BENNETT'S FUZZY DRUG-WAR VICTORY

With President Bush's appointment of John P. Walters to the office of
national drug czar, drug warriors are playing two different roles -- both
of cheerleader and defense attorney. Ecstatic that one of their own is
spearheading national drug policy, they cheer. Prosecuted in the court of
public opinion, they brush up their Perry Mason impersonation.

One such counsel for the defense is former drug czar William J. Bennett,
whose May 15 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal puts it plainly: "The new
'drug czar' is being asked to lead the nation's war on illegal drugs at a
time when many are urging surrender."

How many? According to a Pew Research Center survey cited by Bennett, 74
percent of Americans believe the drug war has bombed.

"And yet," says Bennett in a statement that would be surprising coming from
anyone but him, "recent history shows that, far from being a failure,
drug-control programs are among the most successful public policy efforts
of the latter half of the 20th century."

Get real, Bennett.

Only if you compare drug policy to the colossal failure of social programs
like welfare can that statement be even remotely accurate -- it's easy to
be a winner when surrounded by bigger losers than yourself -- but even this
is giving antidope efforts far too much credence.

The failures of the drug war are obvious: destruction of First, Fourth and
Fifth Amendment rights, swollen prison populations and lives needlessly
endangered and lost.

The successes, on the other hand, are far less clear and far more dubious.

"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," writes Bennett, then questioning, "Why is this record
described as a failure?"

Easy. Those numbers are bunk.

Every year, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
conducts the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse to estimate the use of
illegal drugs and monitor trends in their use over time.

The survey, in which randomly selected households are asked to answer a
questionnaire about whether or not they've recently used any illicit drugs,
has one obvious flaw -- one which amazingly few people have bothered to
highlight and one which anyone with a college data-analysis or stat class
should know: You can't ask people honest questions about their illicit
behavior and expect honest answers.

Michael Fumento pointed out as much in an Oct. 10, 1996, Sacramento Bee
column throttling ABC News anchor Peter Jennings for taking results from
the 1994 NHSDA at face value. "[W]hen questions are asked regarding illegal
actions or even actions that are just frowned upon," says Fumento, "the
persons surveyed often don't tell the truth."

Now add to this fact one more variable, and you'll see why Bennett's
victory is so hollow. Seems obvious that if people tend to lie when their
behavior is looked down upon, they really lie when their behavior is
heavily looked down upon. During a national crackdown on drugs, my money is
on even marginally smart people not openly admitting drug use - which, as
reflected in the numbers, would appear as if a decline in use had occurred.

The same is true for the other half of Bennett's argument. With lax drug
enforcement in the Clinton years, drug use went up, according to the
numbers. Or was it people just more willing to admit they use drugs?
Especially since Al Gore and Clinton both acknowledged use in the past
themselves.

With heavy drug enforcement under Reagan and Bush Sr., the numbers are low
- -- because survey respondents figure they might get hammered if they fess
up. With Clinton, the numbers are up -- because enforcement is lax, people
don't feel as threatened if they admit use.

In other words, Bennett's "most successful public policy efforts of the
latter half of the 20th century" is an illusion.

It's reasonable to conclude that more people were using drugs "during the
most intense period of antidrug efforts" than admitted it.

And just in case Bennett can't tell the difference, that's not success --
that's denial.