A NEW STRATEGY

Expert: War On Drugs Should Shift Focus

Are America's streets any safer since the "War on Drugs" was declared
in the 1970s? Government officials say yes, there's been tangible
progress; those who live in drug dealers' neighborhoods would say a
resounding no.

Are our children less exposed to drug culture? Quite the opposite is
true if you talk to students in Southern Tier schools. Many say they
could buy any illegal drug they wanted through connections at school.
Tier preteens are becoming addicted to cocaine, crack and heroin.
Gang culture, supported by the sales of illegal drugs, is becoming a
more visible presence in Greater Binghamton.

You can't argue that federal money hasn't been put into this effort.
According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, in 1995
$7.04 billion was spent on preventing and treating drug abuse. By
2004, that amount rose to $11.7 billion.

But what have taxpayers reaped for those billions of dollars spent?
Have they been put to effective use?

An Expert's Opinion

Michael Levine would argue no and he has a theory: It's a failure
because the focus is on the wrong part of the drug equation. And
Levine knows what he's talking about. The downstate resident is a
highly decorated former agent with the Drug Enforcement Agency who
did undercover work on international trafficking at the highest
level. He's also fought drugs on the streets of New York City and
Cape Cod, among other places and is the author of the New York Times
nonfiction bestseller "Deep Cover."

In his book "Fight Back -- How to Take Your Own Neighborhood Back
From the Drug Dealers," Levine shifts the focus from the drug dealer
to the user, who he calls pejoratively the "druggie." It's simple
business principles at work, he says. Without demand, there would be
no need for more supplies brought in.

For the past eight months, local community activist Michael Bonventre
has been trying to get the community, elected officials and law
enforcement to give Levine's Fight Back plan a work. The official
response has been lackluster, but some people who have been fed up
with the conditions of their neighborhoods have gotten involved and
seen results. On 46 streets, Bonventre says. The trouble is, Fight
Back is not a try it once, succeed and then relax type of program. It
is successful only if it is embraced communitywide, and if the
citizens are willing to stay involved for the long haul.

Just think what the benefits of that commitment could be -- lower
crime, less violence, safer streets, business development and, with
cleaned-up communities, population growth -- all are things Greater
Binghamton could use.

To get from point A to point B is not easy, though. As Levine writes
in his book, it involves changing the long-held mindset that the
druggie is a "hapless victim." He says "it is the druggie who is
victimizing us. It is he -- not the drug dealer, the smuggler, the
Medellin Cartel, or all the Manuel Noriegas of this world -- who is
responsible for the spread of drug abuse."

Personal Interest

Levine explained to me why this fight is so personal for him. "I lost
a brother to drug addiction and a son who was a New York City cop
killed by drug addicts during an armed robbery. I wanted a 'cure' for
our drug problem that would have saved both; that cure IS Fight Back.
I still offer the same challenge I did when the book was first
published (1991): Give me one community -- the worse the better --
where the citizens, the media and the police are willing to work
together in following the step-by-step plan of Fight Back and I
guarantee the end of the drug problem within one year."

China and Japan both battled drug abuse problems in their pasts,
Levine notes in his book. But they succeeded in getting the situation
under control because they targeted the users, forcing them into
rehabilitation. They realized "that they did not have a drug
epidemic; they had an epidemic of druggies." Levine says that "each
nation's 'cure' was based on the premise that once you effectively
isolated the demand for drugs (druggies), supply (dealers) would
quickly disappear -- 'demand reduction' in its purest form."

This concept was reinforced to him as he witnessed efforts to rid a
Manhattan neighborhood of drug dealers. Levine kept watch from a
basement apartment as deals were conducted next door. Cars were
double parked outside the next-door apartment as customers knocked on
the door and told the dealers what they wanted to buy. On cue,
undercover cops swooped in and arrested the dealers. As soon as they
put the dealers in their cars and drove away, though, Levine saw four
new dealers arrive to set up shop in the same apartment.

