THE POINT WITH GRETA VAN SUSTEREN

Is the Drug War a Lost Cause?

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, HOST: Tonight on THE POINT, the Oscar-nominated
film "Traffic."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "TRAFFIC")

MICHAEL DOUGLAS, ACTOR: Where the hell are the drugs? Where are they?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAN SUSTEREN: Just how close is it to reality?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ERIC STERLING, CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY FOUNDATION: The availability
of drugs to teenagers has never been easier. The prices of drugs in
the street are as low as ever. The purity is greater than ever.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAN SUSTEREN: Tonight's POINT: the drug war -- fact and fiction.

We take you behind the cameras and to the front lines of the war on
drugs. Is this a winnable war? Or a lost cause?

Plus, your thoughts on the Clintons, and their persistent pardon problems.

ANNOUNCER: THE POINT. Now from Washington, Greta Van Susteren.

VAN SUSTEREN: Tomorrow makes five weeks since Bill Clinton left
office. And who would have thought we'd still be talking about his
last-minute pardons?

Just today, there was another round of people denying they did
anything improper: among them, Roger Clinton and Hollywood producer
Harry Thomason. It's what most of my e-mail is about.

But before we get to that, let's dig into an issue that's been in the
news even longer.

Tonight's "Flashpoint": The drug war -- fact and fiction. To begin,
we asked CNN's Deborah Feyerick to help sort things out. (BEGIN
VIDEOTAPE)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "TRAFFIC")

CATHERINE ZETA-JONES, ACTRESS: The doll is high-impact,
pressure-molded. It's odorless, undetectable by the dogs,
undetectable by anyone.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): "Traffic," a
front-row seat to America's drug war. But who's winning?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "TRAFFIC")

MICHAEL DOUGLAS, ACTOR: We're going after their top guys.

MIGUEL FERRER, ACTOR: Your government surrendered this war a long time ago.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FEYERICK: Fantasy, or fact?

STERLING: It is realistic in the kinds of confusions that exist in
law enforcement. It's realistic in reminding us that the majority of
American drug users are white.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "TRAFFIC")

DOUGLAS: Where the hell are the drugs? Where are they?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FEYERICK: The blockbuster movie, nominated for five Academy Awards,
highlights key challenges in America's war on drugs: vast borders,
government corruption, and an endless stream of heroin and cocaine.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "TRAFFIC")

FERRER: We hire drivers with nothing to lose and throw a lot of
product at the problem. This has worked for years.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GENERAL BARRY MCCAFFREY, FORMER DRUG CONTROL POLICY DIRECTOR: The
U.S. demand for drugs is an engine sucking these drugs through Mexico
with their corrosive corrupting power on Mexican institutions. We
also have got -- we've got to face up to Colombia: 80 percent or more
of the cocaine in America originated in or transited through Colombia.

FEYERICK: Colombia, with U.S. money, is now trying to wipe out coca
crops. And Mexico has promised to crack down on drug-related
corruption. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We've got a runner. Go, go.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FEYERICK: The U.S. spends $19 billion a year fighting drugs. Critics
say throwing money at the problem hasn't solved anything.

STERLING: The availability of drugs to teenagers has never been
easier. The prices of drugs on the street are as low as ever. The
purity is greater than ever. By all the measures that are important,
we're failing.

FEYERICK: But has the government run out of ideas, as "Traffic's"
drug czar finds out?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "TRAFFIC")

DOUGLAS: Right now, on this flight only, the dam is open for new ideas.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FEYERICK: America's real-life former drug czar says that's not the
case, and he believes America's strategy is paying off.

MCCAFFREY: We're finally giving the Customs Service, the Drug
Enforcement Administration, the U.S. Coast Guard and the Border
Patrol the tools they need to do their job. We're seizing literally
hundreds of tons of these illegal drugs.

FEYERICK: And yet, even McCaffrey concedes, it's a fraction of what gets in.

(on camera): How much street value does this have?

COMMANDER BERNARD KERIK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE: Street value? It's
about $250 million.

FEYERICK: How many boats come in like that?

KERIK: Well, who knows?

FEYERICK (voice-over): Bernard Kerik, once an undercover drug agent,
is New York City's police commissioner. He says keeping drugs out of
the country is not the only problem.

KERIK: A lot of the drug operations have gone indoors. And now it's
even harder for the undercovers, for the narcotics personnel because
they've got to infiltrate inside.

FEYERICK: Although the U.S. is increasing what it spends on treating
the addicted, there are still 5 million hardcore drug users. Some say
we've got nothing to lose by making drugs legal.

STERLING: But if we reduce this problem, let's say by 50 percent,
that's more progress than we've had under our prohibition strategy.

MCCAFFREY: When it comes to my children, my employees, my community,
my school, it's a very different viewpoint. We're never going to
legalize drugs in America.

FEYERICK: So can we win this so-called "war"?

KERIK: Everybody has a difference of opinion whether it's a winnable
war. But it's a war we can't stop fighting.

FEYERICK: Deborah Feyerick, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

VAN SUSTEREN: Three guests join me to discuss fact and fiction in
"Traffic," and in the real drug war.

In Los Angeles is Democratic Representative Maxine Waters. Also in
Los Angeles is one of "Traffic's" executive producers, Cameron Jones.
And in New York is former U.S. Customs Commissioner and onetime New
York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. He was one of the
consultants for "Traffic."

Welcome to the three of you this evening.

CONGRESSWOMAN MAXINE WATERS (D), CALIFORNIA: Thank you.

VAN SUSTEREN: Congressman Waters, first to you: Is it getting better
or is it getting worse?

WATERS: I don't see any improvement. Drugs...

VAN SUSTEREN: Does that mean worse?

WATERS: Worse. Drugs are devastating communities all over America.
Not just in inner cities -- suburbia, rural communities. And this war
on drugs has not made a dent at all. We're throwing billions of
dollars, as you have shown, into the so-called "drug war." And we are
filling up our prisons with most of these offenses being drug
offenses. We're not rehabilitating, and so nothing is really
happening to get rid of drugs in our society and drug addiction.

VAN SUSTEREN: OK, Congressman Waters.

WATERS: Yes.

VAN SUSTEREN: What is the single biggest failing in our drug policy?

WATERS: The single -- single biggest failure, I believe, is a lack of
commitment to rehabilitate, to prevent. I think that we have failed
on prevention and rehabilitation.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, Cameron, you're the executive producer for
"Traffic," a movie I saw, which I can describe only as disturbing. I
want to know, how much research went into this movie to make it
realistic?

CAMERON JONES, FILM PRODUCER: Well, Greta, an incredible amount of
research was done beginning in 1997 when the writer of the
screenplay, Steven Gaghen, the director, Steven Soderbergh, the
producers, Ed Zwick, Marshall Herskovitz and Laura Bickford really
began the screenwriting process with the research process.

And Steven, Steven in particular talked to hundreds of experts in the
field: law enforcement officers, individuals with personal experience
with drug addiction treatment and prevention. And we feel that the
film, due in no small part to the efforts of wonderful consultants
like Ray, accurately reflects a lot of what's going on, on the front
line of this war.

VAN SUSTEREN: Ray, when I describe the movie as disturbing, what I
meant is not that it was a bad movie -- it's a fascinating movie --
but rather that it stopped me in my tracks when I watched it. How
about you? Is this realistic? Is this what's going on?

RAY KELLY, FORMER CUSTOMS COMMISSIONER: No, I think it was extremely
well-done. And it was and is a very realistic portrayal. I think it
showed the complexity of the problem. Certainly there are no simple
answers. I think it portrayed the frustration that law enforcement
officers on the front lines experience every day, and the dangers as
well. And I think it showed the potential of the problem reaching in
to virtually any family in America.

