From: [gregt 10548] at [aol.com] (GregT10548)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: USA Today: Drug Czar
Date: 3 Jul 1994 19:34:03 -0400

The June 30, 1994 issue of USA Today carried a short interview with
Lee Brown, the Clinton administration's drug czar. The following are
some excerpts.  My comments are interspersed

Q: Why not just legalize drugs?
A: "We know that legalizing drugs would result in more drug use, more
crime and violence, more child and spouse abuse, and higher health
care costs."

>Not a bad conclusion based on no data whatsoever.

Q: Supporters of legalization question those assumptions.  What do
you tell them?
A: "I tell them to go to one of the hospital wards where they treat
babies who are born to mothers addicted to crack."

Q: How would legalization increase crime?  Drug trafficing and the
violence it brings, could disappear.
A: "Take PCP, for example.  People tend to commit violent crimes when
they are on PCP.  Take crack cocaine, for example.  People tend to
lose their normal function and commit more crimes."

Q: Mandatory sentencing is filling prisons with drug criminals, but
critics say the price is too high.  Who's right?
A: "At the federal leve, mandatory sentencing tends to overburden our
prison system with people who are not major public safety threats. 
As a result there's not room for violent offenders."

>Wait a minute.  Didn't he just say that drug use is a direct cause
>of crime?  If that is the case, how can drug users not be ..."major
>public safety threats"?

Q: What should we do?
A: "We should use our sentencing commission to devvelope guidelines. 
the authority should be left to the judges and the guidelines
developed by the sentencing commissioner."

Q: The other half of the equation is reducing demand for drugs.  What
works?
A: "We're placing much heavier emphasis on reducing the demand
through prevention, education, and treatment programs." 

Q: How do you link up treatment and a person with a drug problem?
A:"There's no problem whatsoever of identifying the people who could
benefit from treatment.  The big problem is we don't have the slots
to take care of them at this time."

>If there is "...no problem whatsoever of identifying..." drug users,
>then why do we spend all of this money each year trying to do just
>that?

Q: Despite all these efforts, drug abuse among young people is
rising.  Why?
A: My own personal belief is that we just did not get the message
across."

>All that money spent and we didn't get the message across?!  

Q: Major events sometimes seem to drive down drug use.  The death ...
of ... Len Bias is an often-cited example.  Use fell for years.  What
does that tell you?
A: "Getting the media to understand the drug problem is probably the
No. 1 domestic problem.  They have a role to play in helping educate
people.  some 160,000 kids don't go to school every day because they
are afraid.  If you look at health care, the soaring costs can be
related clearly to the drug problem.  If you look at the work place,
we're less productive because of substance abuse.  If you look at
public housing, people are terrified.  Unless we get a handle on
drugs, we won't have things like family, like work, like community."

>Did he answer a question?  So... first blame the media then state
>several blatant lies.  This will satisfy almost everyone...that
>reads the USA Today anyway :-).  It is nice to know, however, that we
>really don't need Hillory's health care plan. 

Q: Overall, the drug war has been anything but a success.  How much
can we realistically expect to achieve?
A: "Our overall objective is to reduce drug use in this country by 5%
annually.  As far as our youth, we think a realistic goal is to stop
the upward trend.  If we can do that, we'll think we've made some
progress."

>We have seen that the amount of drug use drug use fluctuates over
>long periods of time.  I am sure, however, that if drug use drops
>for a period of more than six months Mr. Brown will take the credit."
>
>If anyone knows if USA Today has an EMail address could you post it
>so that anyone that is interested could respond to this interview. 
>Unfortunately I did not keep the entire section.  By the way I only
>read this trash when I travel because the hotels usually provide them
>for free.  I swear :-).

                                                     Greg