Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

We Need A Drug Czar Now
Wall Street Journal ^ | Nov. 29, 2001 | William Bennett

Posted on 11/30/2001 3:50:07 AM PST by Wolfie

WE NEED A DRUG CZAR NOW

As a part of our painful national education about terrorism since Sept. 11, Americans now know more than they ever wanted to about bioterrorism, chemical weapons, and the threat of "suitcase bombs." And we have learned a great deal about the connection between terrorism and illegal drugs, including the fact that our enemies in Afghanistan have derived considerable sustenance and resources from the drug trade. This trade not only spreads addiction but is an inherent enemy of lawful order and democracy throughout the world: Just as heroin and cocaine destroy lives, so, too, do the heroin and cocaine trades destroy institutions of law and popular government.

And yet, as the war on terrorism proceeds both at home and abroad, we have barely begun to rethink our foreign and domestic drug-control policy. According to the most recent Household Survey on Drug Abuse, despite large reductions in the 1980s and early 1990s, some 14 million Americans use illegal drugs on at least a monthly basis. Nearly one in four of these drug users are children between the ages of 12 and 17. In 1999 ( the most recent year for which we have data ), there were some two million new marijuana users -- more than 5,000 new users per day - -- with an average age of 17.

These statistics are especially disturbing because, according to the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, kids who experiment with drugs tend to keep using drugs. Among children who try cocaine and LSD in high school, more than three out of five are still using the drug when they leave school. That translates to a hard fact: Far too many children who use drugs grow up to be adults who use drugs. The idea of "youthful experimentation" is all too often a dangerous myth.

Illegal drug use, especially among our children, is a plague that has lacked serious federal attention -- from Democrats and Republicans, as well as from the executive and legislative branches. We must push back against the drug problem, because if there's one thing I learned as drug czar, it's that when we push back, the problem gets smaller. And to start the new push back, we need effective, informed, and aggressive leadership in the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

John P. Walters, President Bush's nominee for director of National Drug Control Policy -- and my chief of staff back when I was drug czar - -- is an outstanding choice to fill that role. He understands the explosion of drug abuse in America. As he has often expressed, the greatest loss is measured in human terms -- homelessness, crime, the emotional and physical violence done to families, and, worst of all, the tragic loss of life, opportunity, and potential that has swept through an entire generation of young people. He understands the links which the drug trade has to terrorism abroad and destruction at home.

Mr. Walters supports a comprehensive and commonsense approach to helping our young people -- including anti-drug education, attacking the international drug trade, more treatment made more easily available, and tough penalties for drug dealers and kingpins.

He has come under criticism from those who argue he is too focused on interdiction and law enforcement and too dismissive of treatment and education. This is an attack with no basis in fact. From 1989 through 1993, Mr. Walters helped me craft the first Bush administration's drug budgets. During that time, we secured the greatest expansion of federal support for treatment services in history. In fact, during my tenure as drug czar and that of my successor, Bob Martinez, Mr. Walters fought for -- and got -- an increase in the drug-treatment budget twice as large in percentage terms as any increases over the eight years of the Clinton administration.

Mr. Walters also understands that, while treatment and education are indispensable parts of any successful anti-drug strategy, interdiction and international efforts are a uniquely federal responsibility. No one else has the authority, or the ability, to stop drugs coming across our borders. The idea that we must choose between "treatment" and "enforcement" is a charade, for drug use must be attacked on all fronts. But the federal government alone is empowered to attack the international drug trade, and so the drug czar must focus on that aspect.

There are those who would "go soft" on the drug war -- who say that we are fighting a losing battle, and that we should give up and go home. Similarly, there were those -- just days and weeks ago -- who warned of a similar fate in the war on terrorism. The best response to these arguments are the facts. The Taliban have lost control of almost all of Afghanistan, despite the naysayers. And Mr. Walters's own record shows that we can reduce the use and harm of illegal drugs, that lives can be changed and saved. The record shows this clearly; it is, as Mr. Walters himself has said, "beyond question today, even if it is not always beyond denial."

In the 1990s, the federal government all but gave up on saving our youth from drugs. It is time -- past time -- for the Senate to confirm John Walters and let him get to work as drug czar. It is time to start pushing back.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

1 posted on 11/30/2001 3:50:07 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LadyDoc
Maybe you'll like this one better.
2 posted on 11/30/2001 4:03:18 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
Although the war on drugs has been a disaster for liberties, ineffective in reducing recreational drug use, a tremendous cost to the taxpayers, a breeding ground for lawlessness and the foundation for maintaining profitablility in dealing in banned substances, it will continue.

Why?

3 posted on 11/30/2001 4:10:19 AM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
'Why?'

Too many people make their living from the War. The longer it goes, the better, as far as they're concerned.
4 posted on 11/30/2001 4:13:15 AM PST by al-andalus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
Free countries and free peoples do not need Czars.
5 posted on 11/30/2001 4:13:26 AM PST by eFudd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
I thought this nation declared it's independence from monarchs around 1776. Guess some people just can't control their want for the "good ol' days".

---max

6 posted on 11/30/2001 4:13:49 AM PST by max61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
Although the war on drugs has been a disaster for liberties, ineffective in reducing recreational drug use, a tremendous cost to the taxpayers, a breeding ground for lawlessness and the foundation for maintaining profitablility in dealing in banned substances, it will continue.

