Taking defeat from victory in drug war - Column

0 Comments | Insight on the News, Oct 18, 1993 | by Carol Hallett, | William J. Olson

It is inevitable perhaps that a new administration should seek to discuss its lack of drug policy by attacking earlier programs. Lee Brown, the Clinton administration's new drug czar, has promised Congress a new national strategy, but the administration has yet to articulate a coherent policy to guide him. Meanwhile, Congress and others are chipping away at the antidrug effort that he is expected to lead.

A recent National Security Council study purports to show no results from military support of border interdiction, detection and monitoring efforts by the previous administration. While it is hard to prove any government program has returned direct rewards for the investment, it is difficult to see exactly how the council and others who support this view reached their conclusions. It is clear that there has been significant progress in reducing drug use in the United States and that there have been real advances overseas in curbing drug trafficking kingpins and interdicting air and surface drug shipments into this country.

Illegal drug use in the United States is going down. The annual National Household Survey released recently by the Department of Health and Human Services shows that the trend begun in the 1980s is continuing. The number of drug users is down 11 percent from just a year ago. The number of cocaine users dropped 31 percent just in 1992. Indeed, for every category of user, except among hard-core addicts, use of all illicit drugs is down. But, to paraphrase an old saying, no good deed goes unpunished.

What you hear instead is the constant refrain that the war on drugs is a failure. The result is a movement, particularly in Congress, to cut significant funding for the antidrug effort. The administration is largely silent, although even its most recent budget reduces overall funding for antidrug programs. It is Congress, however, that is leading the retreat. Recently, without any hearings on the question, the House cut $48 million, roughly 30 percent, from the State Department's international antidrug efforts.

There is an effort to cut even more from law enforcement programs, while actual spending on treatment and education may well far below current levels.

There is also an effort to cut the Defense Department's support for law enforcement. The military never was meant to be the sole instrument in reducing drug use or controlling the flow of drugs to the United States. It was intended only as a component, but it contributed to making law enforcement efforts more effective. Now, however, the proposal is to cut that funding.

The result is a process that threatens to dismantle piecemeal key components of programs that have dramatically reduced drug use in this country -- the main consequence being to gut law enforcement programs, chiefly interdiction efforts. Although the need for more treatment often is given as the justification for the reductions, Congress has also consistently cut treatment slots. Congress has also begun to eliminate international interdiction, slashing foreign programs. This ignores the commitments made to our friends, our successes in developing a coalition approach to dealing with international trafficking, and the clear links between the international movement of drugs and the quality of life in the United States. Why, when we are making progress, is the reaction to call a retreat?

This country developed a major drug problem because drug use became socially acceptable and efforts to control it were delegitimized in the sixties and seventies. The result was an epidemic. Now, after considerable sacrifice and thousands of casualties, we have begun to restore common sense. This was achieved through a comprehensive effort combining meaningful law enforcement, expanded treatment and focused public and private educational efforts that together reversed a trend which was undermining the social fabric and ruining countless lives. But we will not be the first to be undone by success.

The approach that seeks to pit law enforcement against treatment programs sets up a false dichotomy, that our antidrug effort must be an either/or proposition -- treatment versus law enforcement. Worse, the sentiment that these cuts and shifting priorities broadcasts is that drug activity is once again to be considered a victimless crime with no legal consequences. This does far more damage than just the reductions in funding. It undermines resolve in those who are on the front lines and it sends a mixed signal to potential users. The only people who can take solace from this are drug traffickers.

Domestic and international interdiction efforts offer the only means to attack the dangerous drug trafficking cartels that so menace U.S. society and fragile, struggling democracies abroad.

A recent survey of high school students confirmed the downward trend in drug use among the nation's young, but it also noted a disturbing possibility. The clear signal that society has been sending about the dangers of drug use that so helped to change attitudes is becoming unclear and unfocused. Youngsters who have not yet entered high school, a critical group for preventive programs, are in danger of not getting the strong, socially reinforcing signal to help them say no to drugs.