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.