KEITH STROUP vs. ASA HUTCHINSON

CARLSON: When we return, is your teenager funding international terrorism?
If he does drugs, yes. That's the new message from the federal government
broadcast in Super Bowl ads last night. Is it fair? We'll ask the head of
the DEA. Back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I help blow up buildings.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My life, my body.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's not like I was hurting anybody else.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: That's what tens of millions of football watchers saw last night
when the Super Bowl went to a commercial break, new ads produced by the
White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. It cost $3.5 million to
run.

It's implication is clear. If you do drugs, you're supporting terrorism.
It's a message sure to resonate with a nation fighting terror at home and
abroad. But is it accurate? Are low level users really funding the bin
Ladens of the world? Or is the message merely heavy handed propaganda?

A smoking debate tonight. Joining us, Asa Hutchinson, head of the Federal
Drug Enforcement Administration and Keith Stroup, founder of the National
Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws -- Bill Press.

PRESS: Keith Stroup, I know you know I'm no fan of the war on drugs. But
let me talk to you about this ad. If your goal is to reach the largest
possible audience, particularly to reach young people and others who might
be customers or potential buyers of drugs, you want to get out a tough
message. You want to get the most bang for your buck, right, in television.

Now other than advertising on CROSSFIRE, of course, wouldn't you say that
the Super Bowl is a place to spend your money and this was money well spent?

KEVIN STROUP, NORML FOUNDATION: If it were true, if it were a campaign
based on facts and science, I might agree with you. But in fact, I think it
was a colossal waste of taxpayer money. Is there anyone who truly believes
that illicit drug use patterns in this country are affected even in the
slightest way by government propaganda?

If they were, frankly, after 65 years of reform ads of this government
propaganda, there wouldn't be any marijuana smokers left. And think for a
second what we could have used that money for to pay Headstart programs or
textbooks or women who need prenatal care.

Secondly it is absolutely inaccurate, considering 65 percent or two out of
three of all illicit drug users in this country are simply marijuana
smokers. Well, marijuana is primarily grown in the United States. It's
homegrown. And that that is imported comes from Canada, from Mexico and
from Jamaica. Those are not terrorist countries, Bill.

PRESS: But I think you missed the entire point of the ads, which was that
the connection between drug money and terrorism. You know, the Justice
Department has said that 14 of the 28 organizations identified as terrorist
organizations, which are active in this country, are funded by illegal drug
sales. So you may not know it, but when you're buying the joint, aren't you
in fact perhaps supporting a terrorist organization?

That was the message. Speak to that.

STROUP: But that is my point. That is an inaccurate premise. When you buy
marijuana, you are either supporting someone who grows it in this country
or in Canada or Mexico or maybe Jamaica. Those are not terrorist supporting
countries.

It's as if you blame beer drinkers during the 1920's for the violence
associated with Al Capone. It is -- this campaign is really an attempt to
demonize drug users. And they do it by trying to piggyback an unpopular
program, the war on drugs. 74 percent of the American public say it's a
failure. They're trying to piggyback it on a more popular program. And in
so doing, they are in fact demonizing drug users. So they don't have --
real quickly, so they don't have to justify whether these laws do more harm
than good.

CARLSON: OK, now director Hutchinson, I'm not for legalization. But I have
to say I think these spots are a waste of $3.5 million. So you know, you're
the average 11th grade dope smoker. And you see this on television. And you
think, they've told me that drugs fry my brain. They told me that, you
know, drugs are bad for my health, that drugs are bad for America. Now
they're saying that drugs help terrorism. It's going to be laughed right
off the set. They're not going to take this seriously, your target
audience. ASA HUTCHINSON, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATOR: Well, I think the
fact that we're here debating this issue shows that the ads work. The whole
design of an ad during a Super Bowl campaign is to provoke and debate in
America. Here, certainly, the ads were factual because it said that using
drugs might support terrorism.

Secondly, they're provocative, create a debate. If it causes one parent and
one teen to have a discussion about drug use, then I think it's certainly
worth it. Obviously the ads are the beginning of a campaign that John
Walters, OMDCP, is putting forth. It's going to have more ads, more debate
on this.

