Pubdate: Wed, 30 Aug 2000
Source: CNN.com (US Web)
Copyright: 2000 Cable News Network, Inc.
Contact:  http://cnn.com/feedback/
Website: http://www.cnn.com/
Forum: http://community.cnn.com/

CAN THE WAR ON DRUGS EVER BE WON?

MARY MATALIN, CO-HOST: Tonight: President Clinton fires new ammunition in
the drug war with more than a billion dollars in aid to Colombia. But is
this just a waste of money? Can the war on drugs ever be won?

ANNOUNCER: Live from Washington, CROSSFIRE.

On the left, Bill Press; on the right, Mary Matalin. In the CROSSFIRE: in
Fort Smith, Arkansas, Republican Congressman Asa Hutchinson, a member of the
Judiciary Committee; and in New York, Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of
the Lindesmith Center-Drug Policy Foundation.

MATALIN: Good evening, and welcome to CROSSFIRE.

President Clinton hand-delivered $1.3 billion in United States aid to
Colombia today to support the South American nation's uphill battle against
drugs, insurgents and recession. Narco-traffickers control over one half of
the country and are the world's top producers of cocaine, with a growing
market share for heroin. The United States is their biggest customer.

After two decades of the war on drugs, the problem has not abated. But the
war on drugs has accelerated. Fueled by having to foot the bill for the
highest ratio of imprisoned drug-offenders in the country, California leads
the way with novel, if controversial approaches.

Proposition 36, on this fall's ballots, would end jail terms for possession
of any illegal drug, including crack cocaine and heroin and substitute
drug-treatment instead. So tonight, with more kids trying elicit drugs, the
battles of the drug war -- foreign aid, incarceration, rehabilitation,
decriminalization, legalization -- does anything work, and is the war
winnable -- Bill.

BILL PRESS, CO-HOST: Congressman Hutchinson, even though you and I disagree
on most issues, I always consider you a perceptive congressman. I was
surprised today to learn you that actually voted for this $1.3 billion
package. Congressman, look: Three-quarters of this money is going for
military aid, including buying 60 new helicopters, training troops down
there, sending 500 United States military advisers into Colombia to help
them spray poison from the air and fight rebel guerrillas.

Congressman, isn't this the making of another Vietnam?

REP. ASA HUTCHINSON (R-AR), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Well, we lost over 50,000
in the war in Vietnam. We lose 50,000 people each year in the United States
because of drugs. I think it's a serious problem when we get 90 percent of
our cocaine and significant portions of our heroin from one country.

I think it's incumbent upon us to assist our neighbors in really fighting
our war. And this aid package is designed to support them in their effort --
the Colombian National Police -- I've been there. General Serrano is doing
good job. They are good people who are risking their lives to stop the flow
of drugs coming into the United States.

So I think it is a -- I support the aid package. I think there's reasonable
restrictions on this. It devotes money to building the administration of
justice, the rule of law there, human rights, improvements in that country.
But it does give helicopters that needed to stop the cultivation of coca in
the mountain regions of Colombia.

That democracy is in jeopardy in Colombia. And the revolutionary forces that
are fighting the government there, they need the support as well. So I think
it's two-fold: One, it helps in the drug war. And secondly, it helps
democracy survive in Latin America.

PRESS: Well, I'm surprised to hear you mention democracy, to hear you
mention human rights. Congressman, you know the Colombian military has been
charged with -- and there's a lot of evidence -- that some of those people
are guilty of some of the most right-wing excesses and death squads, such as
the United States used to fund in El Salvador and in Nicaragua and
Guatemala. We're making -- aren't we making the same mistake again by giving
more money to the military thugs in South America?

HUTCHINSON: Well, the Congress insisted upon restrictions. And really,
Senator Leahy's amendment says that none of the funds can be used for units
that have...

PRESS: Sure, but President Clinton threw those out.

HUTCHINSON: ...been guilty of human rights violations.

