Pubdate: Wed, 14 Mar 2001
Source: Washington Post (DC)
Copyright: 2001 The Washington Post Company
Contact:  1150 15th Street Northwest, Washington, DC 20071
Feedback: http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Author: John Lancaster
Cited: Lindesmith Center-Drug Policy Foundation http://www.drugpolicy.org/
Fax: President Bush and enter to win a Traffic DVD or video 
http://www.stopthewar.com/
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/traffic.htm (Traffic)

IN SENATE DEBATE ON DRUGS, 'TRAFFIC' MOVES MINDS

As depicted in the critically acclaimed movie "Traffic," the national
crusade against drugs is a well-intentioned flop that squanders billions on
efforts to disrupt supplies while doing little to curb demand through
programs such as drug treatment and education. It is a message, apparently,
that has not gone unheeded on Capitol Hill.

In a case of policy imitating art, or at least echoing it, a Senate hearing
room yesterday resounded with pleas for a "balanced" and "holistic"
approach to fighting drugs in which treatment and education programs are
elevated to the same importance as law enforcement agencies charged with
targeting drug producers and importers.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), who presided
over the hearing and had a cameo role in "Traffic," said in an interview
that although he has some reservations about the movie, it was "kind of a
final tipping point" that convinced him of the need to step up funding for
treatment and prevention. "That movie just brought it home to me that we've
got to do more."

Many of his colleagues apparently feel the same way. In that regard,
admirers say, "Traffic" recalls such politically influential movies as "The
China Syndrome" (1979), which heightened public anxiety about nuclear power
plants, and "The Day After," which, when it was broadcast in 1983, helped
invigorate the nuclear freeze movement.

Last month, President Bush acknowledged the need to curb Americans'
appetite for drugs during his trip to Mexico, while in Congress, Hatch
joined Republican and Democratic colleagues in introducing legislation that
would, among other things, increase funding for anti-drug research,
prevention and treatment by $900 million. Admirers of the film include
Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) and Joseph A. Califano
Jr., a former secretary of health, education and welfare, who praised its
unflinching look at drug-related corruption in an opinion piece for The
Washington Post this week.

"It was the right thing at the right time," Peter Kerr, a spokesman for New
York-based Phoenix House, the nation's largest nonprofit provider of
drug-abuse treatment, said of the film by director Steven Soderbergh.
"Until recently, if you wanted to talk to members of Congress about drug
treatment, there would be a long sigh and a recognition that this is good
for them to listen to" even as they privately concluded, ",'I'm not going
to spend any of my political chits on this because I don't see the
percentage in it.',"

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary
Committee, made specific reference to the film in his opening statement
yesterday. "As someone who has long supported efforts to reduce the demand
for drugs, I was struck when the drug czar played by Michael Douglas in the
film . . . questions the lack of emphasis placed on drug treatment," Leahy
said. "The comment that stood out most for me was the question of how we
can fight a 'war on drugs' when the enemies are drug users who are members
of ordinary American families."

The movie has its share of detractors, chiefly conservatives who regard it
as a plea for decriminalization. During an advance screening in Washington
in November, William Olson, staff director for the drug caucus headed by
Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), walked out of the film, telling
Soderbergh, "Shame on you." Conservatives argue that the movie poses a
false choice between locking up drug users or providing them with
treatment, when both are often necessary.

Moreover, it is not as if the filmmakers invented the policy issues
illuminated by "Traffic." Well before the movie opened in theaters,
lawmakers from both parties had been acknowledging the need to devote more
resources to drug treatment and prevention programs, and, over the past
several years, have begun to do so, according to retired Gen. Barry
McCaffrey. He headed the White House drug control policy office in the
Clinton administration. The federal government has increased spending on
anti-drug education by 55 percent and on drug treatment by 35 percent since
1996.

Referring to the movie's implication that "if only you could reduce demand,
the criminals would go away," McCaffrey said, "Talk about a breakthrough in
Western intellectual thought. Why didn't we think of that? Well, we did."

But McCaffrey, who saw the film several weeks ago, said he welcomed its
contribution to the debate on drug policy. "Its actual impact on thoughtful
people was helpful."

"Traffic" addresses the drug issue from several perspectives, including
that of anti-drug agents battling corrupt government officials in Mexico as
well as the character played by Douglas, who discovers that his teenage
daughter is addicted to cocaine. The themes it evokes could hardly be more
timely.

Last year, for example, Congress approved a plan to spend $1.3 billion to
help Colombia's armed forces eradicate drug crops that finance illegal
armed groups. At the same time, lawmakers have grown increasingly concerned
about the rapid growth of the nation's prison population, much of which is
a result of harsher penalties for drug-related offenses.

"I do think there has been some shift," said Sen. Paul D. Wellstone
(D-Minn.), who in June tried to amend the Colombia plan to shift $225
million to drug treatment programs. The amendment lost on a lopsided 89-11
vote. Now, he said, "I think that amendment would be a close vote."

At yesterday's hearing, Hatch cited a study showing that "in 1998, states
spent $81.3 billion--about 13 percent of total state spending--on substance
abuse and addiction." Hatch noted, however, that only $3 billion of that
was spent on prevention and treatment, with the rest going to "shovel up
the wreckage of substance abuse and addiction," as the study's authors put it.

Some liberal advocacy groups have seized on the movie to promote their case
for decriminalizing drug use. Perhaps the most prominent is the Lindesmith
Center-Drug Policy Foundation, which cites the movie in its campaign to
influence Bush's choice of a new White House drug policy coordinator. In a
recent news release, the group said it is "urging President Bush to appoint
a drug czar who will 'think outside the box,' as Michael Douglas's
character pleads for in the movie 'Traffic.' "

But there is no such groundswell on Capitol Hill. At yesterday's hearing,
Hatch emphasized, "We must, and will, continue our vigilant defense of our
borders and our streets against" those who traffic in drugs.

Several witnesses also espoused that view. "There's no question that
there's growing understanding of the importance of a public health
approach," Alan Leshner, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse,
said in an interview. But he added, "It would be a serious mistake to pit"
law enforcement and public health approaches against each other. "We need
great vigor on both fronts."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Terry F