TASK FORCE RELAUNCHES WAR AGAINST DRUGS

WASHINGTON -- Upset with what they say has been five years of absent
leadership on the drug issue, House Republicans yesterday are announcing a
task force designed to "recommit" the nation to the war on drugs.

"We have the will to make it happen," said Rep. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., who
was designated chair of the task force by House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Gingrich and his 32-member task force will kick off their effort in a "War
on Drugs Deployment Ceremony" on the Capitol steps yesterday afternoon.
With school groups, grass roots organizations and anti-drug coalitions
assembled around them, they will announce a strategy that includes 14 bills
aimed at reducing drug supply and demand both in and outside the country.
Each bill will target a specific area, from schools to highways to public
housing.

"We have the extraordinary heavy weight of an engaged leadership that is
prepared to completely focus on this in the House," said Rep. Porter Goss,
R-Fla., a task force member who chairs the House Intelligence Committee.
"The Clinton administration is not going to do it. We're going to do it."

Such bravado traces back to the Kennedy administration in 1963, when the
president's Advisory Commission on Narcotic and Drug Abuse called for the
appointment of a special authority "to initiate immediately a more
aggressive action in the national interest."

In 1975, the Domestic Council on Drug Abuse Task Force "urgently
recommend(ed) that the federal government reaffirm its commitment to
combating drug abuse."

In 1988, The White House Conference for a Drug Free America issued a report
saying, "America is at war. We may lose this one ... We are in nothing less
than a fight for our national life, and we must commit ourselves to success."

Many other reports have been issued, groups formed and laws passed in an
effort to fight the so-called war on drugs. Despite such efforts over 35
years, the urgent rhetoric about drug abuse is the same, leading critics to
suggest the government has failed to fulfill its directives.

"Up until now, I find that, generally, the leaders of the federal
government have been unable to face the facts in regard to drugs," said
Arnold Trebach, a professor at American University who has studied drug
policy in the United States and other countries. "The science goes one way
and the policy goes the other way."

Studies show that drug treatment, rather than tougher sentencing measures,
is the most cost-effective way to reduce drug use and drug-related crime.
Treatment, however, makes for "soft" public policy.

"What's disappointing is that the momentum has never changed. There's been
no ability to step back and say, 'This didn't work,' " said Jonathan
Caulkins, an associate professor at Carnegie Mellon University's Heinz
School of Public Policy. "It's very hard for legislators in general to step
back from tough incarceration politics."

In his studies at American University, Trebach said he's found that the
level of drug use in America is not at all tied to government policies.

"Drug use rises and falls totally independently from government
intervention," he said. "Its triggers are sudden, stylistic decisions by
millions of individuals. It comes and goes like the hoola-hoop."

Statistics suggest that, among youth, drugs are back in fashion. According
to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, fewer teens perceive drugs
such as marijuana, crack and cocaine as harmful, and increasing numbers of
them are using them at younger ages.

"Since serious measures of the drug problem began in the late '70s, a lot
of these indicators have never been worse," said John Walters, former
deputy director of the office. "The acceleration of use (among youth) has
never been more rapid."

Also troubling to some is the growing movement to legalize certain drugs
such as marijuana for medical purposes, adding to the perception that such
drugs are acceptable.

"There's never been quite as well-funded and quite as powerful a push for
legalization," Walters said. "Use, supply and public attitudes are quite
heavily moving in the wrong direction."

To that extent, Congress and the president can play a symbolic, if not
legislative, role, by raising general awareness, Caulkins said.

"The bully pulpit can play a role," he said. "Role models who shape our
children's views are more likely to send the message that drugs are bad if
they're quite aware of the problem."