PRESS: But President Clinton threw those out, Congressman. The president
threw those out when he signed the bill.

HUTCHINSON: He has the right to wave certain restrictions. But the
prohibitions under the Leahy amendment, from my understanding, are still in
existence. And this money, going to the Colombian National Police to support
their effort, or to the military, are to units that not engaged in human
rights violations. And I think that's important that we train them properly,
that we go through education courses with them to prevent that from
happening.

But this is a very difficult war that is there. And many of those good
people are -- from the judges to the prosecutors -- are losing their lives,
because they are risking themselves to stop the flow of drugs. I think that
we can support in that effort.

MATALIN: Professor Nadelmann, let's switch for a moment to the demand side
in the United States for a moment. I believe you're an adviser to George
Soros, who is the chief bankroller of the Proposition 36 referenced in our
opening there, where treatment would be given in lieu of imprisonment for
possession of even the most elicit of drugs.

Martin Sheen, father of Charlie Sheen -- who we all have -- celebrity drug
abuser -- had this to say in opposition to Proposition 36 -- quote -- "I
have seen how devastating drug addiction can been. Drug addicts need to be
held directly accountable by the court with real sanctions." And he says
Proposition 36 removes any incentive to take treatment seriously, because
there are no consequences. There is no accountability.

How do you think that's going reduce the demand for drugs?

ETHAN NADELMANN, LINDESMITH CENTER-DRUG POLICY FOUNDATION: Well, I mean the
problem is, is Martin Sheen is inaccurate in his description. And so are you
Mary in describing the initiative in your opening. And quite frankly, what
Proposition 36 does, is it says: The first two times somebody gets arrested
for simple drug possession, if they have no history of violent crime, no
association with violent behavior, than they have to be sent to treatment.

Now, that is exactly what Martin Sheen wants. It is in fact court-mandated
treatment. What we do know -- I mean, the California Legislative Analyst's
Office analyzed this legislation -- what they determined was that this would
reduce by roughly 25,000 the number of non-violent drug-offenders being sent
to California prisons and jails next year.

It would save taxpayers a billion-and-a-half dollars and it would increase
funding for drug treatment by $120 million a year. Mary, think about this...

MATALIN: But Professor...

NADELMANN: Yes, go ahead.

MATALIN: Correct me -- I mean, I am reading the public accounts of this. I'm
not trying to mislead our viewers or misstate the program -- but the public
account of this says that the $120 million appropriated by Proposition 36,
none of that would be used for drug-testing. If there is no drug-testing,
there's no accountability. If there's no consequences...

NADELMANN: Mary, there's no prohibition on spending money on drug-testing.
The California government, the courts can spend whatever money they wanted
on drug testing. All the initiative says that it won't be -- the money
raised from this initiative will not be spent for that.

Look, the bottom line is: America has gone from 50,000 people behind bars on
drug charges in 1980 to almost a half-a-million people behind bars on drug
charges today. America locks up more people on non-violent drug charges than
all of Western Europe locks up for everything. And they have more people
than we do. So we have to break the cycle.

You know, Congressman Tom Campbell, the Republican who is running for
Senate, he has put it beautifully. He has said this money for Colombia is a
joke. This is another Vietnam we are walking into. If we are really serious,
we should follow president Pastrana said yesterday: Invest the money in
reducing demand here. And that means sensible, pragmatic drug treatment of
all sorts -- not only coerce drug treatment through the courts -- all sorts:
Methadone maintenance treatment. Whatever works should be what we are
pursuing.

MATALIN: OK, let's not disagree there for the moment. But let's go back to
Colombia. Barry McCaffrey says 90 percent of Colombia's cocaine comes here.
And you are staying: OK, if we reduce it there, even if it works, it will
pop up if Ecuador. But there's a whole mega-year train guerrilla operation.
You don't think the multi- pronged attack in Colombia, if it reduces the
coca there, you think that much coca can be reproduced in another country?