First Experiment

Levine asked his bosses to let him try an experiment. Instead of
arresting the dealers, he planned a sting in which the customers --
mainly "yuppies" -- were arrested. This proved effective because most
were worried about how their arrests would affect their families or
jobs. Drug dealers, on the other hand, "factor in arrest as part of
the cost of doing a very lucrative business," Levine wrote.

Once word got out to the druggies that this neighborhood was not
safe, Levine wrote "I saw one of the rarest sights ever seen in the
streets of New York -- drug dealers and no buyers."

The success of that experiment inspired Levine to create his Fight
Back program. It involves citizens working with law enforcement and
leaders to get the message across to drug users that they are not
welcome in their neighborhoods.

I told Levine about the rise in gang tags and graffiti around Greater
Binghamton -- even in the "nicer neighborhoods" -- and asked whether
it is wise to remove them immediately.

"The Fight Back tactic of posted warnings, volunteers with
surveillance cameras trained to film and identify violators from
observation posts, and arrests, will do wonders," he said.

Bonventre lent me a copy of Levine's book to read. It was republished
last year after Bonventre's efforts renewed interest in the Fight
Back program across the country. Upon reading the paperback, you see
the program makes a lot of sense.

Truthful Depiction Needed

Levine not only focuses on this problem from the local level. He
thinks it's important on a national level to depict the druggie in a
realistic light. That's something Hollywood should do, instead of
making films that glorify drug use.

In Levine's opinion, school programs in which cleaned-up
rehabilitated users address the students miss the mark. And that's
especially true when the rehabilitated user is a celebrity. It has
the opposite effect -- it glorifies the druggie. It depicts the
person as someone who has his or her act together. That's misleading.

Levine says druggies should be depicted "convulsing and vomiting on
themselves in detoxification wards; or staring vacant eyed on the
benches of intake centers and emergency wards. That is what being a
druggie is really all about, and that is what we should want our kids
to see and understand."

Social Introduction

Most people are introduced to drugs in a social setting -- usually by
a friend, Levine writes. Often, that happens as an early teen. This
is precisely the time that kids have to be ready to defeat the "Hey,
it's only pot" type of come-ons.

"Parents and educators must attack the image of a druggie in such a
way that he is the last thing in the world a child would want to
emulate," Levine wrote. The student who stands up to drug pressure
should be held up as an example. The girl who got involved with gangs
but left after refusing to become an addict should be given an audience.

I expressed my concerns to Levine about the reticence of some leaders
to admit there is a gang problem here in Greater Binghamton. He
replied that "Ignoring the gang problem is fine for those who are
unaffected. For those who live in a gang-infested area, it is like
ignoring cancer. Sooner or later, it's gonna hurt you or your family
directly. So, sure, for the mayor it may be no problem, and it may
affect few enough voters that it's not even a political problem. That
reaction is typical, unfortunately, of many politicians, and one of
the main reasons we still have -- in spite of more than a trillion
dollars in taxpayer dollars spent in the past three decades -- a
monstrous drug and gang problem. By the way, virtually all gang
activity is centered around the drug economy."

Levine told me "Fight Back will work in ANY community setting. All
that is needed are a core of citizen volunteers ready to be trained
and a committed police force willing to train and work with them."

In the forward of his book, Levine mentions some communities that
have used Fight Back: Barnstable County, Mass.; Sacramento, Calif.,
and Natchez, Miss. (Bonventre has introduced the Fight Back program
to the Tri-Cities area in Tennessee -- Kingsport, Bristol and Johnson City.)

I asked if the meth user presented more concern to citizens in the
Southern Tier. Levine said "Statistically, wherever there is a
visible drug problem, all the ugly statistics -- homicides,
robberies, commercial crimes, drive-bys, etc. -- all skyrocket. Take
the business/buyer out of the equation."

According to Levine, "druggies are incapable of the most basic forms
of honesty, trust, morality and loyalty." Their need to maintain
their habits is ruining the streets of our hometowns.

Why should we let "druggies" win? Why should we pay the cost for the
crime, graffiti and gangs they attract? Does the form of street-side
terror they draw affect us any less than what al-Qaida perpetrates?
Isn't it time for Greater Binghamton to fight back?