We had a symposium at the DEA, talking about the historic link between
terrorism and drugs. And that linkage is clear from history. It is very,
very current. And America understands that. And it could be a helpful means
for parents to show the risk, to discourage drug use.

CARLSON: Now I -- you know, this is no slur on John Walters, a terrific
guy, very smart, very capable person. But the ad itself is ludicrously
overdrawn. And I hope you'll agree. Look, if I said everybody who buys
goods made in China, and virtually everyone buys goods made in China, is
responsible for the totalitarianism in China, or for slave labor, or for
their policies towards inmates, you would say well that's not fair. The
average consumer isn't responsible for those policies. The Chinese are.

Terrorists are responsible for terrorism. Dope smokers are responsible for
smoking dope.

HUTCHINSON: Terrorists are responsible for terrorism. But at the same time,
we have to look at where they get their money. We don't speak in absolutist
terms. The ad refers to might support terrorism. The whole idea is to cause
a young person or anyone who uses drugs, to think, think about not only the
damage to yourself, the fact that it's illegal, the consequences of it, but
also the linkages.

Whether you talk about the Middle East, Colombia with the (UNINTELLIGIBLE),
whether you're talking about southeast Asia, you are looking at historic
links with terrorism. And in fact, the 20 some groups on the State
Department's terrorist organization list, almost half of them are linkages
to drug use. So it's something we have to think about.

PRESS: Well, let's get into this war on drugs here. Keith, I want to get
you back in just a second. I got to turn to the director here, because I'm
really glad you're in the position you are. Because I know what a
conservative you are. And I know as a conservative, you're opposed to great
big, bloated government programs that cost a lot of money and don't work.

Asa Hutchinson, we've been at this drug wear since 1980. And Nancy Reagan
said, "Just say no." We spend billions and billions of dollars on it. The
same amount of drugs are coming into this country. People are still using
them. There are new drugs on the market. Big articles in the papers about
it this weekend. Are you ready as a conservative to say here it is. One,
big bloated government program, cost a lot of money, doesn't work, pull the
plug, make history.

HUTCHINSON: Let me it answer it this way with the survey on household drug
use.

PRESS: 74 percent say it doesn't work.

HUTCHINSON: In the last 15 years, there's 9.3 million fewer regular monthly
drug users. That's 9.3 million fewer users. And so, that's the facts. Those
are the facts. Certainly we need to make more progress in this. But if we
can reduce drug use by 9.3 million overall, cocaine use in last 15 years by
75 percent, we're making enormous progress. And a lot of it comes because
of the ad campaign that Congress is funding $192 -- $180 million dollars
this year. And we get young people where they listen.

CARLSON: Now Keith Stroup, let me just ask you. There's a connection
between terrorism and drugs. And at least one, and it's come about this
way. With all the attention on American borders, it turns out a lot more
drugs are turning up. In the last -- between October and December, twice
the amount of cocaine was seized at the U.S.-Mexican border as the year
before. That's a good thing, isn't it?

STROUP: Well, no, I would not say it's a good thing. I think...

CARLSON: The cocaine should have come in the United States?

STROUP: I think drug prohibition is a failed public policy, regardless of
how many Super Bowl ads Mr. Hutchinson...

CARLSON: But was it a good idea to seize the cocaine or should it have gone
through?

STROUP: It's fine to seize the drugs. The mistake is to treat the drug
users as criminals. They are not. If in fact they have a problem, it's a
medical problem. We need to provide help.

Prohibition wastes an enormous amount of law enforcement resources that
should be focused on serious and violent crime. It invites government into
areas of our private lives that totally inappropriate.

And number three, it's sadly destroys the lives and careers of literally
hundreds of thousands of genuinely good citizens every year in this country
for no good reason.

PRESS: Gentlemen, the drug war may not be over, but it's over now at least
for this part of the show. Keith Stroup, thank you for joining us. Sorry
we're out of time. Congressman, I still want to call you Asa Hutchinson.

HUTCHINSON: Thank you.

PRESS: Good to have you back on CROSSFIRE. And next, shifting gears. Do you
realize you're getting fat? And you're paying for it? When we come back,
Tucker and I are going to tell you all about the fat in the president's new
budget. Get ready to pork out.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)