NADELMANN: You know, we have -- exactly -- we have to make up our mind on
this thing. As a drug-control measure the $1.2, $1.3 billion to Colombia is
a joke. We push down there, it will pop up either in Ecuador, or Venezuela,
or again in Bolivia or Peru. This is a global commodities market. There is a
supply. There is a demand. One way or another, it's going to come through.

So we should stop pretending that this is drug control. If the issue here is
how to facilitate the peace process in Colombia, then the U.S. can possibly
play a constructive role. And some forms of aid may make sense. But nobody
is talking about that here. Nobody is coming up with a systematic policy, a
five-year plan, a three-year plan, to deal with the guerrillas
insurgences...

HUTCHINSON: That's not correct.

NADELMANN: ... and the right-wing paramilitaries down there. You know, what
you have is a government sitting there. You have a Clinton White House. You
have a drug czar that will be out of office in a few months. They are
throwing a billion down there. Congress is wasting the taxpayer's money.
There's no plan whatsoever.

PRESS: Congressman, do you want in there? Go ahead. I heard you.

HUTCHINSON: Well, I think, first of all, we have a coordinated plan in South
America. Congress insisted upon not just aid to Colombia, but also to Peru
and Bolivia, two drug-source countries. They have a five-year plan. And they
have reduced the coca production by 50 percent during the last five years.
So we have had some great success down there. I don't think that we in
America should be able to say that we have to give up on this. And I think
that's what the professor is saying.

PRESS: But here's the... (CROSSTALK)

HUTCHINSON: ... government's business. It's not the government's business if
somebody just uses drugs, whether it's heroin, whether it's cocaine. I've
seen the damage to young people and the families because of drugs. I don't
think we can just say: It's OK. I think we have to continue the enforcement
effort.

PRESS: All right, Mr. Nadelmann, go ahead. Go ahead, Mr. Nadelmann.

NADELMANN: I think Congressman -- Congressman, sit down and read Milton
Friedman. You know, what he'll explain right there is that whether you push
down in Bolivia and Peru, it will pop up somewhere else. What's happened in
Colombia, it's essentially like Chicago under Al Capone but times a hundred
and going over 30-40 years.

We've been hearing this stuff about supply reduction, and crop substitution
and crop eradication for 40 years now. It's a joke. At some point, we need a
different approach. In California, there's an alternative approach to
substitute real treatment. What needs to happen, what the American people
are beginning to look for is a little bit of leadership from Congress. We
see that from Tom Campbell, we see it from some other people who are
actually saying, let's invest in real drug treatment, let's stop make
believing that somehow we can cut off this global commodities market.

HUTCHINSON: We are investing enormously...

PRESS: Hey, Congressman...

HUTCHINSON: ... in drug treatment and demand reduction as well.

NADELMANN: Not enough, not enough.

PRESS: Congressman, let me ask you just before we go to a break here about
this whole war on drugs, because it didn't just start this year. I mean, it
started back with Richard Nixon 40 years -- 30 years ago, and let me just
show you the figures on what we've spent on the war on drugs. By the way,
it's $45 billion a year now, state, federal and the local governments. Back
in 1968, Richard Nixon was spending -- spent $65 million in that year
fighting the war on drugs, the year he announced it. By 1982 under Ronald
Reagan it had jumped to $1.65 billion. This year under President Clinton,
$18.5 billion.

Isn't it clear, Congressman, we are never going to win this war? In fact, we
are fighting the wrong war because we're putting all this money into trying
to stop supply instead of dealing, as Mr. Nadelmann says, with demand and
with treatment in this country.

HUTCHINSON: Well, if that was correct, it would be a wrong strategy. We
don't put all the money in supply. We put money in demand. In other words,
we put millions and millions -- hundreds of millions dollars more in
educating our young people not to use drugs. There's been positive results
from that. There's more conversations with parents and teenagers about not
using drugs. We've seen some significant progress in some of the statistics.
We also put money in drug rehabilitation.

