Options in the Drug War

Options in the Drug War J. Bradley Jansen May 3, 2001 President Bush has an opportunity to follow a drug policy more friendly to privacy, civil liberties and civil rights. Such an approach is more likely to lead to better respect for law enforcement, a focus on the problem users rather than casual users, a recognition that we are dealing with human beings some of whom need help, and a reduction in crime. Mr. Bush just nominated John P. Walters to head the Office of Drug Control Policy. No one questions his experience and qualifications for the position. Mr. Walters has previous experience in the drug czar’s office: he was chief of staff under William Bennet and later served as deputy director and acting director. He would have the authority to abandon failed policies and achieve results that eluded his predecessors. In short, Mr. Walters could do for our drug policies what Richard Nixon did for our China policy. No rational observer of the current policies thinks that they have taken drugs off the streets or sufficiently protected children. Mr. Walters could end the Thirty Years War and pursue policies that would help people and the country. Mr. Walters reportedly favors a more lenient treatment of first-time drug users. This approach makes sense. By tying the hands of judges with mandatory minimums and other restrictions, courts send otherwise nonviolent offenders to prison. This approach often acts as a training and recruitment program for violent criminals. By flooding the prisons with nonviolent offenders with mandatory sentences, we risk the possibility that more violent offenders will be released on the streets in order to make room in overcrowded prisons. I applaud his change in direction to focus on people that need help. As he points out, “While [hard-core users] represent one-third of drug users, they consume twothirds of all drugs.” Many of these people need help. It is the compassionate thing to do. Mr. Bush’s emphasis on studying the treatment needs in every state shows a good insight into the problem: it is at the state and local level that our efforts should be focused—and it is on the demand side that changes are going to made. Mr. Walters appears to be serious about addressing what he calls the “treatment gap.” He is also right to recognize that many of these substance abuse problems are inter-related with other problems. For many individuals, help will not come easily. Mr. Walters might find his job easier if he were to adopt policies that recognize that Washington, DC does not hold a monopoly on good ideas. He is making a good initial stop of recognizing the wisdom of turning to the states. Allowing states to experiment with different approaches makes sense. One of the reasons we were successful reducing welfare rolls in this country was the recognition of states as the laboratories of solutions. Aside from the financial savings made to the federal budget—a part of the reason for our budget surpluses today, many families’ lives are better off with a stable wage-earner in the household. The war on drugs is justifiably viewed as an excuse to violate civil rights and liberties expectations. One author of the drug war, Eric Sterling of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, has since turned his attention to fighting for our

protections in the Bill of Rights. (A good article on the subject can be on their website at http://www.cjpf.org/speeches/colorado.html.) A sensible policy of recognizing the benefits of a policy focused on the demand side and directed at the state and local level is likely to yield better results than our current failed policies. Let’s hope Mr. Walters is up to the job.