THE WAR ON DRUGS

JEFF GREENFIELD, HOST: Arkansas Congressman Asa Hutchinson today began
Senate hearings on his nomination to head the Drug Enforcement
Administration. If he's confirmed -- as he's widely expected to be --
how should he fight the war on drugs? And should we even think of it
as a war in the first place? The war on drugs tonight on GREENFIELD AT
LARGE.

Every war has a body count, so some numbers first. The official
government body count if you will, from the so called war on drugs:
Roughly one third of all Americans over the age 12 have tried an
illegal drug. An estimated 76 million have tried marijuana or hashish.
Ten percent have tried cocaine.

The U.S. has spent countless billions of dollars in this war funding
not just the DEA, but the office of the drug czar, local police,
correctional facilities, the military and overseas aid. By one
estimate, this country spends $9.4 billion a year alone just in
locking up some 458,000 nonviolent drug offenders.

Joining us now from Washington is U.S. Congressman Asa Hutchinson of
Arkansas, who is expected to be confirmed as the new head of the Drug
Enforcement Administration. Thank you very much for joining us
Congressman. Appreciate it.

This war on drugs goes back at least some 30 years in name. Right now,
according to one poll, three-fourths of Americans regard the war as a
failure, why?

REP. ASA HUTCHINSON (R), ARKANSAS: I think that's one of the obstacles
we have to overcome is to show how much progress we've made and give
the American people hope that we are making a difference. In fact,
drug usage is down from 20 years ago. The number of people addicted to
drugs is down. The number of teens experimenting with it is down.

This is because of our effort of our effort in this nation for
education as well as our law enforcement efforts. So I think there's
- -- the American people have a tendency to judge this problem
differently than other social problems. You don't have difficulty with
child abuse and say we're not making enough progress so let's throw in
the towel.

I think in our anti-drug efforts we have to have hope, we have to
realize we are making a difference in the lives of people and we are
making some great successes in it.

GREENFIELD: It may be early I realize, but what's the single biggest
difference between how you intend to approach this issue, the Bush
Administration, and the Clinton Administration's approach?

HUTCHINSON: I think we'll have to wait and see, but the President Bush
has certainly made it clear that he wants to look at new approaches.
He wants to be open-minded on this. He certainly believes in the
community coalitions and in increasing funding for the communities
that work together to fight drugs. He wants to involve parents in this.

I like to look at it as a great crusade where we show national
leadership. We have our communities involved, parents involved in this
because it's not simply a law enforcement problem but it's a national
problem that we have to deal with and we can make progress. I think
the president is showing great leadership on the issue.

GREENFIELD: One of the biggest debates you'll be facing is the idea of
incarceration and or treatment. Last fall California by a landslide,
61 to 38 percent passed so called proposition 36 which tells the state
for first or second drug offenses, no drug treatment. Good idea?

HUTCHINSON: We have to wait and see. We have to look at alternatives
when it comes to nonviolent drug users. I think that it should not be
something that's mandatory. The judges should have discretion on this.
I'm a advocate of drug courts, which mandate intensive treatment
efforts over a long period of time, close supervision, as an
alternative to jail for drug users and -- but I don't know that it
should be mandated in every case.

I think that the Judges should have some discretion there. But we will
have to wait and see how it works in California. There's a debate
going on. The Senate hearing today in which I was being questioned by
the Senators, a lot of expression about concern for more money on the
treatment side. I think that's a very balanced approach. I support the
law enforcement side but I think the treatment fits in with that
because many people do not seek treatment until they're confronted by
the law and are forced to go that direction.

GREENFIELD: Well which leads to my last and the most fundamental
question: People do all kinds of things that will harm themselves
because it feels good. They drink, we got 8 million alcohol dependent
Americans, they smoke, they eat rich food. Assuming they do no harm to
other people why should a free society tell an adult you could harm
yourself voluntarily with this mind altering substance but not that
one?

HUTCHINSON: Well because Congress and our state legislatures express
the moral viewpoint, the health of the citizenry and they've made
these determinations. When you look at substance abuse, it's not
something that affects an individual, it affects their children. And
whether there's child neglect, one of the greatest problems is
methamphetamine use and neglect of the children associated with it
because rather than thinking of family and community all you think of
is yourself or the next opportunity you have to do drugs.

It changes the values of society, destroys the community, destroys the
family, so it affects a much broader range and that's why our
legislature has spoken out against it.

GREENFIELD: Congressman Asa Hutchinson, the president's nominee to
head the DEA. Thank you for joining us. We hope you will stand by for
our next segment.