Why?

(Adopting Michael Savage inflection) Because it makes us feeeeeeel better.

7 posted on 11/30/2001 4:14:56 AM PST by Lizavetta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
I found this letter-to-the-editor in response to a story on the crumbling of the Drug War in Europe. I think it sums up the situation nicely:

Dear Editor:

I hope M.L. Simon is right in, "Light at the End of the tunnel?", but one thing America has, that these other countries had the good sense not to create, is a drug war industry, which employs literally millions of our fellow citizens and profits to the tune of hundreds of billions of taxpayers' dollars annually.

Before Americans consider a new direction for U.S. drug policy, we should take a long, hard look at where we've been. Not another dollar spent, prison built, innocent shot, cop corrupted, war waged, right repealed, DARE program taught or drug raider deployed, until someone, somewhere, somehow, outside the halls of the government-created anti- drug industry, takes a long, hard, unbiased look at what just may be nothing more than a hysterical witch-hunt run amok.

Do the ends justify the means? Have we actually accomplished one tangible thing of note, besides enriching those who espouse and implement these draconian measures?

Now that DARE has been exposed as having produced exactly the opposite effect we desired, one must question the "achievements" of the other freelance anti-drug acronyms. What exactly does our dollar buy? Are their products guaranteed? Do they actually encourage, rather than prevent, drug use? Surely, our government officials have already begun to take a look at this. I doubt it. American drug policy reeks of pork, and we all know how the politicos love their lard.

Maybe it's time Americans revisit the whole issue and look at what we've done to our fellow citizens, our children, and our legacy, in the name of the "War On Drugs." Do we continue the hysteria and complete prohibition, while destroying every vestige of our Constitution, or is it time we critically review the current scheme, while, at the very least, considering cheaper, more effective, less harmful approaches to America's drug "problem"?

It's never too late to reconsider.

8 posted on 11/30/2001 4:19:34 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
Go write another book, Bill. The adults have a real war to fight at the moment.
9 posted on 11/30/2001 4:26:05 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

To: Rudder
re : Why?

Because it is too easy to start a war and very hard to stop one.

Tony

11 posted on 11/30/2001 4:30:39 AM PST by tonycavanagh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
Czar?

Hell!

We don't need no stinkin czar

Give us a KING to rule over us

Aren't we tired of these mamby pamby little czars ruling over just small portions of our life?

Let's jump big and have real ruler over us!

C'mon, give us a KING!

12 posted on 11/30/2001 4:33:55 AM PST by fod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tonycavanagh
Regrettably, I think you're right. The problem is inertia.
13 posted on 11/30/2001 4:37:44 AM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: M1991
hmm Microsoft Windows is legal and Bill Gates is the richest person in the world. Why? because you gotta have it in order to run everything that's out there. Drugs such as cocaine and heroin actually change the chemistry in your brain so that you 'gotta have it.' If it's legal, you'll still be able to make lots of money selling it. In fact you'll make more because more people will be able to buy it.
14 posted on 11/30/2001 4:48:00 AM PST by arielb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: arielb
If it's legal, you'll still be able to make lots of money selling it. In fact you'll make more because more people will be able to buy it.

Ahh, the arguement that the only reason that millions more folk are not on drugs is the threat of incarceration. Wow, thank goodness Big Brother is protecting us from ourselves.

But wait, the WOD Warriors tell us that the drug situation is so bad that drugs are readily available. So arielb - which is it? If drugs are readily available now, are there really a potential avalanch of good folk that would otherwise become druggies if these moronic laws were reformed?

the real question is: if we are so stupid that we can't make decisions for ourselves, how is it possible we are capable of making decisions for others?

15 posted on 11/30/2001 6:16:10 AM PST by corkoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
This war on drugs hysteria is really starting to get under my skin. Substitute the word "cars" for "drugs" in the article above and you see how ridiculous it is. Then consider that cars kill innumerable more people per year than drugs, yet we don't feel any mandate to outlaw cars or appoint an anti-car czar.

To have Bill Bennett exploit and appropriate an overseas war against terrorism to escalate his domestic war on drugs is just sickening. I'll ask what was asked of Joseph McCarthy during the House Un-American Activities hearings, "Have you no shame?"

16 posted on 11/30/2001 7:12:56 AM PST by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
And we have learned a great deal about the connection between terrorism and illegal drugs, including the fact that our enemies in Afghanistan have derived considerable sustenance and resources from the drug trade,

Correct Bill, and If it were not under PROHIBITION the Price would be approx 1/20 th of what it is currently, and our FRIENDS could GROW and SELL it...

So, By your own admission, the WOD effectively provides Terrorists, with the means to Fund their operations against America.

17 posted on 11/30/2001 7:37:15 AM PST by hobbes1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
Except for one thing. Senator McCarthy was RIGHT!
18 posted on 11/30/2001 7:40:58 AM PST by hobbes1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
odd - my fave "Huey Lewis and the News" song title as a post...
19 posted on 11/30/2001 7:43:06 AM PST by Hegewisch Dupa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
Oh Bill, just shut up.
20 posted on 11/30/2001 7:44:43 AM PST by Doctor Doom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson