ought to remain at the 
cabinet level, but more important is the president's personal support 
and commitment to the office. I had that backing, and I expect the 
new drug czar will enjoy that same support and commitment from Mr. 
Bush. If Mr. Walters is to have any success, he must enjoy it. The 
past eight years are, once again, illustrative: Gen. Barry McCaffrey 
never enjoyed that support from President Clinton. In renewing the 
drug war, the new drug czar will not be alone. He will be able to 
draw on the assistance of people--parents, teachers, substance-abuse 
counselors, clergymen and elected officials--who have continued to 
fight drug use over the past eight years. These groups are our first 
lines of defense; without them, the regression since 1992 would have 
been far worse. Their dedication gives the lie to the gospel of 
futility.

I look forward to America re-engaging in the war on drugs--and 
continuing the success that we had between 1980 and 1992.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Josh Sutcliffe