Pubdate: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 Source: Washington Post (DC) Copyright: 2002 The Washington Post Company Contact: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/491 Author: Abigail Trafford HEALTH TALK: THE WAR ON DRUGS You may have seen commercials that begin with "Where do terorists get their money?" and end with "If you buy drugs, some of it might come from you." This is the latest ad campaign aimed at teenagers from the White House that links the war on drugs with the war on terrorism. The message implies that if you start or don't stop taking drugs, you are supporting Osama bin Laden and other terrorist networks that are funded by drug money. But to many people, mixing the old war on drugs with the new war on terrorism seems to be a stretch. The strategy may even be counter-productive. At the same time, the Partnership for a Drug-Free America is launching another campaign against the use of Ecstasy, the newest illegal drug trend for teenagers. Welcome to Health Talk with Post Health columnist Abigail Trafford. To talk about how we're doing in the war on drugs is Peter Reuter, a professor of public policy at the School of Public Affairs and Department of Criminology at the University of Maryland. He is also a co-author of the book "Drug War Heresies." The transcript follows. Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. - - Abigail Trafford: Here's a great big general question. We've been waging the war on drugs for years. But people are still using drugs. What are we doing wrong? Peter Reuter: The drugs we are talking about are very attractive, at least initially. In the context of a democratic society, with high rates of all kinds of crime, it is hardly surprising that there are many people willing to take large risks to supply them. The right way of thinking about the war on drugs is not whether it has eliminated use of these illicit drugs but whether it has helped reduce the adverse consequences of drug use in society. That includes addiction, intoxication, crime and diseases. The War is not doing well in these respects; though the drug problem in this country is slowly getting better, we still have a worse problem than any other western nation. - - Abigail Trafford: Hello and welcome, Peter Reuter. This a subject where everybody has a passionate point of view. We've got lots of questions from viewers. Let's start with an easy one. The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy has just launched a major antidrug campaign linking the war on drugs with the war on terror. What do you think of this strategy? Will it be effective in keeping kids away from illegal drug use? Peter Reuter: The connection between drug use in this country and international terrorism is slight indeed. Most people who use drugs will buy marijuana or some synthetic like Ecstasy or methamphetamine. Those drugs are produced and distributed by people who have no connection to international terrorism. Al Quaeda certainly received money from the heroin trade but almost no Afghan heroin comes to the U.S. This campaign strains the viewer's credulity. Adolescents are skeptical, as shown in a great deal of research. A message which is in fact demonstrably either false, or a great exaggeration, is not likely to do well....and to further undermine the credibility of the anti-drug campaign generally. - - Abigail Trafford: The Partnership for a Drug-free America has also launched a major advertising campaign aimed at alerting kids and their parents to the dangers of Ecstacy. The ads feature real stories of people to show the dangers of this drug. What do you think of this strategy? Peter Reuter: Real people make for credible messages. Seeing a successful basketball player talk about his drug problem creates ambiguity. While I haven't seen these particular messages, they may well be sensible. - - Fairfax, Va.: Anyone else notice the irony of the ONDCP ads used during an event whose major sponsor is a BEER company? Abigail Trafford: What about this, Peter? what are the pros and cons of lumping all addictive substances together--drugs, alcohol, tobacco--in trying to prevent kids from using these substances? Peter Reuter: Most good prevention programs in schools try to cover alcohol and tobacco as well as other drugs. They don't have to be treated in exactly the same way, because they each cause harm in different ways. But the notion of imbedding this in a general program concerned with health, self-esteem, peer pressure is a sensible one and helps give credibility to the messages targeted against illicit drugs. - - Oregon, Ohio: Why do we waste so much money on ad campaigns, when the money could be better spent helping those who need help? Three million dollars could have helped fund a lot of drug treatment, instead it was wasted calling America's kids traitors, why? Abigail Trafford: Just to be fair to the White House campaign. First, a well-accepted strategy of prevention is an advertising campaign. The Partnership for a Drug-Free America is also launching a major media campaign against the use of Ecstasy. So, advertising is a prevention strategy. The question is: is public advertising a successful way to get the message across? And what kinds of ads are most successful? Your thoughts, Peter? And a P.S. here. At the bottom of the newspaper ads from the White House Campaign is a toll free number for treatment: 800 662 HELP. Peter Reuter: Abbie has it right. There is no single program that will solve the US drug problem. Treatment helps those who already have a serious drug problem; it doesn't, except very indirectly, cut down on the number who start using drugts. Prevention programs deall with the future problem; treatment is much more