COMING TO A THEATER . . .

Talk about harebrained. Anti-drug czar Barry McCaffrey's new plan to
"work closely with major studios" to ensure that movies spotlight the
dangers of substance abuse won't do anything to rein in drug use. It
will, however, stomp on the free-speech rights of Hollywood writers
and directors and divert taxpayer money to companies that don't deserve it.

McCaffrey's plan, outlined to Congress Tuesday, will use a small part
of his $18-billion annual budget to reward studios that produce films
showing characters harmed "as a consequence of their decision to use
drugs." It is the latest installment in a billion-dollar,
taxpayer-funded media campaign that McCaffrey says has succeeded in
exposing the average American teenager to more than eight paid
anti-drug advertisements each week. Is that how he measures success?

A better yardstick is McCaffrey's own statistic showing that the
number of illegal drug users age 12 and over has not fallen in the
United States since he stepped up media spending in 1996.

Here's another statistic: Last year, McCaffrey spent $178 million
taking out anti-drug ads, most of them on television. The ads are
nicely enriching broadcasters and allowing them to cut the number of
money-losing public-interest spots they are supposed to air.

Ultimately, what's most troubling about McCaffrey's idea of
"leveraging" federal dollars to get studios to depict the "risks and
consequences" of illegal drugs is the degree to which it treads on
creative freedom.

The financial incentives in the media drive are vague but may include
publicly funded promotions for films that, to use McCaffrey's words,
"communicate Campaign messages." Whatever the incentives, this is an
intrusive program.

Would the government ask the producer of James Bond movies to show 007
in traction in the hospital after every reckless car chase?

McCaffrey would be better off using his huge budget to support
anti-drug programs that work. For example, he could beef up
school-based drug counseling and ensure that all states have mandatory
treatment for drug users.

In most states, especially California, there is a huge gap between the
number of drug abuse prevention programs needed and the number of
programs available.

Gen. McCaffrey, would you rather a would-be addict watch
no-no messages in movies or have access to swift and effective
treatment? And why should we even have to ask such a stupid
question?