HUTCHININSON EMBODIES FUTURE OF WAR ON DRUGS

U.S. Representative Asa Hutchinsonís Third Congressional District
constituents are understandably absorbed with the maneuvering to
succeed him, as is the entire Arkansas political establishment. The
Democrats will have to produce a nominee and finance him or her
appropriately or sacrifice credibility, even though the districtís
political chemistry is such that the Bush Administration felt
comfortable in plucking a secure incumbent from a closely divided House.

Senate confirmation of Hutchinsonís nomination by the president to
become administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration will
likely be swift and the hearings that will precede the vote likely not
contentious. Hutchinsonís conduct as a prosecutor in the unsuccessful
impeachment case against President Clinton - a comparatively
dispassionate performance, compared to his House GOP colleagues - made
him a star in the Republican firmament and is not thought to have made
him unacceptable to Senate Democrats, and, besides, who among them
wants to defend Clinton now? In a Senate evenly divided by party,
Hutchinson is a cinch.

The hearings on Hutchinsonís nomination may, however, prove
interesting. They cannot not be for those with an itch to know more of
the administrationís plans for continuing the drug war first
proclaimed by President Richard Nixon when Hutchinson was a college
undergraduate. Estimates of the cost of the ìwarî vary and are subject
to budgetary vagaries; the expense of redirecting surveillance
satellites, for example, and how much time and resources were devoted
to interdicting narcotics by the Coast Guard, the Customs Service and
other federal agencies with jurisdiction overlapping the DEA's. One
computation of the bill, including both domestic and foreign
operations, exceeded $100 billion.

With some exceptions, each budget year has seen appropriations for the
drug war increase.

The DEAís budget now exceeds $1.5 billion annually, and its work force
has risen to more than 9,000 agents and support personnel in almost 60
countries.

Law enforcement assistance to drug-producing countries such as Peru,
Columbia and Mexico drive the price higher still.

Tougher sentencing laws have jammed American prisons to the rafters
and made correctional officer one of the fastest growing occupational
openings in the nation.

In little Arkansas, drug offenders are the driving force behind a
frightful expansion of a state prison system that requires hundreds of
millions of dollars each year to operate.

Governor Huckabee has insisted that alternatives to imprisoning
non-violent drug offenders is essential to curbing the almost
exponential expansion of penal expenditures, but the General Assembly
just concluded could find no money for such programs and could fund
but a fraction of the more than 2,000 additional prison beds for which
the correction department has a demonstrated need.

Mr. Huckabee is not alone.

Intelligent, reasoned people - Democrats, Republicans, liberals,
conservatives - have for years questioned the wisdom of continued
emphasis on interdiction as the nationís main defense against illicit
drugs.

In the economics of normalcy, the price of a product would
automatically rise should demand exceed supply.

And yet a series of otherwise stunning breakthroughs in enforcement -
the smashing of consecutive South American cartels, vastly improved
intelligence and surveillance techniques, the seizure of drugs in
mind-boggling quantities - the price of cocaine (including crack),
marijuana, LSD, crystal methamphetamine and even heroin continues to
fall.

The only significant blips on the demand side appear to coincide with
greatly intensified prevention programs targeted at the young,
including the very young.

To his credit, Mr. Bush has indicated a willingness to seek almost $2
billion in new drug education efforts. But history suggests that,
given a choice, policymakers will choose enforcement over education
every time.

There has to be both, Hutchinson said on the day of his nomination, a
reasonable enough position.

But Hutchinson also defended the conventional drug war, and its cost,
by suggesting that the nation would have been immensely the worse for
its not being pursued as in the past. This ìdrugs everywhereî defense
ignores the fact that, even with ever-increasing enforcement costs,
drugs are, well, everywhere.

The bureau Hutchinson is all but certain to lead is an enforcement
agency, but he would do well to spend time with veteran agents, many
of them disillusioned by the dynamics of the drug trade and the
failure of their efforts to do much more than episodically dent it.

Come to think of it, Hutchinsonís remarks in his confirmation hearings
may not be nearly as interesting as what he says when he eventually
steps down.