The Political Interest Clinton's Drug Policy Is a Bust

Before crime became Bill Clinton's responsibility, the President's critique of George Bush's performance was scathing and dismissive. "Bush confuses being tough with being smart," Clinton told me during the 1992 campaign, "especially on drugs. You can't get serious about crime without getting serious about drugs. Bush thinks locking up addicts instead of treating them before they commit crimes -- or failing to treat them once they're in prison, which is basically the case now -- is clever politics. That may be, but it certainly isn't sound policy, and the consequences of his cravenness could ruin us."

From that attack, Clinton wound into a passionate plea for drug treatment on demand. "Without it," he said, "the criminals will revert when they're released, and the problem will just get worse. Emphasizing treatment may not satisfy people fed up with being preyed upon, but a President should speak straight even if what he advocates isn't popular. If he sticks to his guns, the results will prove the wisdom of his policy."

That was then. Since taking office, Clinton's passion for the issue has flared only once -- last week, when he stomped on Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders for suggesting a study of the possibility of legalizing illicit drugs. Clinton's knee-jerk, anti-intellectual response, which can be fairly summarized as "No way, nohow; not now, not ever," is bad enough. Worse is his silent acceptance of policies that shortchange drug treatment, an abandonment of his pledge to invert the ratio of funds spent on drug interdiction vs. treatment, a split that continues to allocate $13.1 billion of federal antidrug money in favor of law enforcement by more than 2 to 1. It's true that "druggies don't vote," as a senior Administration official says, and also that the President is fearful of appearing soft on crime, but he had it right during the campaign: drug treatment does the job.

A few facts: despite the spending of more than $100 billion on the drug war since 1981, drugs remain readily available. Interdiction efforts are a farce. In fact, worldwide gluts and America's porous borders have caused cocaine and heroin prices to decline dramatically -- and heroin use, which seemed to be dying out, is rising precipitously. Casual drug use is down, but at least 2 million Americans remain hard-core consumers. At least 60% of violent crime is associated with drug use. Addicts commit 15 times as many robberies and 20 times as many burglaries as criminals not on drugs. Approximately 70% of the nation's 1.4 million prisoners have drug problems, but only 1% of federal inmates and about 15% of state prisoners receive adequate treatment. Yet well- structured, prison-based antidrug programs have produced remarkable results. The rearrest rate for those who endure yearlong therapeutic programs is about one-third the rate for those who don't participate. And in-prison treatment is a bargain: it costs $28,000 a year to house one inmate, but adding comprehensive drug treatment costs only about $3,000 annually per prisoner.