So we are putting in a balanced effort. To say that we should give up on
this is like saying that if criminals get guns we should just give up on
trying to prevent them from getting it, if teenagers are using alcohol we
should just stop trying to prevent them from getting alcohol. I think that's
the wrong approach. When something as harmful for society -- we as a society
should stay engaged in the battle to prevent the harm and the losing of
lives.

PRESS: All right, well, we'll pick up on that very question when we come
back. With this war on drugs going on so long, is it time to consider a
different approach? Isn't it time maybe to even make illegal drugs legal?
When we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PRESS: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE.

Remember Nancy Reagan, just say no? If only it were that simple. But 30
years since Richard Nixon declared the first war on drugs, we are spending
more money than ever with little show of progress. So is it time to rethink
our whole approach to drugs?

That's our debate tonight with Republican congressman and former federal
prosecutor Asa Hutchinson joining us from Fort Smith, Arkansas; and Ethan
Nadelmann, executive director of the Lindesmith Center-Drug Policy
Foundation in New York -- Mary.

MATALIN: OK, Professor Nadelmann, let's go back to your admonitions about
the current system and how California leads the way, there is such
leadership out there in California. The critics of Proposition 36 say there
isn't any accountability, there is no consequences, hence there is -- if
there is no consequences, drug abuse will continue. California also leads
the way in decriminalization and has the hugest effort for legalization.
This much we know in this leadership role California is taking: that if you
legalize drugs, use goes up. It happened in Great Britain with Heroin. It
happened in the Netherlands with Marijuana. No?

NADELMANN: Mary, I wish there was one accurate thing in the way you posed
that thing. I mean, quite frankly, you know, California does not lead the
way in any of the ways you're talking about. We are not talking about
legalization here. The critics of the California initiative are fishing with
things and they're making up one half truth and mistruth after another. The
bottom line is we need a variety of treatment options in this country for
people who have problems with drugs.

You know, look, the evidence is in on methadone maintenance. The National
Academy of Science says there is nothing that worked so well in terms of
reducing the illegal heroin use and the death, disease, crime and suffering
associated with it. This should be made massively available not just through
clinics, which people don't want in their neighborhoods, but through
ordinary doctors and physicians and pharmacies and what have you. Other
types of treatment work, but the resources have to be there. A woman who is
pregnant and who has a drug problem has almost no place to go in this
country.

I mean, when you have the president of Colombia saying, please, please, if
you're going to give me aid, don't make it all military aid, give us some
economic assistance and meanwhile, spend more money on reducing the demand
among your drug addicts, at least we should do the right thing in this area.

And at the same thing, we should not be conflating every small reform with
outright legalization. You know, for 15 years, people have played this game.
People talk about medical marijuana and the other side yells, legalize it.
People talk about needle exchange and people say, oh, that's legalization.
That's a lot of hooey, a lot of bull. I think we need an honest, frank
conversation about pragmatic options, and we know that some pragmatic
options work, including drug treatment.

MATALIN: Professor Nadelmann, I don't suppose there is one thing I can say
that you're not going to say I'm making it up, but I'm just giving you the
facts...

NADELMANN: Tell me I persuaded you.

MATALIN: No, I'm not against treatment. What I'm trying to get you to answer
is, treatment without some accountability, without some consequences,
without the specter of incarceration is not going to -- it's not going aid
it -- it's not going to lead to prevention. It's not going to diminish the
demand.

NADELMANN: But, Mary, Mary, there's two problems with that. The first one is
that Proposition 36, in fact, does still have the element of coercion over
it, it still does have probations and parole officers and judges playing a
role. So that's the first point. The second point is it's a myth to say that
no treatment can work without coercion.