present-oriented. Whether this is the right prevention campaign is another matter. Hard to evaluate this kind of mass media effort. - - Washington, d.c.: Don't you ever wish you could actually say, publicly, what you really believe about marijuana? I know, I know. But you really believe that it should be legal -- controlled but legal -- that it is less dangerous than alcohol, that banning it is creating a criminal class, etc.? Right? You can't say it, can you? We would respect you more if you did. Then we'd believe you on the other stuff. Peter Reuter: Actually in "Drug War Hereies" Robert MacCoun and I do say exactly what we believe about marijuana. It can produce dependence and lead to accidents, like any other psychoactive drug. But that does not mean it should be subject to heavy criminal regulation. Removing criminal penalties for possession is only one step, because that still leaves a huge black market (estimated at $10 billion last year), We think that the scheme adopted in a number of Australian jurisdictions may be more reasonable; they remove criminal penalties for cultivating a small number of plants which can be used for own consumption or gifts to tohers. No doubt there are some sales but it seems to keep trafficking down and provide a bit mroe consistency. - - Chicopee, MA: If the federal government is so concerned about terrorists making money from drugs, why not regulate them as we do tobacco and alcohol -- taxed and sold only to adults by reputable American businesses? It's our policies that fund terrorism -- not drug users. Peter Reuter: Legalization removes one set of problems, like financing terrorism and creating violence in inner city communities, and replaces them with others. Use of these attractive substances would certainly rise substantially and, given their addictive properties, many will become addicted. I am skeptical of clever regulatory schemes, given our failure with alcohol and tobacco; that reflects the Supreme Court's dedication to commercial free speech and campgain financing in this country. So we trade reductions in crime and some health problems, for increased addiction and a different set of health problems. In "Drug War Heresies" we try to pose the trade-offs but there is no compellin way of choosing among them. - - Oakland, Calif.: Mixing the Drug War and the War on Terrorism is more than a stretch. First, to the extent that drug money gets into the hands of terrorists, it is because of the obscene profits created by Drug Prohibition. Certainly not using drugs is a good idea but not everyone has such a choice available to them. Second, the Drug War bureaucrats are desperate because they know that they are losing "fear of drugs" as a source of funding for jobs. They're trying to piggy back on the War on Terrorism into public favor Abigail Trafford: I have a problem with the war terminology. The war on drugs makes it sound as though the only goal is "to win." But drug use and addiction are not a tone-time battle where there are winners and losers. This is a huge health and social problem that needs to be addressed. Peter, how can we redefine the "war on drugs" so that it will become open to multiple solutions--not just one winner? Peter Reuter: Almost everyone involved in this business, except elected officials, agrees that the War metaphor is a misleading one. Drugs present a social problem, like many others. Our goal should be to manage that problem. Making sure that we define the problem right, not just the number of people who use drugs but the harms they cause themselves and others, is critical. Very tough enforcement might reduce drug use, though there is a troubling lack of evidence for the proposition, but it may lead to more crime, more HIV, corruption etc. - - Kremmling, Colo.: Why is it so hard for the American people to realize the futility, the harm, and the complete corruption of America's war on drugs? Abigail Trafford: Some people think that we've made progress in the war on drugs. . . . Peter you call for a new approach in your book, "Drug War Heresies." Tell us about the strategy you would recommend. Peter Reuter: The American public sees drug use itself as dangerous (or at least the non-users do). Almost any reform proposal runs a risk of increasing drug use; it is not certain that such measures would but credible arguments can be made. Given that populace is so alarmed about drug use itself, we seem to be locked in to this very punitive approach. Our book has more to say about how to think about the problem than it has strong recommendations. We think that the Swiss experience with heroin maintenance makes this an option worth experimenting with here. The crackdown on marijuana use in the last years (arrests have doubled in the last ten years, while marijuana use has been stable) is almost indefensible. These are the easy argets. Generally being less "tough" is certainly one way of reducing our drug problem, because policy itself (the incarceration of so many young people for so long) has become part of the problem. - - Washington, D.C.: I am so glad you're covering this! My friends and I saw one of these ads during the Super Bowl. we were perplexed and nonplussed the whole way through, and absolutely IRATE at the final line, spoken by a teenage girl-"It's my life; it's my choice." We all (mostly liberal dems, admittedly) are attuned to phrases like that as pro-choice slogans. and we felt that its use in this ad was a subversive and insidious attempt to imply that the selfishness/evil of drug use, terror support, and yes, abortion-all go hand in hand. Disgusting. You can't tell me that no one in the ad agency or in the Office of Natl Drug Control Policy noticed that that phraseology was strikingly similar to pro-choice