Clinton Raises White Flag
Policy Statement on How to
Win the War on Drugs
Issued September 18, 1996
Introduction
Under the Reagan and Bush Administrations, the number of
Americans using illicit drugs plunged by more than 50%.
According to the University of Michigan's study Monitoring the Future,
1992 marked the lowest use of illegal drugs among the nation's high
school seniors since 1975.
All that changed with the election of Bill Clinton in November 1992.
The most recent HHS National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, released
on August 20, 1996, reports that overall drug use among teenagers has
more than doubled under Bill Clinton, increasing by 105% from 1992-95.
Teen drug use has risen by 80% since 1992--the last year of the
Bush Administration, when it had reached a low of 6%.
We need not continue to suffer from the horrible consequences
of drug abuse by our children. Solving this problem requires an
examination of what's gone wrong under Bill Clinton--and what worked
from 1980-1992.
Today's Horrific and Growing Problem of Drug Abuse
America faces no deadlier enemy at home or abroad than drug abuse.
The Clinton Administration itself estimates that every day drug abuse
kills 55 American men, women, and children and costs the American people
$18 million. And while drugs destroy families at every income level,
they strike hardest at the most vulnerable among us--poor families and
children. Drug abuse is also strongly connected to crime. More than
two-thirds of all arrestees in 1995 tested positive for at least one drug.
In some large urban areas, up to 80% of arrestees test positive.
And case studies of several large metropolitan areas found that
approximately one-fourth to one-half of all homicides were drug-related.
A 1994 study of New York City murders found that victims were
anywhere from 10 to 50 times more likely than members of the general
population to have been cocaine users.
Drug abuse has disastrous effects on children's education:
studies show that heavy drug-users are twice as likely to drop out of
high school as those who do not use drugs.
Drug abuse has devastating health consequences. For example,
the Center for Disease Control and Prevention recently found that 37% of
all reported AIDS cases were associated with intravenous drug use.
Clinton's "Phony War" Against Drugs
On August 26, 1996, Newsweek reported: "it is simply beyond
argument that Bill Clinton has failed to use the powers of his office to
lead the war on drugs."
President Clinton is correct to say, looking back at his
four-year record, that it does no good to point fingers--rather
we should together find ways to solve the problem. But finding solutions means honestly assessing what went wrong, so we can fix it. Here are the details of how President Clinton chose to walk away from the struggle against illegal drugs.
No resources. Although then-candidate Bill Clinton brazenly
told the 1992 Democratic Convention that President Bush "hasn't
fought a real war on crime and drugs . . . [and] I will," immediately
after taking office President Clinton cut staffing for the Office of
National Drug Control Policy, the key coordinating unit in the nationwide
anti-drug effort. The Clinton cuts were over 80%, eliminating 121 of 146
positions.
President Clinton proceeded to slash interdiction spending by 25%
from Bush Administration levels--a cut of over one-quarter billion dollars.
Interdiction effectiveness fell by 64%. President Clinton's 1995 budget
sought to cut still more--over 620 drug enforcement positions,
including 227 Drug Enforcement Administration agent positions.
The Clinton Administration adopted a more liberal policy toward drug
dealers as well. From 1993-1995, drug prosecutions by the Justice
Department dropped by more than 12%.
No leadership. The Clinton "War on Drugs" has not just been
underfunded. The President has made no use--or worse than no use--of the
moral authority of his office. In contrast to the Reagan and
Bush Administrations' high-profile anti-drug campaigns, President
Clinton has virtually ignored the issue. In his first year in office,
in a total of 1,628 statements, he made only 13 references to drug abuse.
In 1993-94, Clinton mentioned illegal drugs only 24 times in 3,300
presidential papers.
The few statements that Clinton has made on this subject have
been largely counterproductive. His "I didn't inhale" remark is
internationally famous, but rather than repair the damage with more
dignified comments, Clinton has sought to appear "hip" with young
audiences. In an MTV appearance--before an overwhelmingly youthful
audience--Clinton was asked, "if you had to do it over again, would you
inhale?" The national role model told the nation's youth, with a grin:
"Sure, if I could. I tried before."
Clinton's permissive attitude towards illegal drugs is also
reflected among appointees throughout his Administration.
Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders, who resigned in disgrace, expressed
publicly her support for considering drug legalization in 1993.
Clinton's National Security Council decided in that same year to
demote drugs from being one of its top three priorities--as it had been
prior to Clinton's election--to last place, on a list of 29.
And just weeks ago Presidential Press Secretary Mike McCurry responded
to press criticism of White House staff drug abuse by saying: "You know,
did I smoke a joint from time to time? Of course I did."
(McCurry's comments came in the wake of news accounts revealing that
dozens of members of the President's staff had been hired despite recent
drug problems--including documented instances of drug use at Clinton's own
inaugural.) Despite objections from the Secret Service that granting
permanent White House passes to known drug users would pose security
concerns, the White House insisted on clearing employees who admitted
recent hard-core drug abuse--including crack cocaine and hallucinogens.
Liberal judges. Worse than the Executive Branch's inaction,
President Clinton's many liberal judicial appointees have sought to
subvert the war on drugs.
For example, Clinton appointee Harold Baer, a U.S. District Judge,
refused to permit prosecutors to tell the jury that the defendant, who
had fled from police, had 75 pounds of cocaine and heroin in her car.
His reason: even though the police acted reasonably in this case,
they are known to engage in "pervasive" misconduct--justifying her
flight when they told her to stop. After public outcry,
Judge Baer finally agreed to reconsider the absurd decision.
Likewise, Clinton appeals court appointee Rosemary Barkett
dissented from her court's ruling that police could use trained
dogs to sniff for drugs while inspecting drivers' licenses and
registrations. Without any basis beyond her own opinion,
she called it "intolerable." The same Clinton appointee unsuccessfully
attempted to strike down a Georgia law that requires drug testing for
candidates for statewide office. She felt it violated their
First Amendment rights.
(This is apparently the first time it has been suggested that illegal
drug use is protected by the Bill of Rights.)
The Consequences. The verdict is now in on what passes for
the Clinton Administration's anti-drug efforts, and it is nothing
short of catastrophic. After more than a decade of steady decline in
drug use under Presidents Reagan and Bush, recent studies show that:
Marijuana use among teenagers has more than doubled since 1992 after
13 years of decline, increasing 141% since 1992 and 37% in the
last year alone. Use of LSD and other hallucinogens rose by a
staggering 183% over the same period, including 50% in the last
year--an increase of almost 200% since 1992. Monthly cocaine use among
teenagers shot up 166% between 1994 and 1995, and is now three times
its 1992 level.
Cocaine emergency room admissions are at the highest levels ever
reported, and emergency room reports of heroin-related episodes
are up 77%.
Since 1992, there has been a 52% jump in the number
of high-school seniors using drugs on a monthly basis.
Use of LSD by high-school seniors has hit a 20-year
record of almost 12%.
This election year, President Clinton belatedly appointed a
reputable drug czar, Barry McCaffrey. His assessment of the
situation in June 1996: "the bad news is that kids are now taking
drugs again. Drug use among children--adolescents--is now within
emergency levels."
During a recent Congressional hearing on the
Clinton Administration's "drug war," liberal New York Democrat
Charles Rangel, former chairman of the House Select Committee on Narcotics,
said, "I've been in Congress for over two decades, and I have never, never,
never seen a president who cares less about this issue."
According to Newsweek on August 26, 1996, Clinton's
own "FBI Director Louis Freeh wrote a scathing memo 18 months ago to
complain about the lack of `any true leadership' in stemming the influx
of heroin and cocaine."
In human terms, these policies and their results paint a bleak
picture of families torn apart, young lives lost or ruined, and
neighborhoods devastated--by the thousands. It didn't have to happen.
For four years, Bill Clinton decimated our national effort to
fight drugs. If we're to renew that battle effectively, the first
step is to reverse his tragic policies. The next step is to once again
begin doing what we know worked in the Reagan and Bush Administrations.
Effective Leadership in the War on Drugs
Despite the lack of leadership from President Clinton, the
Republican Congress has already begun to reverse Clinton's dangerous
policies by providing the resources that law enforcement needs to take
on the drug dealers and abusers. Our latest Federal budget commits
$7.1 billion to the war on drugs. (This includes a $167 million
increase in funding specifically for the Drug Enforcement
Administration--$20 million more than the Clinton Administration requested.)
The new budget passed by Congress also commences a $56 million initiative
to combat drug trafficking at our borders. And the Prison Litigation
Reform Act passed by Congress will prevent liberal judges from ordering
the early release of violent drug dealers.
But even while Congress can restore needed funding and pass
tough new laws, the President must promote national leadership.
In contrast to Clinton's performance, successive
Republican Administrations committed the full moral
authority of the Presidency to combating the societal curse of drug abuse.
Mrs. Reagan's Just Say No campaign brought the message of zero-tolerance
for drugs to every school and workplace in America.
President Bush's declaration of a war on drugs in 1989 brought
unparalleled resources and energy to our nation's anti-narcotic efforts.
It is time the President of the United States took a stand against
the permissive attitudes--in our popular culture, in Hollywood,
and in our courts--that have permitted this epidemic to grow so far out
of hand. The new Congress has begun working here too, of course, using
the bully pulpit to let the entertainment industry know that they will be
held accountable, not in a court of law but in the court of public opinion.
Our message is clear: movies and television must no longer glamorize
drugs and violence. And Republican Members are setting up Community
Anti-Drug Coalitions in their states and districts, uniting anti-drug
efforts in churches, schools, and the workplace.
There are now 39 million Americans under the age of 10 years old,
the greatest number in this age group since the 1960s. Their lives are
simply too precious to permit them to be sacrificed to drug use. The
scourge of drug abuse--now, more than ever--continues to eat away at our
homes, schools, and neighborhoods. Our next President, working with the
new Congress, must resolve to fight the war on drugs with every resource
at our nation's command.
# # #
Created by the House Republican Policy Committee,
please send comments to webmaster tcremer@hr.house.gov.
Last updated October 1, 1996