So, yes, I think it was realistic, I think it was well-done. I take
some issue with what Congresswoman Waters said. I think there has
been progress. I also, I don't like the metaphor of it being a war.
But I can tell you...

VAN SUSTEREN: What would you describe it as?

KELLY: I -- it's a huge social challenge that we have. And we have to
approach it certainly in a more effective way than we've done in the
past. I don't think that means reducing our interdiction or law
enforcement efforts. I think it means increasing...

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, what does it mean, though?

KELLY: It means increasing our efforts as far as prevention and
treatment are concerned. We have to reduce the demand in this
country. We can't blame other countries, other poor countries,
Colombia and Mexico. If it wasn't for the demand here, we wouldn't
have the problem. We wouldn't have 500 metric tons of cocaine coming
into the United States last year, as the -- as the estimate was.

VAN SUSTEREN: Congressman Waters, how do you decrease the demand for
drugs when it seems it's just flooding our borders and coming in and
more and more people are using? It seems rather hopeless, at least to
me, to try to decrease demand?

WATERS: Well, I think that's very important. We must decrease demand...

VAN SUSTEREN: How do you do that?

WATERS: We must also have interdiction efforts also.

How do you decrease demand? I think we have to put a lot of money on
the front end. We have to have real drug prevention, education in our
schools. Families have to be empowered to talk about it, to deal with
it, to help young people to understand how to stay away from it
rather than just kind of throwing these messages at them and having
these public service messages at 3:00 a.m. in the morning on
television that nobody is seeing.

I think we have to invest real money, particularly in our schools and
working with our families.

And I do believe we have to do as the people are doing: putting these
propositions on the ballot like proposition 36 in California, where
we simply could not wait on the legislators. The people came together
and they put an initiative on that would divert people away from the
criminal justice system, give them an opportunity at rehabilitation,
give them two tries. And we put -- voted in $121 million in order to
run this system.

VAN SUSTEREN: Ray, when I look at the drug problem and I think of
young people who are sort of trading and selling drugs on the street,
they have a choice. They can either work for minimum wage, or they
can make lots of money. When there's so much money, people are
driving around in expensive cars, I mean, how can you possibly
compete with the financial attraction?

KELLY: Well, you're right, that's the issue, and that's why you have
to reduce the demand. You have to reduce the number of customers. And
I agree with Congressman Waters: We need much more attention in the
schools at a much earlier age.

I think there's a lot to be learned from the Head Start program,
which focuses on very young children, age 3 to 5. I think right now
our drug prevention programs in the schools are focused on the fifth-
and sixth-graders. I think, quite frankly, that's too hold.

Head Start has been a successful program since 1965. Parents, by the
way, don't like this notion in many communities that you -- you treat
- -- you teach young people about the danger of drugs at a very early
age. They don't want the -- the issue to be raised at all before them
at all.

But I think this is the type of new idea that we have to -- we have
to put forward, because demand reduction is the ultimate key. We're
never going to arrest our way or seize our way out of the problem.
We've got to reduce the demand for drugs right here in America.

VAN SUSTEREN: Cameron, are you surprised by the reaction to "Traffic"?

JONES: Well, Greta, we're certainly very pleased with it. We wanted
to make a movie that stood on its own feet, on its own merits
artistically. We also wanted to make a movie that was both thoughtful
and thought-provoking. And from the very beginning of the process, we
were really gratified by the degree to which people are eager to
participate in the dialogue that "Traffic" raises.

One of the things that some of the other filmmakers have commented on
is the very first public screening of the picture, a test screening
where a test audience was seeing an early version of the film and
then asked to fill out a questionnaire about it. And it really felt
like an essay being written in some classroom. For nearly 20 minutes,
a very diverse group of Americans in Texas sat down and wrote as if
they were being asked for the first time how they felt about the war
on drugs.

So we're not surprised, but we're very gratified by the degree to
which the film seems to have opened up a dialogue on what's obviously
a very important issue.

VAN SUSTEREN: OK. We're going to take a quick break. My guests and I
will continue our discussion when THE POINT returns.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "TRAFFIC")

UNIDENTIFIED ACTRESS: Caroline clearly used very bad judgment, but
don't you think spending the night in jail is punishment enough? I
mean, we've all had our moments. Lord knows I tried every drug there
was known to...

MICHAEL DOUGLAS, ACTOR: Oh, stop. I don't want to hear about that.
You experimented when you were in college.

UNIDENTIFIED ACTRESS: Can we take the quotes off experiment and call
it what it was?

DOUGLAS: This is different.

UNIDENTIFIED ACTRESS: Why?

DOUGLAS: Because she's 16 years old.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAN SUSTEREN: Welcome back to THE POINT. We've just seen another clip
from the movie "Traffic." We're discussing the war on drugs: the way
it's portrayed in the movie and the way it really is.

My guests, Representative Maxine Waters of California, "Traffic"
executive producer Cameron Jones and former U.S. Customs Commissioner
Ray Kelly.

Ray, in the movie, they talked about corrupt police forces and
particularly in other countries. How bad is the corruption of foreign
police forces and how much of a problem is that for us?

KELLY: Well, it's a major problem in Mexico, there's no question
about it. The new president, Vicente Fox, has acknowledged that and
has pledged to address it aggressively. But clearly, that is a
problem for U.S. law enforcement interacting with law enforcement in
Mexico.

(CROSSTALK)

VAN SUSTEREN: And so how does -- how does -- how does U.S. law
enforcement, how does Customs know we're dealing with a police law
enforcement officer in Mexico, whether they're dealing with a good
guy or a bad guy.

KELLY: Well, with -- with great difficulty. And there's been an
attempt on the part of the Mexican government to vet special units,
to do background investigation, more thorough background
investigation. U.S. law enforcement has helped in that regard. But
it's still a major challenge. And again, the movie highlights the
fact that there is a huge corruption problem in Mexico.

VAN SUSTEREN: Representative Waters, some people think that
legalization may help win the war on drugs. Of course, Ray doesn't
like it called that. But whatever this problem is, what about
legalization?

WATERS: I've not come to that conclusion. I don't understand yet how
legalization will do what I think we need to have done.

I do believe that the investment in young people at very early age
holds out far more hope for me than legalization. I feel that to the
degree that we cannot not only impact young people, but interact with
families and work with families so this is as much a part of the
education in the family as learning to read is with most families --
I think that's the way to go about dealing with this.

And I do think we have to change the drug-sentencing laws. I think
this lock-them-up-and-throw-the-key-away policy does not work for
smalltime drug dealers and people who are, you know, the victims, and
they are basically addicted to drugs.

I think they should spend more time going after the big drug
traffickers and not letting them get off, and stop spending so much
time on these kid who may be stupid, but don't deserve to be locked
up federal prisons for five years for one rock of crack cocaine. .

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, let me -- let me ask you about a human rights
report, which is about 8 months old, but nonetheless is the best
number I could come up. He says 482 of 100,000 African-Americans are
in prison for drugs. Compare that with 36 of 100,000 white Americans.
482 versus 36. Why is that?

WATERS: Well, I'll tell you why: We have too much of the law
enforcement concentrated in these poor communities trying to catch
these low-level crack dollars instead of concentrating on how we can
get the big drug traffickers. And so you have these kids with no
defense. They have mandatory minimum sentencing. A judge has no
discretion: a terrible, wrong-headed policy. Instead of judging this
child, judging this family and dealing with first-time offenders in
ways that will help get them away from the criminal justice system,
we're down in these poor communities targeting and profiling African-
Americans and people of color, and using a tremendous amount of the
taxpayers' dollars instead of doing the real criminal work of busting
the big guys.

VAN SUSTEREN: Cameron, does Hollywood have any blame? Expand it
beyond "Traffic." But should Hollywood take any blame for sort of
glamorizing the use of illegal drugs? And do you see any sort of
value sort of flipping it the other way and making it a very
unglamorous thing to do?