sloganry throughout the years. In this day and age of government corruption and right-wing conspiracy, I find it far more likely that the parallel was intentionally drawn. Your thoughts on this? Abigail Trafford: Ummmmmmmm. I'm not a conspiracy-minded person. I think people use effective arguments to further their cause. "It's my life; it's my choice" goes to the heart of American rugged individualism. It's a good line. But you're right to be wary. This subject is highly political. It reflects a clash of values and beliefs. In other words, it's a dynamite issue. So how do we take it out of the realm of political emotionalism and deal rationally with the issues? Peter, what's your "sober" response? Peter Reuter: I don't see a connection. - - Arlington, VA: I don't understand why a questionable link between drugs and terrorism is so much worse than the questionable statistics usually trotted out in anti-drug campaigns. For example, the "huge rise" in Ecstasy use cited in this morning's column. Since Ecstasy is a synthetic drug that didn't exist a few years ago, it doesn't take much to create a dramatic rise. Similarly the story of the girl who died after taking Ecstasy. Is she the only death? Out of how many users? How does the death rate from E compare with typical over-the- counter medication? There's a demonstrable link between drugs and terrorism. As you rightly point out, the link between the drugs most commonly used in the U.S. and terrorism is something of a stretch. But why is stretching the truth here so much worse than manipulative statistics? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see through either one. Abigail Trafford: According to a nationwide survey by Ipsos-Reid U.S. Public Affiars company, more than 70 percent of those who saw the advertisements during the Super Bowl thought that the ads were an innovative approach to discouraging illegal drug use. If the ads give teeenagers another reason not to do drugs, why isn't it a good strategy? Peter Reuter: I'm not only against stretching the truth on the drugs- terrorism connection but also manipulated statistics. It seems a modest defense to say this is no worse than another common failing of these campaigns. I don't have the figures on Ecstasy related hospital admissions and deaths; my guess is that given the large user base now, it will probably appear to have modest health risks compared to other synthetics such as methamphetamine and PCP. Not a ringiing endorsement of the drug (it's not as bad as some others) but it is useful to keep these harms in context when making decisions about how hard to crack- down on one drug rather than another. - - Maryland: The liberal Democrats want drug treatment. The conservative Republicans want drug prevention. How about both? Peter Reuter: Actually, both Democrats and Republicans want both. The Democrats want more treatment than the Republicans but they do not critique the centerpiece of the drug war, namely zero tolerance and tough penalties. This is a bi-partisan failure. - - VA: The bestanti-drug message I have ever seen is the young woman who has been doing PSAs about ecstasy. She was covered in many news shows the last year or two in which they showed her brain scan. She was in her 20s, but her brain was that of an 80 year-old who had suffered strokes. That's not a scare tactic, that's the truth. I think such ads are really effective in giving kids the real face of the damage done. Peter Reuter: I do think that showing people with real drug problems is a sensible approach. - - DC: Why help people with drug problems? They want to die, so let them. Abigail Trafford: Sorry, I completely disagree. People with drug problems are in trouble. They need help--medical treatment and social supports. The may not make it, but we as a society have to try--just the way we'd treat a person with heart disease or lung cancer. We'd do that even if the person couldn't stop over-eating and that lead to a fatal heart attack or a person couldn't stop smoking and that lead to the lung cancer. We don't just stand by and let people drown. Peter, your thoughts? Peter Reuter: More than half of all 18 year olds have used an illicit drug . I doubt that you mean that this group either wants to die or should be left to die. I assume that what you mean is that there are some drug users who cause great harm to the rest of society and immiserate themselves and that at some point this is suicidal in intent. Yet most of those who become dependent on these drugs eventually quit and do so without treatment. They can be helped. - - Lexington, KY: Something my friends and I always come back to is all through school we're taught how bad drugs are and all the horror stories of addiction or loss of control. (Classic stories of people thinking they're OJ after taking LSD.) But when some of came to try them it seemed a lot of the stories and warnings were exaggerated if not false. This of course totally undermined everything we learned about drugs in school. Has drug education become any more honest? Can it be honest without making drugs seems appealing? Abigail Trafford: You've hit on the key to successful prevention. Exaggeration usually backfires. The National Institute on Drug Abuse has evaluated a lot of prevention programs for schools. The most important element, researchers found, is truth. That means recognizing the appeal and pleasure drugs hold out for teenagers. It also means assessing the risks and dangers and not exaggerating them. The difference comes down to one word: "can" Drug use can destroy your brain. That's true. Peter Reuter: Abbie has given the elegant formulation of the central problem. Drug use "can" damage your brain and life. But it is unlikely that anything very