Umberg's new job

Tom Umberg is willing to listen. That's an important quality he'll need as
one of two deputy federal drug czars, should the Senate confirm his
appointment to that post.

Umberg is a former California assemblyman and in 1996 headed the
ClintonGoer campaign's landslide victory in California. His selection was
announced Wednesday.

He is opposed to drug decriminalization, he told us Thursday. "Would I be
willing to listen to arguments? Certainly. Information is always useful."

We pointed out that for more than 25 years an intensified "war" on drugs
has done virtually nothing to reduce the price and availability of illicit
substances. He replied: "One of the missions is to dry up the supply or
interdict the narcotics in the United States, so there is no supply
available in the marketplace here."

He favors greater efforts to stop drug production in other countries
including paying farmers to grow different crops.

His approach to the job: "I believe that right now drugs and the problems
caused by drugs are probably the greatest scourge on the American public."

It's certainly true that the "war" on drugs,like the war on alcohol during
Prohibition in the 1920s, has caused an upsurge in crime as gangs fight
turf battles and petty users and pushers are punished with jail. When
Prohibition ended in 1933, crime dropped sharply in America. The same could
very well happen if the "war" on drugs ended.

On several key questions he was reticent to give answers. He understandably
wants to save his major responses for his Senate hearings, scheduled for
this fall.

California Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, fellow Democrats of
Mr. Umberg,should begin preparing questions for him to answer, such as:

Last month a U.S. Marine corporal on a drug patrol along the Rio Grande
River in Texas killed an innocent teenager. What is his position on the
role of the military? Shouldn't it be reserved for military actions, with
civilian forces used for internal police matters?

When we asked the question, Mr. Umberg replied,"I can't opine on that."

Will you consider ending asset forfeitures, in which property is seized
without a trial or hearing?

Again, Mr. Umberg couldn't tell us much. "It's a very formidable tool that
most federal authorities recognize as a powerful tool in drug enforcement
and should not be wielded with reckless abandon," he said.

We look forward to Mr. Umberg's full responses to these questions and more
in the Senate confirmation hearings.