When we come back, some ground level perspectives on drugs in America
from best-selling author Jacquelyn Mitchard, Newark Councilman Cory
Booker and "PC M.D." author Dr. Sally Satel. And later a thought about
the woman who changed the world of journalism as she changed herself
- -- Kate Graham, coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GREENFIELD: We are back. We are taking a look at the war on drugs with
the help of syndicated columnist Jacquelyn Mitchard, Author of "A
Theory of Relativity" and the best-selling "The Deep End of the
Ocean." Dr. Sally Satel. She is the author of "PC M.D.: How Political
Correctness is Corrupting Medicine." She is also a staff psychiatrist
at the Washington D.C. Oasis drug treatment center. And Newark
Councilman Cory Booker, you have seen him here before. He is Newark's
youngest councilman ever. I'd like to ask each of you as you listened
to Congressman Hutchinson, what cheered you, what might have bothered
you what did you want to hear that you didn't hear -- Dr. Satel.

DR. SALLY SATEL, AUTHOR, "PC M.D.": I heard the second part of his
comments and they were actually very encouraging to me because he did
put a focus on treatment. That's what I do. I work with drug addicts
in Washington, D.C. In particular he mentioned drug courts. And drug
courts are a very important way of diverting nonviolent addict
offenders into treatment so they are not incarcerated. They get the
opportunity to complete this treatment and then the charges are
actually dropped.

But the reason why this is different from just plain old diversion,
because we used to send -- judges used to send addicts to treatment
all the time and they would walk out. But at drug court, the judge is
very much involved, there is a great deal of supervision. And there
are sanctions which are swift and certain but not sever. So, in other
words, if someone does use drugs or commits some sort of infraction
while in treatment, it's attended to right away with a minor kind of
sanction. The person can learn from it and the treatment proceeds. The
idea is to finish treatment, which very few addicts do. But if they
are mandated to treatment, they can.

GREENFIELD: The president has called this, and other people have
called this, I think the phrase is "coercive abstinence," which sounds
a little chilling. Is that what you are saying has to happen?

SATEL: Yes. Coerced abstinence refers to drug testing with sanctions
in the probational parole. Drug courts actually send people to
treatment, but both are coerced, coerced in that a choice is forced.
The choice is you can you stand trial and be adjudicated in a
traditional way, or you can go to treatment.

GREENFIELD: The congressman has said, Jacquelyn Mitchard, that we've
made progress, that there are a lot fewer drug users. Now, as a
parent, as someone who has seen this at ground level, is it your sense
that this generations is less intrigued by drugs than past?

JACQUELYN MITCHARD, AUTHOR, "A THEORY OF RELATIVITY": I don't think
they are less intrigued by drugs, but they are doing better in terms
of numbers than, for example, your and my generation who invented, you
know, substance abuse. But I mean, since -- in 1979, for example, I
think it was the National Institute of Mental Health said that there
were -- half of all kids would say they've had a drink or a smoke in
the last month, and that's down to about 19 percent. That's huge.
That's a great deal of progress.

GREENFIELD: As a parent, what is your sense of how your kids react to
this? We all have to have this conversation.

MITCHARD: I think -- I think that the behavior, while much talked
about and much bragged about, is actually far less prevalent than kids
would even have their parents believe. I think kids talk about it --
at least in my neighborhood -- more than they may actually do it.

What intrigued me about what he said at the end about this being a
national crusade -- yes, that's wonderful. It reminds me a little of
1,000 point of light. It sounds like a wonderful thing, but I can from
personal experience attest to the fact that coming from a family tree
that was floored with alcoholism, that you can be harmed just as
readily by parents who drink martinis as you can by parents who smoke
dope.

GREENFIELD: Cory Booker, you actually spent six month I guess in one
of the most drug-infested crossroads in Newark, literally living
there. From your perspective, do you see a victory or even victories
in the battles on this war of drugs.

CORY BOOKER (D), NEWARK, NEW JERSEY CITY COUNCIL: I don't. And it's
sort of like the Vietnam rhetoric, where people keep talking about law
enforcement, we keep on getting ourselves more entrenched in this war,
that is really just costing human life and not making us any --
getting any closer to our goal.

And my frustration is, as I have heard a lot of talk about treatment
programs, and I have heard a lot of talk about alternatives, like drug
court, but the reality is, they don't really exist, at least not in
communities like mine. We have a city where we five detox beds for the
entire city, for the largest city in the state of New Jersey.

GREENFIELD: Wait a minute, I want to try and discern this: five
facilities or five beds?

BOOKER: Five actual detox beds for a community. And I have an office
in a community that is besieged by drugs. I actually have addicts
coming into my office begging for treatment, and I call up to a
treatment center, and they will tell me there is a month wait, two
months wait, sometimes a six months wait for them to get in to have
treatment.

So, you know, I talk and work with drug dealers and work against drug
dealers, and I actually work with police officers on the grassroots,
and you hear -- and you talk to them, and they say, we arrest these
kids, they go into jail, they come out, and now they have an
addiction, they have a conviction, and they often have poor education,
and so what happens to them is they just get caught up in this cycle.