bad will happen the first few times you use a drug. So the campaigns have to find a way of coming to terms with the fact that initial experiences are generally benign while the long-term dangers are very serious. - - Washington, DC: It seems to me that the drug war has always relied on scapegoating and scare tactics. Our social ills are simply blamed on some illicit plant or chemical derivative, while the complex social and economic problems endemic to our society are hidden away. It's easy to play this scapegoating game: First, cars fund terrorism. It's our addiction to oil that makes our government turn a blind eye toward Saudi complicity in terrorism. Second, the illicit diamond trade funds terrorism as the Washington Post documented. What's the obvious conclusion from such silly reasoning? The biggest supporters of terrorism are traitorous SUV- driving soccer moms sporting big diamond rings. But then, affluent soccer moms are a desirable political demographic! What are your thoughts about scapegoating, sleights of hand, logical leaps in relation to selling the drug war to the public? Abigail Trafford: You make some interesting connections! Personally I'm against scapegoating. In all arenas from the bedroom to the boardroom! Your thoughts, Peter? Peter Reuter: The connections between drug use and terrorism are indeed remote. There is more of a connection between drug use in the U.S. and corruption and violence in Colombia and Mexico. That may still not be much of a reed on which to rest a prevention message. There are lots of better reasons for discouraging drug use. - - Baltimore, Md.: It is one of the hallmarks of intellectual dishonesty by the drug warriors that they use teenagers as the benchmark by which all policy decisions are made. Nobody would think to close all the bars and ban alcohol simply because underage drinking exists. Nobody would reasonably suggest that cigarette sales be prohibited because some teenagers are able to buy them illegally. Yet all the propoganda by the Partnership for a Drug Free America and all the political rhetoric is couched in terms of what drugs do to kids. These groups and politicians are clearly unwilling or afraid to hold a debate on what responsible, consenting ADULTS should or should not be able to put in thier bodies. The fact remains that no child should have access to any drug, legal or illegal, but that truth should not drive the debate for the rest of the population. There clearly needs to be a voice against groups like Partnership for a Drug Free America so that the constant one-sided story that the media eats hook, line, and sinker has some balance and that others realize that there are people out here that don't agree with the lies they are spreading. Abigail Trafford: Wow. You feel pretty strongly about this. I like your point about gearing anti-drug campaigns to teenagers. At the same time, they are the natural targets in preventing drug use. My personal bias is that teenagers need to learn about the potential dangers of many harmful substances, not just illegal drugs. And, as you point out, what is the proper strategy to educated adults? Peter, what do you think? Peter Reuter: There is a bit of the Willy Sutton approach here; you go to where you can find targets. Prevention in the U.S. is aimed at young people who have either not tried drugs or are still in the experimental phase. They are relatively easy to reach throuhg schools (though less in high school than in elementary or intermediate schools); perhaps they are more media oriented as well. Persuading adults who are experienced uses to quit is much harder work; need different messages and different media. - - Reston, Va: The problem with lumping alcohol and drugs together is that a person can have one drink and feel no effect. People do drink wine and beer for the taste. I've never seen anyone take one hit off of a joint and be fine for the night. Instead of telling kids that alcohol is as bad as drugs, we need to tell them that getting drunk is as bad (or worse) as using drugs. I've been in AA for 12 years, sober for 7, so I have some experience with this. Abigail Trafford: Thanks for your story. I think you say it just right. Peter? Peter Reuter: Your point about alcohol being consumed for reasons other than intoxication is very important, both for political and substantive reasons. All the illicits are associated with one motivation for use, namely some change in mood, typically disnhibition. I'm not sure that is inherent in marijuana. A Dutch researcher once desribed to me his irritation with a US teenager who persisted in getting stoned when marijuana was passed around, while the rest of the crowd smoked a very small amount as a supplement to their after-dinner brandy, and sat around chatting. My guess is that most of the illicits do not lend themselves to this kind of "tasting" but marijuana effects may be "socially defined" - - Chicago, Ill.: Why do the bureaucrats in Washington stick to the same old tired song & dance? Abigail Trafford: Actually, the White House media campaign that links drug use with international terror is a first. Most ads stress the harm that drugs do to the user and those around him or her. This reminds users of illegal drugs that there is a violent underworld that envelops illegal drugs. So you could argue that this is a department from the old song and dance. Your thoughts, Peter? Peter Reuter: I agree with Abbie. The underlying rationale for the ads may be the same but the campaign is quite innovative in its choice about messages. - - Abigail Trafford: Thank you Peter Reuter and thank you all for your questions and comments. This was a wonderful disucssion. Join me same time same place next week. - --- MAP posted-by: Josh