You know, millions of people in this country have gone to A.A., Alcoholics
Anonymous without the coercion of a court or a police officer and many of
them have gotten better. Methadone maintenance -- people are not sent there
with coercion, yet hundreds of thousands of people have gotten their drug
addictions behind them as a result of that. Think about what you know about
people...

HUTCHINSON: Something...

NADELMANN: ... food addiction, or with cigarette addiction, or all sorts of
other addictions.

Some people need coercion, but a lot of people come -- a lot of people put
their drug addiction behind them, not because somebody's holding a club over
their head, but simply because something changes in their lives.

PRESS: Congressman Hutchinson, before we get to this legalization question,
as a Californian here, I have to come to the defense of my beleaguered
state, and ask you just a question about this Prop. 36. You know, in
California, we have more people in prison than any other state -- two
million. Since the '80s, we've built 24 new prisons in California to house
mostly nonviolent drug offenders. We have not built one new U.C. campus in
that time.

Now if this measure is going to gets people into treatment and out of
prison, keeps 25,000 people out of prison but into good treatment programs,
don't you think that's worth doing?

HUTCHINSON: Well, there's two problems. First of all, there is not
sufficient consequences to encourage the treatment. Secondly, our young
people are guided by symbols in our land. And even though this does not deal
with legalization, that's behind the motivation of many people who support
these type of propositions, and that's the ultimate goal and the young
people get these signals.

What's working in California, and we need to do more of, are drug courts,
where the prison sentence is hanging over a person's head, an addict's head
or a user's head, and because of that, they are mandated to have drug
testing every week, to report to a probation officer, to go to counseling
and rehabilitation, and I've heave their testimony that it works under those
circumstances, but consequences are important. And many of the addicts
testify that what made them confront their drug use was a police officer
arresting them.

In fact, the president of the United States, President Clinton, told me, he
thanked me for savings his brother's life, because I was the one responsible
for prosecuting him for cocaine distribution, and he turned it around, and
it was the prosecution...

(CROSSTALK)

PRESS: Go ahead, Mr. Nadelmann.

NADELMANN: Congressman, treatment is a matter of different strokes for
different folks. There are people who benefit from coercion, and a lot of
people who ended up worse off because they go to jail or prison. Sending
people to jail or prison is not the best form of drug treatment out there,
and pouring all of your money and the taxpayer's money into treatment only
behind bars and through the criminal justice system.

HUTCHINSON: You must not have heard what I said.

NADELMANN: ... is not helping people.

I heard what you said. You're talking about the...

(CROSSTALK)

MATALIN: OK, gentlemen, gentlemen, we obviously haven't won the war on drugs
tonight. Thank you for joining us, congressman, and you, professor.

Bill and I will be right back and continue our nightly war here on
CROSSFIRE.

Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PRESS: Mary, I think this is one issue on which both George W. Bush, and Al
Gore and you are wrong, and I used to agree with you, until a conservative
Republican judge from Orange County, California pointed out to me that 80
percent of his time, of the cops' time, of the bailiffs' time, of the
courts' time, of the prison guards' time are consumed by nonviolent drug
offenders. This is crazy.

MATALIN: It is his job. I'm looking at this not as a conservative as a
liberal, but a mother of kids. And when I look at the drug use among
12-year-olds, 12-17-year-olds, it's increased 14 percent in Clinton's term.
I'm not blaming that on Clinton. I'm just saying everything has to be done,
including punishment and certainly eradication or diminution of supply.
There's no punishment, if there's no consequences. It's just use your common
sense.

PRESS: No, no, no. The problem now is all of it goes into punishment, and
all of it goes into destroying crops in Colombia, which is absolutely
insane.

MATALIN: That's not true.

PRESS: It is true. That's where the money goes, and that's why it's not
working.

>From the left, I'm Bill Press. Good night for CROSSFIRE.

MATALIN: And I'm Mary Matalin from the right. Join us again tomorrow night
for more CROSSFIRE.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Don Beck