JONES: Well, I think certainly the entertainment industry as a mirror
has some responsibility for any distortions in reality that's
presented to the entertainment consumers. I think one of the things
that we've been trying to do as a group on "Traffic" -- and frankly,
there are a lot of other filmmakers addressing issues in the same way
- -- is really focus on what we can do to focus attention in particular
ways.

For example, Representative Waters has been speaking, I think very
eloquently, about procedural and administrative solutions to this
problem. But one of the things this movie is really about is the
personal face that the war on drugs has in many contexts.

We're all involved. We're involved as voters, as taxpayers, as users,
as buyers, as friends of users and buyers. And it's very difficult to
take a look at the war on drugs as the abstraction I think it is too
often presented as.

In doing the research for this film, we came into contact with the
fact -- over and over again, that all these people are people. The
people who are buying the drugs, the people who are selling the
drugs, the people who are strapping on bulletproof proof vests to try
to catch the buyers.

And one things we've tried to do as filmmakers is make the point that
in addition to the programmatic solutions, that public servants like
Representative Waters are trying to focus on, in addition to the
policy reforms that Ray and his colleagues, as law enforcement
officers, are trying to focus on, we can, all of us, address this
issue as human beings.

We can remember that this is a problem, ultimately at some level, for
families, and we can focus on it there.

VAN SUSTEREN: And which raises the issue, and let me go to you on
this, Ray, is that -- and I hope that this is a correct quote from
the director Steven Soderbergh, but -- at least I read a quote where
he said, "When it's your family, it's a health care issue. When it's
someone else's family, it's a criminal issue."

What do you make of that quote?

KELLY: I think it's a great quote. I think it's right on target.

People generally want law enforcement to be tough on crime, tough on
drugs until it's their family or their neighbor. So -- and that's
part of the complexity of the challenge that law enforcement faces.
And I think that's one of the issues that the movie highlighted so
well.

There are no easy answers here. And you saw in the movie, with the
new drug czar's daughter being involved -- again, potentially, this
can strike every family in America. No easy answers...

VAN SUSTEREN: Yes, and, as I was going to say, there's no easy
answers. I was going to say the same thing you were.

But unfortunately, we've run out of time for our discussion. Many
thanks to my guests tonight, Cameron Jones, Maxine Waters and Ray
Kelly.

Next: it's your turn, I'll read some of your comments about the
Clinton's pardon controversy after a quick break and our "MONEYLINE"
update.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VAN SUSTEREN: Clinton pardon controversy is keeping my e-mail box
stuffed, and your opinions make for very interesting reading.

A viewer in Ohio writes: "As far as the Clintons are concerned, you
can choose your friends, but you can't choose your relatives." I
guess that goes for all of us.

Here's an opinion from Missouri: "I believe that historical judgment
of the Clinton years will be that it was a period in which the
majority of the American people were willing to trade decency,
ethics, morality, even the rule of law for economic prosperity."

Now, a different take from Larry in Florida: "All this pardon
nonsense is nothing more than a Republican attempt to legitimize a
fraudulent presidency."

Here's a counter-point: "When is the Democratic Party and 40 percent
of the American electors are going to see the Clintons for what they
are? Crooks! They just go from one 'flimflam' scam to another..."

Another Florida viewer wonders: "What would the media, the
Republicans, the Religious Right, and the professional, well-paid
conservative 'think tanks' do if the Clintons were to disappear
suddenly? You people all need to relax and get a life. The world will
be here tomorrow (hopefully)."

And finally, this: "The only disgrace about Clinton's pardons is that
he did not blanket pardon the thousands of vital young adults who
languish in jail under misguided minimum sentencing requirements for
first-time soft-drug offenders."

To let me know what you think, send an e-mail to askgreta@cnn.com.
That's one word, askgreta.

I'm Greta Van Susteren in Washington. Have a great weekend.

And next, golfer Tiger Woods is the guest on "LARRY KING."