THE POLITICS OF POLLING

Lobbying, Not Science, Drives Clinton
Administration Flip-Flop On Drug War

Clinton Administration flip-flops are nothing new, but Newsweek
investigative reporters Michael Isikoff and Gregory Vistica recognized
that there was something fishy about drug czar Barry McCaffrey's
sudden enthusiasm for a $1.3-billion military aid package for Colombia
to fight cocaine and heroin production.

McCaffrey is probably the most Clintonesque figure in the
administration, barring the President himself.

He tells each audience what it wants to hear, regardless of whether it
contradicts what he has told others.

For example, just before his appointment in 1996, he told the Heritage
Foundation how much he supported interdiction (perhaps unsurprising,
given that he was former commander of U.S. forces in Latin America).
In a speech, he said that drugs aren't "a tough problem like AIDS or
racism or poverty." His reasoning? "We know where the drugs are grown,
we know how the international money laundering system works.

We know a lot of the names of the people who are involved and we are
after them."

After he became drug czar, McCaffrey suddenly became a supporter of
addiction treatment. In an interview with Bill Moyers, conducted in
1997, he said: "We're spending $17 billion a year to lock up 1.6
million Americans. We're willing to pay $23,000 a head to keep them in
a cell. We've got to develop the political will to spend the money
needed not only on prevention programs but on effective drug treatment
in the criminal justice system and follow-up care."

McCaffrey even questioned the idea of a war on drugs. "If it's a war,
then how come we didn't win it?" he asks Moyers, adding, "Who's the
enemy?

Where's the general to give us a top-down concept to lead us out of
this morass?

And eventually, do we achieve total victory?

I think the metaphor starts to break down. In some ways it may be more
useful to view it as a cancer affecting American society."

While McCaffrey never suggested giving up on interdiction or
punishment, he and other administration officials frequently and
consistently gave lip service to the idea that policy should focus on
demand, rather than supply reduction.

This was never reflected in budgetary priorities, however, and the
Newsweek story gives one indication why.

Defense contractor Lockheed Martin recently paid for a poll, conducted
by Democratic pollster Mark Mellman, which showed that a majority of
the public believes that drug use is rising and that Democrats, not
Republicans, are likely to get the blame.

The poll was made available to the Clinton Administration and to
Congress.

Lockheed Martin makes aircraft used in operations against drug
smugglers, and one way for the Democrats to appear as tough on drugs
as the Republicans, it suggested, was to send military advisors and
equipment into Colombia to try to cut off the supply. According to
Newsweek, Lockheed Martin gave $1.8 million to various campaigns to
support its efforts.

Other major lobbyists for the $1.3 billion aid package include
Occidental Petroleum, which is heavily invested in Colombia; and the
Colombian government, which hired an important Washington law firm to
press its case. Helicopter manufacturers, who stood to gain heavily
since much of the $1.3 billion proposed would be spent on these
vehicles, gave members of Congress free rides and demonstrations as
well as major campaign contributions.

However, not one study has ever shown that interdiction has any effect
on the drug supply in the long run. It occasionally causes short term
interruptions as smugglers route around the area of enforcement
intensity, but, as McCaffrey's recently released annual report from
the Office of National Drug Control Policy shows, the prices of
cocaine and heroin have steadily fallen despite a 62 percent budget
increase in spending on law enforcement and interdiction since 1993.

While occasional teen drug use has decreased, rates of regular use
(daily and weekly) are at or near the record highs measured in the
late '70s and early '80s, when the entire federal drug control budget
was just $1.5 billion.

Between then and now, drug-related deaths doubled, while the drug
control budget increased 1,300 percent. And yet, McCaffrey told
Congress, "For those who say this is a war, we are winning."

Polling on drug issues generally reveals strange results.

For example, the Journal of the American Medical Association printed
an analysis of surveys on drug policy from 1978-1997. It found that,
typically, 94 percent of the public believed that the drug problem was
not under control, 78 percent believed that anti-drug efforts are
failing and 58 percent did not believe that the drug problem has
improved despite massive budget increases.

Nonetheless, 66 percent were willing to pay more taxes to continue the
same policies. The options receiving the most support were longer
prison sentences (favored by 84 percent), more prevention education
(favored by 93 percent) and increased police funding (87 percent). The
Lockheed-financed poll shows similar results here.

However, polling on drug policy shows extraordinary sensitivity to the
wording of questions. For example, 48 percent in the JAMA study
supported "U.S. aid to farmers in foreign countries not to grow drug
crops," but only 14 percent supported "aid to foreign governments to
fight drug traffickers."

Once respondents are told that a Rand study found that $1 spent on
treatment was worth $7 spent on incarceration or interdiction, support
for treatment increases.

But the Lockheed poll, like previous polls, found little support for
treatment when no other information was given.

Only 23 percent said that it was the most important way to deal with
the drug problem, while 38 percent said that keeping drugs out of the
country was. This, despite almost overwhelming support and evidence
for the effectiveness of treatment amongst policy experts and in
research, and almost none for the efficacy of supply-reduction efforts.

What this shows is that an uninformed public will support policies
that lobbyists, politicians and others sell them. Journalists bear
some responsibility for this state of affairs. By not providing
accurate information about the effectiveness of various policy options
- - and by refusing to be skeptical about most anti-drug initiatives -
they ensure that drug policy continues to be based on politics, not
science.