Eroding Hopes for a Kinder, Gentler Drug Policy

Until a few months ago, it seemed possible -- unlikely but possible -- that the Bush administration might take a chance in the right direction on drug policy. The president had expressed seemingly heartfelt empathy for people struggling with addiction. Both he as well as the new DEA administrator, Asa Hutchinson, and the new drug czar, John Walters, had expressed a willingness to revisit and perhaps revise the harsh federal mandatory minimum drug sentencing laws, particularly those with such a disparate impact on African Americans. Mr. Bush had even said on the campaign trail that he thought medical marijuana policy should be left to the states.

However, I no longer hope for progress toward a more tolerant and decent federal drug policy during the next few years. In March I sat in the courtroom at the U.S. Supreme Court and listened to the Bush administration's deputy solicitor general argue that every American public school student should be urine tested for drugs. The same afternoon, Justice Department officials testified before the U.S. Sentencing Commission that they no longer saw any need to revise the 100:1 ratio on penalties for powder and crack cocaine. So much for the commitments by the president and his drug policy advisors.

What's really at issue here are fundamental questions over which principles, objectives and criteria should guide our nation's efforts to deal with drug use and abuse.

The prevailing approach in the United States is the war on drugs, which essentially is based on two presumptions: that the criminal justice system and other punitive mechanisms must play a central role in U.S. drug policy, and that the only permissible approach to drug use itself is zero tolerance. Drug policies are evaluated principally in terms of increases or decreases in the numbers of citizens who admit to using drugs illegally; the ultimate aim is a "drug-free" society.

The contending approach -- advocated by the Drug Policy Alliance, the nation's leading drug policy reform organization, and by a growing drug policy reform movement in this country and abroad -- is harm reduction. We believe that criminal justice measures to control drug use are mostly ineffective, counterproductive and unethical, and should generally be used as last, not first, resorts. We regard abstinence as a desirable way to avoid drug problems, but also insist that responsible users of psychoactive drugs should not be punished. We see the fantasy of a drug free society as foolish and potentially dangerous in its absolutism. Our ideal drug policy is one that most effectively reduces the death, disease, crime and suffering associated with both drug use and our largely failed drug control policies. And we insist on the need for fallback strategies, such as needle exchange or measures to stem fatal overdoses, to reduce the harms of drug use by and among those who cannot or will not stop using drugs today.

I have long assumed that drug abuse counselors -- because they deal with drug abusers as human beings, and because so many once struggled with addiction themselves -- must naturally be drawn to drug policy reform. But I also know that the trauma of drug addiction can distort clear analysis, that the constant search for government funding can compromise one's principles, and that relying on the criminal justice system to force people into treatment can prove highly seductive in dealing with people who can't or won't stop using drugs.

I listen to the Bush administration's statements and the response among many leaders in the treatment field, and fear that people who should know better are being co-opted by hollow rhetoric and a few more dollars thrown their direction. There was much applause among treatment professionals when the administration announced its new drug control budget because it included $224 million (6.2%) more for drug treatment than the previous year. It seemed almost impolite to note that expenditures on prevention and research had dropped by $75 million (3%), spending on interdiction had increased by $215 million (10.4%), and that the basic ratio of federal expenditures on drug control remained essentially the same; twice as much for law enforcement and interdiction as for treatment and education. Behind the self-congratulation, the punitive priorities remain unchanged.