KANSAS CITY DRUG FIGHTING TAX ENCOUNTERS ORGANIZED OPPOSITION

Jackson County, Missouri, which includes Kansas City and its suburbs,
is the home of the nation's only local sales tax specifically
dedicated to fighting the drug war. The Community Backed Anti-Drug
Tax, or COMBAT, raises between $18 million and $20 million each year,
with the funds collected going to treatment programs, a drug court
program and law enforcement. First approved in 1989, voters renewed
the tax in 1995, and it is up for a vote again on August 5.

The tax is supported by a formidable coalition of law enforcement,
prosecutors, treatment providers, the Kansas City Council, and the
city's only newspaper, the Kansas City Star, which editorialized in
favor of it Tuesday. Supporters of the tax argue that the drug court
it supports has a 90% success rate, that it has enabled the teaching
of the DARE anti-drug education program in school districts throughout
the county, and that it has helped reduce drug abuse in the area.

But not everyone is buying that. Two distinct groups came out last
week in the first organized opposition to the COMBAT tax. Jackson
County Taxpayers, a fiscally conservative group, attacked the tax as a
waste of taxpayer money, and a group actually called Organized
Opposition to the Jackson County Anti-Drug Tax sees the tax as an
extension of a drug war it does not support.

"The reason we're against this is simple: It doesn't work," said
Robert Gough, director of Jackson County Taxpayers. "We're the only
county in the United States with a drug tax and we've spent a
quarter-billion dollars in 14 years. You would think Jackson County
would shine, but it's not particularly drug free," he told DRCNet.
"Law enforcement loves it, of course; they say 'hallelujah, it's
working,' but all this lock-'em-up stuff isn't working. It also funds
D.A.R.E., and many people think of it as the D.A.R.E. tax, but
D.A.R.E. doesn't work either. There isn't a single study that shows
D.A.R.E. grads were any more drug free than other kids. D.A.R.E. is
nothing more than police officers doing behavior modification therapy
on our children."

The Organized Opposition to the Jackson County Anti-Drug Tax is more
directly against existing drug policies. "Our opposition to this tax
is a critique of the drug war, yes, but the drug war isn't on the
ballot," said Robert Tolbert, one of the founders of what he described
as an ad hoc coalition of black community residents, university
students and drug reformers. "The drug war should be on the ballot --
it is a war directed at the black community and young people," he told
DRCNet.

The group's name is a jab at local powers that be, said Tolbert. "This
is a one newspaper town," he explained, "and the Kansas City Star has
the bad habit of supporting these tax votes and saying there is no
organized opposition. What they really mean is there is no opposition
with a bunch of money. Well, we don't have a bunch of money, but we
are the opposition and we are organized, and our name is a deliberate
poke in the eye to the Star."

Tolbert agreed with Gough's critique of D.A.R.E., then launched into a
blistering attack on the much lauded drug courts. "They claim a 90%
success rate with the drug court," he said, "but anytime you hear
numbers like that your bullshit detector should be going off. I looked
into this and what I found was that they cherry pick. They only take
first-time offenders, who are probably the most reachable. The real
hard cases, the crack-heads and serious junkies, don't get in because
they usually have criminal records already. These are bogus
statistics," he said.

COMBAT proponents have argued that the money has helped close down
7,200 "drug houses" and take $300 million worth of "narcotics" off the
streets, but such numbers don't impress Gough. "I'm happy for them if
that is true," he said, "but if this is such a great program, why
don't the state and the county fund it? Why do we need a dedicated tax
for this?"

Neither Gough nor Tolbert are optimistic that they will prevail next
week, given that they have received little money to campaign with and
less attention from the local media. "We're the little guys," said
Tolbert. "I don't think we can win this time, but I am getting a
better response than last time in 1995. It is not publicly acceptable
to be against the war on drugs, but I sense a growing subterranean
opposition. I think we'll get better numbers than have been predicted."

"I'm realistic," said Gough about the chances of defeating the tax.
"The people who think for us all enthusiastically support it. We're up
against the Star, the politicians, the treatment providers who get
funded out of this, the labor unions, and law enforcement."

Whether they can pull it off this time or not, both Gough and Tolbert
are finding they can work with strange bedfellows. "We had a meeting
Sunday night and there were students and drug reformers and people
from the black community. Most of them were pretty well on the left,"
said Gough. "They called the drug war Reagan's war, they said it was
anti-black and anti-poor people. I told them I'm one of the Reagan
guys, and I oppose this."

"It takes all kinds," said Tolbert.

And maybe they're not as different as they think. Gough, the white,
suburban Republican, delivered a strong attack on the marijuana laws.
"A joint in your pocket during a traffic stop could get your kids
taken away and you thrown in jail. I don't think that is an
appropriate response to a marijuana cigarette." And Tolbert, the
black, inner city activist, agrees. "Yes, we ought to legalize
marijuana. I think we could actually pass that if we got it on the
ballot here."

Look for election results in the Week Online next week.