MITCHARD: So, that's not necessarily true that they have to get
arrested in order to ask for treatment?

BOOKER: No. I think that the treatment that's out there is good, but
there is not enough of it, and it needs to be more aggressive and have
more and more availability.

And the problem I have is, you have incarceration rates in this
country now that are outrageous. You have half a million Americans
right now incarcerated for drugs. And what's happening is, you aren't
really solving the problem by just throwing people in jail.

If you really want to make progress toward a problem, you start
looking at those figures and find constructive ways to deal with these
people when they're coming out of prison or at a point when they're
going into prison and helping alternatives, make available more
alternatives to incarceration.

GREENFIELD: Congressman, this is an opportunity for you to respond
directly to someone who has posed I think a challenge to policy from
the most grassroots level imaginable. Councilman Booker says great
theory, we don't have the treatment, and meanwhile you're locking up
almost half a million nonviolent offenders. I know you're not
confirmed yet, but (UNINTELLIGIBLE), it's not bad first immersion in
this issue. What do you say to the councilman?

HUTCHINSON: Well, I think that his emphasis is on treatment and that
right now, there is a treatment gap. There are more people in need of
treatment for drugs than there are available beds. I hope that we can
close that. The president wants to invest and to accomplish that. But
it takes resources.

The second part of it -- I think we -- it's a combination of the
treatment side, the education side, but also the law enforcement sends
the right signals to society, so I don't think you have to say that
that's not a part of the equation either. This is all-hands-on-deck
type of environment.

I do believe when you talk about the incarceration rate, right now in
the federal prison, 5 percent of those incarcerated on drug charges
are simple possession, only 5 percent. The vast majority are for major
trafficking offenses, and I think that's what our focus should be on.
In a state prison, the simple possession incarceration rate is up 27
percent, and I think it's fair to ask some questions, what is the
reason for that.

Again, we can look fairly at some alternatives for the nonviolent
offenders, concentrate on rehabilitation. Let's see if that can help
to reduce those people who are dependent upon this lifestyle.

BOOKER: I'm a little exhausted maybe by responses such as that,
because we talk about a lack of resources, but yet we as a nation --
maybe people know this -- are sending billions of dollars into
Columbia for crop eradication and other forms of interdiction.

So, we have billions of dollars to send into foreign wars, why can't
we find out ways -- more ways to invest in our communities, especially
when every study I have seen, done by on the right and on the left,
shows that things like treatment centers, things like job training
programs, things like drug courts cut usage and addiction rates more
than crop eradication and interdiction. The money is out there, it
just needs to be reinvested into our communities.

GREENFIELD: Are you going to take a look at that, congressman?

HUTCHINSON: Well, I think we all have to take a look at it. The city
councilman is certainly in a position locally to invest more funds in
the problems that he just addressed. At the national level, we have to
do the same thing.

I do believe that it's important -- parents are telling that one of
problems is the easy availability of drugs. Easy availability, that
tells me that the supply side has to be addressed as well. That's why
we are trying to stop the flow of drugs coming in, as well as
educating our children to make the right decisions.

GREENFIELD: Congressman Hutchinson, the soon-to-be I expect head of
the DEA, congratulations. I am not going to say deepest sympathy, you
have got a tiger by the tail with this issue. Thank you very much for
joining us. Appreciate it.

And when we come back, if our guests were the new head of the DEA,
rather than the congressman, what would they do to help win the war on
drugs? And what about the notion of not fighting this war at all? After this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. GARY JOHNSON (R), NEW MEXICO: Smoking marijuana in the confines
of your own home, doing no harm to anyone other than, arguably,
yourself, should that be criminal? I say that no, it should not be
criminal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GREENFIELD: Governor Gary Johnson, Republican governor of New
Mexico.

We are back, with best-selling author Jacquelyn Mitchard -- I was
going to get that T in if it killed me -- Newark Councilman Cory
Booker and "PC M.D." author doctor Sally Satel.

Pick up on what the governor said, and it's what I asked Congressman
Hutchinson earlier. He used things like people negligent their
children when they're on drugs, they neglect their kids when they too.
And they can die early if they smoke. What fundamentally is it about
drug use, as opposed to other kinds of harmful behavior, that require
coerced abstinence that may even requirement imprisonment?

SATEL: Well, I think tobacco -- you mentioned smoking -- that's very
different. Smoking is not an intoxicant. It doesn't impair one's
participation in a free society. So, I'm all for people being aware of
the dangers but certainly having the freedom to smoke.

The harder drugs, cocaine, heroin, metamphetamines, these are not
victim less crimes. I mean, imagine that people had easy access to
them. Obviously, we will have more people addicted. When we think
about legalization, we are really talking, in large part, about
trading a public health problem, perhaps for a criminal justice problem.

