THE DRUG WAR: TOUGHER THAN EVER, STILL A BUST

by Joshua Wolf Shenk (*)

The International Herald Tribune, October 31, 1996

WASHINGTON - Bob Dole calls President Bill Clinton's drug policies "soft" and "liberal," a betrayal of what he says is the successful legacy of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush. In fact, the Clinton administration has taken the Republican drug war to soaring new heights of draconian ineffectiveness.

To see the distance we've travelled, consider the remarks of President Reagan in an Aug. 1, 1986, interview, published in his presidential papers. When asked if he supported mandatory drug testing for federal employees, Mr. Reagan replied, " I have great concerns. " He said that, except for employees like air traffic controllers and federal agents who carry guns, he would rather see a voluntary program."

Should drug users go to jail? "No," he replied. "I think we should offer help for them." Should drug dealers be executed? Mr. Reagan said that while he favored it personally, such a proposal would "divide our ranks" and "would be counterproductive."

The contrast between these comments and President Clinton's positions are extraordinary.

"Our message should be simple: No drugs or no driver's license," the president said in asking that all 16 and 17 year olds be tested for drugs before getting a driver's license. The administration has talked about cutting off welfare mothers and imprisoning parolees who fail drug tests.

On the campaign trail, Mr. Clinton has bragged that his 1994 crime package expands the death penalty for drug dealers. And his latest budget for anti-drug efforts" is $15.1 billion, compared with $4.7 billion in 1988.

That President Clinton is more severe on drugs than President Reagan shows the narrow prism of ideas that make up the drug war. When the get-tough policies don't work, invariably the response has been to get even tougher:longer mandatory prison sentences, broader interdiction efforts and more money for law enforcement. We heard such calls' from both parties after the Department of Health and Human Services reported that marijuana use by teenagers had risen by 141 percent and that overall drug use, had nearly doubled between 1992 and 1995 despite big spending increases on interdiction and law enforcement.

The alternatives to the get-tough strategies, meanwhile have never really been tried. During the 1992 presidential campaign, Mr. Clinton promised drug treatment on demand. Yet while 67 percent of this year's anti-drug money is going to interdiction and law enforcement, federal spending on treatment has increased only slightly in his administration. And there has been little or no federal support for programs that distribute clean needles, supply methadone to heroin addicts and provide counseling for addicts at a high risk of contracting. AIDS and other diseases.

Still, Mr. Clinton is accused of being "soft" on drugs, and he responds as if he believes it. So the cycle continues, as politicians endorse harsh punishments and shortchange strategies that might make a real difference.

(*) The writer is a correspondent for The Economist. This article was distributed by New York Times Special Features.