Pubdate: Sat, 04 May 2002
Source: Baltimore Sun (MD)
Copyright: 2002 The Baltimore Sun, a Times Mirror Newspaper.
Contact:  http://www.sunspot.net/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/37
Author: Del Quentin Wilber
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/campaign.htm (ONDCP Media Campaign)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/walters.htm (Walters, John)

APPROACHES TO DRUG CONTROL

Interview: The White House Drug Czar Discusses His Office's Recent Media 
Campaign And Its Vision For The Future.

The television ads are startling:

"Yesterday afternoon, I did my laundry, went out for a run, and helped 
torture someone's dad," one young man informs the camera. "Last weekend, I 
washed my car, hung out with a few friends, and helped murder a family in 
Colombia," another says. "Drug money helps terror," both ads warn. "Buy 
drugs and you could be supporting it, too."

That is the message the White House has been sending across the country as 
it pushes the war on drugs by linking it to the fight against terrorism. 
And though the strategy has produced some controversy among those who 
question the wisdom of associating drugs with terrorism, it certainly has 
attracted attention.

The White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy, run by drug czar 
John P. Walters, has a media budget of $180 million to use in the war on drugs.

Walters, who worked in the drug office under the first President Bush, 
joined the current Bush administration in December. He recently sat down 
for a question-and-answer session on his plans and policies. He was asked 
about the advertising campaign - including these ads and others - against 
drugs, and other issues. Here are excerpts from the discussion:

Are these advertising campaigns successful, and how do you measure that 
success?

We have a media campaign that is designed to produce changes in the 
attitudes about taking drugs and prevent drug use. We have a sophisticated 
evaluation mechanism that measures attitudinal changes and tries to isolate 
what contribution the ads themselves make. Means to the end of actually 
achieving something through action.

Does it really pull the community together? Does it energize key 
institutions? Do they work together to get people into treatment and 
provide better safety to get more young people from the ravages of use and 
addiction? It works in two stages. Do people understand and accept and 
remember the message? And, do they act on it?

There certainly is evidence that there is understanding, particularly. Part 
of our media campaign is targeted at youth and part at parents. If parents 
reinforce the message with young people, we get maximum effect.

The last evaluation showed that not only had the message to parents been 
received but that the questions asked of young people - do your parents 
talk to you about drugs? ... showed that kids were actually having 
conversations with their parents initiated by their parents in larger 
numbers than any advertising campaign before. ... Ultimately, our goal is 
to reduce drug use.

What is the most effective way to reduce drug use: prevention or interdiction?

The most important thing we do is prevention. I know it's difficult to 
demonstrate. We can do more harm than good if the administration and 
national leadership suggests this is not a priority, not a serious matter, 
is not on the agenda or is something that we talk intelligently or 
seriously about. That is not essentially measured in dollars. ...

Most law enforcement is done at the local level. Most prevention and 
treatment is done at the local level. We are providing revenue and 
resources to other people. Our leadership is very powerful. It can have 
negative consequences if we don't do it right. But it can have positive 
consequences by setting a tone for young people. We know that if young 
people don't use drugs through teen-age years, they are unlikely to use 
them later on. ...

Whom are you trying to reach to prevent drug use? And what drugs are at the 
root of this country's drug problem?

Of the 4.5 million who need to benefit from drug treatment [in the United 
States], 23 percent are teen-agers. We've never had an estimate suggesting 
that high a percentage of people with substance abuse problems were that young.

Secondly, people have not talked about and focused on marijuana. Of the 65 
percent of those people in that dependency category, their primary or 
secondary dependence is with marijuana. It is by far the single largest 
factor in illegal drug addiction in the country. ... The conventional view 
out there today is that marijuana is a soft drug, that marijuana is 
harmless and that it is not addictive, and there is no withdrawal. It's not 
just a gateway drug. ... If you are not talking about marijuana, you are 
not talking about the central part of the problem.

How does that fit into the debate concerning medical use of marijuana?

The medical marijuana issue should be handled directly in the way that we 
do other things in medical science. We have the finest health care system 
in the world and in world history. We have very reliable ways of taking 
substances that have medical efficacy, proving that efficacy and safety. 
... The medical marijuana debate has been used as an argument that 
[officials] are unjustly keeping people who are suffering from medicine. 
... The problem is that the debate is sidetracking legitimate concerns 
about the drug, and people are suggesting that there is some kind of 
bigotry ... by those who express concerns about the drug.

How seriously do you take methamphetamine as a problem, especially in rural 
America?

We take methamphetamine very seriously. ... From my view and my experience, 
when drug problems have spread and become very serious, it's because they 
have not been recognized having serious consequences early enough. It's 
safe; it's fun; it's not going to be a real threat. Methamphetamine has 
spread rapidly. It looks like it's coming from larger laboratories. Right 
now, it has not reached the level of cocaine or heroin or marijuana. But 
its seriousness is growing.

The United States has given more than $1.7 billion in aid in the past two 
years to Colombia. Should more of it go to the police instead of the 
military to focus on the drug trade and not on the rebels?

We are providing aid to Colombia's military and police. In all candor, with 
the new president of Colombia, we are going to be partners in this. We 
can't defend democratic institutions and the democratic future of Colombia 
if we are not working together with the democratic rulers. ...

We recognize that without the security you cannot have development, you 
cannot have rule of law and can't have the effective control of drugs. ... 
We have a substantial aid program. The real question here is whether it can 
be effectively applied in the current environment and in the future 
systematically to support democracy in Colombia.

Afghanistan has been a huge supplier of heroin to the world, though not the 
United States, which gets most of its heroin from Colombia and Mexico. What 
will the toppling of al-Qaida and the Taliban mean to world heroin markets?

In history, heroin derived from [Afghan] poppies has gone mostly to Europe. 
It's a world market. The volume is so great and has been so great that it 
would be hard for [Afghanistan's growers] not to affect the world market. 
The Taliban's ban on poppies didn't have much effect. We need to help the 
new government get institutions in place to provide development as well as 
suppress the opium trade. Right now, the limiting factor is security. We 
are working with our allies and the interim authority. How much of this 
year's crop can be affected is limited, in all candor. The key is to get as 
much [help] as possible into growing areas this fall when they are planting 
poppies for next year so they have something else to plant.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom