UTAH A DRUG OASIS, IF YOU BELIEVE THE FEDS

Political Label Designed To Bring Pork-barrel Funds, Not Reflect Reality

"Welcome to Utah, you are now entering a federally designated
drug-trafficking region."

While you may never see this highway greeting at the state line, in 1996,
the president's drug war director in Washington, after consultation with
the state governors, officially declared Utah and two other Rocky Mountain
states, a "high-intensity drug-trafficking area." Utah? A major
drug-trafficking area? What's going on here?

States bordering Mexico, as well as New York City, northern New Jersey and
south Florida, have long been gateways for illegal drugs entering the
United States. But in the last 10 years the federal drug war has extended
its reach from coast to coast and far inland, into places one would never
expect to find "high-intensity" federal drug enforcement activities.

In 1990, all or part of only seven states, including 21 percent of the U.S.
land area and 36 percent of its population, were federally declared
"high-intensity drug-trafficking areas." Today, 40 of the 50 states,
encompassing two-thirds of the country's land surface and 90 percent of the
American population, have been designated HIDTAs. Federal money, federal
agents and a federal view of how to fight America's drug problem -- a view
emphasizing drug interdiction over treatment -- are spreading into state
and local communities across America.

The 10 states not yet declared drug-traffic areas are: Delaware, Oklahoma,
Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Minnesota
and Montana.

A "threat assessment" is used to determine if a state will be awarded the
high-intensity drug-trafficking label. If an area is a center of illegal
drug production, manufacturing, importation or distribution, if its local
officials are willing to aggressively tackle the drug problem, if the area
is having a harmful impact on other areas and if an increase in federal
resources is needed -- then the award is made.

Each HIDTA is "governed" by an executive committee made up of eight federal
and eight state or local members. To join federal-state-local drug
interdiction efforts into a seamless whole, this body coordinates drug war
actions, shares information and uses its annual federal budget to fight the
drug threat. This year the Rocky Mountain HIDTA budget is $8.5 million,
compared to $46 million for the Southwest border HIDTA.

What's wrong with this picture? Is the Rocky Mountain HIDTA actually a
public-relations effort disguised as a law-enforcement project? Do all
Rocky Mountaineers live in a high drug-trafficking area? Of course not.
Will $8.5 million spread across three states make a big difference?
Probably not.

The HIDTA looks a lot like what folks in Washington call political
engineering. To keep the political support of 535 members of Congress
behind the drug war, the HIDTA program makes sure people in every corner of
the country think they have a big drug problem. These voters will, of
course, call for action. Local elected representatives can then come to the
rescue pointing to the HIDTA program as proof they are responsive to the
drug menace.

But the real risk at the local level is that the HIDTA program promotes
Washington's now discredited get-tough drug interdiction philosophy. During
the 1990s, we learned that massive land, sea and air interdiction efforts
can't stop the supply of foreign drugs flowing into the United States.
Instead, curing the demand for drugs here at home is the more promising
drug control strategy.

Rather than waste $8.5 million on a bureaucratic coordinating committee
eager to support an outdated drug control strategy, the funds would be far
better spent building and staffing drug-treatment facilities to help
citizens rebuild their lives and reduce the demand for drugs.

While protecting our international borders from invaders is a traditional
function of the federal government, the states traditionally focus on
education and social welfare. Free to use their resources as they see fit,
state and local officials are far more likely to conclude the drug war will
be won by building treatment centers, not looking for a more expensive
mouse trap to catch drug traffickers.

In the end, the HIDTA program grants the federal government a license to
get tough not just in the hard-core drug regions like Miami and Southern
California, but just about everywhere else as well. That is the most
worrisome part of all.

Ronald Fraser of Burke, Va., writes on public policy issues for the DKT
Liberty Project, a Washington-based nonprofit, civil liberties research
organization. E-mail him fraserr@erols.com.