People feel that, well, if we legalize there wouldn't be black
markets, there wouldn't be the violence associated with that. We
wouldn't have the whole edifice of the expense of the criminal justice
system. But we would have more addicts and nobody really debates that
- -- we would.

And if we had more addicts, we'd have more social pathology, we'd have
more homelessness, because we'd have more addicts.

(CROSSTALK)

SATEL: Again, it's not limited to the person. Child abuse and
negligent is a huge problem with drug and alcohol. Homelessness,
unemployment these would all be our social pathologies and I'm just
not sure we would gain much in that tradeoff.

GREENFIELD: Do you accept, Jacquelyn, that distinction? That there's
something about drugs that doesn't apply to say, alcohol, which is an
intoxicant, can make people do bad things?

MITCHARD: I don't understand why a -- why drugs are singled out. It's
always been a question that I have had. I nursed my husband -- my
44-year-old husband through colon cancer until his death. By the time
he died, we had more marijuana in the house than Hunter Thompson does,
I'm sure, because his friends brought it over to him, and his doctor
encouraged him to use it to ease pain and stimulate his appetite.

And so, I don't see what harm that did a dying man. So I don't know
whether -- why having a glass of red wine along with his prescribed
morphine was different from having a puff of marijuana.

SATEL: You mentioned medical marijuana. And I think that's a
legitimate issue we should take more seriously. I do think that there
are a minority of folks who are -- have cancer, have AIDS, and did
benefit from the weight gain and from the anti-vomiting effect that
smoke marijuana can provide. We have so many other medications now
that can help and that are effective with fewer side effects, but
there will this small core of folks who just need the medical
marijuana. I would like to be able -- I would like to be able to make
that available to them.

I do think, though, that the people who are behind the buyer's clubs
and the legalization, rather the marijuana referenda, really do have a
larger agenda.

MITCHARD: A profit motive.

SATEL: No, I think they do want to see drug policy
liberalized.

GREENFIELD: Cory, Does this conversation -- I almost hate to put it
this way but i don't know any other way -- are we talking about two
fundamentally different societies when we talk about drugs? That is,
an inner city reality that is fundamentally different from suburban
reality?

BOOKER: First of all, let's just talk about the drug war and its
impact on urban communities. Black in this country make up about 12
percent of the population, 13 percent of the drug users, but they make
up 55 percent of the people convicted of drug possession, and 75
percent of those sent to jail for drug possession. There is a definite
urban impact on urban populations.

But let's get real here: we live in an interconnected society, where
black communities and white communities are tied more than you know.
And in my community, on drug corners, you see strings of white people
coming into our neighborhoods to buy drugs and to buy their wares. And
often stay within that neighborhood to shoot-up or to sniff or to
smoke and then leave their communities.

We had a young man in my city killed recently by a suburban kid coming
in to buy drugs. So we are all in this problem, and whether it's a
suburbanite using the drug or buying it from an urban person that's
selling them the drugs, it is really a community problem.

GREENFIELD: This topic is not going to solved or even necessarily
perfectly clarified in one session, which is why we will come back to
this.

For now, our time is up. I want to thank my guests, "A Theory Of
Relativity" author Jacquelyn Mitchard, Newark Councilman Cory Booker
and "PC M.D." author Doctor Sally Satel.

When we come back, a brief note about Katharine Graham, chairman of
"The Washington Post," who died today. That's after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GREENFIELD: "And Another Thing": nearly 20 years ago, I went to
interview Katharine Graham for a piece marking "Newsweek's" 50th
anniversary. To my surprise, I found her almost paralyzed with fear.
She was at the time the single most politically powerful woman in
America, a head of a huge publishing empire, courted and flattered by
would-be presidents. Surely, the prospect of a friendly interview
didn't really threaten her.

What I did not understand, I now know, is where she had come from:
daughter of privilege, wife of a charismatic mover and shaker, shaped
by her upbringing and the culture to stay in the background, to defer
to the men around her. Then, shockingly, her husband was dead by his
own hand, and by necessity, she now had to step forward, to exercise
authority in spite of a lifetime's habits.

She had to decide, with the Pentagon Papers and "The Post's" Watergate
reporting, to risk literally the very future of her newspaper. She had
to learn to hire and fire, how to say no, how to stir anger and
resentment. In short, to do all the things a man in her position would
do without a second thought.

She turned out to be pretty damn good at it, and a good enough
chronicler of her life and times to win a Pulitzer Prize for her only
book. Historians won't be able to write the modern history of
journalism without Katharine Graham. They won't be able to write the
modern history of women without her either.

I'm Jeff Greenfield. Tomorrow, documentarian Ken Burns. "SPORTS
TONIGHT" is next.