Misplaced Funding Priorities

EDUCATION, NOT INTERDICTION, WILL WIN THE ANTI-DRUG WAR

THE 1999 Household Survey on Drug Abuse delivered both good and bad news to
President Clinton's drug czar - and to Virginians.

Retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey is quick to point out that nationally,
"Teen drug use is down significantly for two straight years, and the survey
clearly shows that our drug-prevention efforts [among teens] are working."

But the new data also confirm that drug use among adults has gone up, and
that victory on the home front is still a long way off.

For the first time since 1971, the survey provides state-level data. In
Virginia, as many as 45,000 of the state's 12- to 17-year-olds used an
illicit drug during the 30 days preceding the survey date. Among the
18-and-older population, 219,000 Virginians are estimated to use drugs.
These numbers are a stark reminder of the tragic human side of the drug war
being fought within families and in the workplace.

The survey raises public-policy questions, too. If McCaffrey is eager to
take credit for the success of his prevention programs, why isn't he
working harder to shift federal resources from his failing
drug-interdiction efforts along our national borders and into the
underfunded - but big payoff - teen-prevention and adult-treatment programs
within Virginia?

For decades, massive drug-interdiction efforts on land, on sea and in the
air have failed to cut the flow of drugs into the United States. If these
efforts had been successful, drug prices would have been driven up. In
fact, according to federal studies, U.S. street prices for cocaine and
heroin went down during the 1990s.

Yet, since 1990, two-thirds of the annual federal drug-control budget has
funded interdiction and law-enforcement actions. This year, a whopping $12
billion of $18 billion is being spent on cutting the supply of drugs,
leaving only $6 billion for demand-reduction and prevention programs.

Why do demand-reduction programs like teen education and adult treatment
continue to be shortchanged by Washington?

First, American policy-makers want to show visible evidence that they are
doing something - even if that something has little to do with solving
actual problems. Public officials earn more kudos putting tax revenues into
highly visible, short-range, get-tough law-enforcement efforts rather than
funding less-visible, long-term teen-education and adult-rehabilitation
programs.

The media reinforce this trend. We are not likely to read about, or see on
the televised news, coverage of the opening of a local drug-treatment
facility. But an account of a shootout at sea in which the Coast Guard
seizes a drug-laden ship headed toward Miami gets good play. The result:
The American people receive a skewed view of what a sound drug policy ought
to look like.

In addition, the historical division of labor between the 50 states and the
national government drives federal policies toward an action-packed
drug-interdiction strategy. Protecting our international borders is a
traditional function of the federal government. States, on the other hand,
are expected to focus on education and social welfare. As long as our drug
policies are set in Washington, we are destined to repeat past mistakes and
cling to the current ill-fated national approach to the problem.

And as long as Congress is willing to back a national drug policy that
trades the promise of long-term success for the appearance of short-term
gains, an interdiction-dominated strategy that has filled our prisons will
continue to beat out a humanitarian drug strategy based on helping hometown
men, women and children with well-funded education and services centers.

The strategy to stop drugs from entering the United States is doomed.
Victory will be won on the state and local fronts, in Roanoke, Newport News
and Fairfax. It is here that Americans can learn to free themselves from
their dependence on drugs. Once the hometown demand for drugs is cut off,
the supply lines from Colombia and elsewhere will dry up.

Let's stop wasting billions each year on a drug-interdiction strategy that
simply does not work. It's time for the drug czar to put his money where
his mouth is. It's time cost-effective drug-prevention and treatment
programs get the financial backing they deserve.