ad info

 
CNN.comTranscripts
 
Editions | myCNN | Video | Audio | Headline News Brief | Feedback  

 

  Search
 
 

 

TOP STORIES

Bush signs order opening 'faith-based' charity office for business

Rescues continue 4 days after devastating India earthquake

DaimlerChrysler employees join rapidly swelling ranks of laid-off U.S. workers

Disney's GO.com is a goner

(MORE)

MARKETS
4:30pm ET, 4/16
144.70
8257.60
3.71
1394.72
10.90
879.91
 


WORLD

U.S.

POLITICS

LAW

TECHNOLOGY

ENTERTAINMENT

 
TRAVEL

ARTS & STYLE



(MORE HEADLINES)
 
CNN Websites
Networks image


Crossfire

Can the War on Drugs Ever be Won?

Aired August 30, 2000 - 7:30 p.m. ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

MARY MATALIN, CO-HOST: Tonight: President Clinton fires new ammunition in the drug war with more than a billion dollars in aid to Colombia. But is this just a waste of money? Can the war on drugs ever be won?

ANNOUNCER: Live from Washington, CROSSFIRE.

On the left, Bill Press; on the right, Mary Matalin. In the CROSSFIRE: in Fort Smith, Arkansas, Republican Congressman Asa Hutchinson, a member of the Judiciary Committee; and in New York, Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Lindesmith Center-Drug Policy Foundation.

MATALIN: Good evening, and welcome to CROSSFIRE.

President Clinton hand-delivered $1.3 billion in United States aid to Colombia today to support the South American nation's uphill battle against drugs, insurgents and recession. Narco-traffickers control over one half of the country and are the world's top producers of cocaine, with a growing market share for heroin. The United States is their biggest customer.

After two decades of the war on drugs, the problem has not abated. But the war on drugs has accelerated. Fueled by having to foot the bill for the highest ratio of imprisoned drug-offenders in the country, California leads the way with novel, if controversial approaches.

Proposition 36, on this fall's ballots, would end jail terms for possession of any illegal drug, including crack cocaine and heroin and substitute drug-treatment instead. So tonight, with more kids trying elicit drugs, the battles of the drug war -- foreign aid, incarceration, rehabilitation, decriminalization, legalization -- does anything work, and is the war winnable -- Bill.

BILL PRESS, CO-HOST: Congressman Hutchinson, even though you and I disagree on most issues, I always consider you a perceptive congressman. I was surprised today to learn you that actually voted for this $1.3 billion package. Congressman, look: Three-quarters of this money is going for military aid, including buying 60 new helicopters, training troops down there, sending 500 United States military advisers into Colombia to help them spray poison from the air and fight rebel guerrillas.

Congressman, isn't this the making of another Vietnam?

REP. ASA HUTCHINSON (R-AR), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Well, we lost over 50,000 in the war in Vietnam. We lose 50,000 people each year in the United States because of drugs. I think it's a serious problem when we get 90 percent of our cocaine and significant portions of our heroin from one country.

I think it's incumbent upon us to assist our neighbors in really fighting our war. And this aid package is designed to support them in their effort -- the Colombian National Police -- I've been there. General Serrano is doing good job. They are good people who are risking their lives to stop the flow of drugs coming into the United States.

So I think it is a -- I support the aid package. I think there's reasonable restrictions on this. It devotes money to building the administration of justice, the rule of law there, human rights, improvements in that country. But it does give helicopters that needed to stop the cultivation of coca in the mountain regions of Colombia.

That democracy is in jeopardy in Colombia. And the revolutionary forces that are fighting the government there, they need the support as well. So I think it's two-fold: One, it helps in the drug war. And secondly, it helps democracy survive in Latin America.

PRESS: Well, I'm surprised to hear you mention democracy, to hear you mention human rights. Congressman, you know the Colombian military has been charged with -- and there's a lot of evidence -- that some of those people are guilty of some of the most right-wing excesses and death squads, such as the United States used to fund in El Salvador and in Nicaragua and Guatemala. We're making -- aren't we making the same mistake again by giving more money to the military thugs in South America?

HUTCHINSON: Well, the Congress insisted upon restrictions. And really, Senator Leahy's amendment says that none of the funds can be used for units that have...

PRESS: Sure, but President Clinton threw those out.

HUTCHINSON: ...been guilty of human rights violations.

PRESS: But President Clinton threw those out, Congressman. The president threw those out when he signed the bill.

HUTCHINSON: He has the right to wave certain restrictions. But the prohibitions under the Leahy amendment, from my understanding, are still in existence. And this money, going to the Colombian National Police to support their effort, or to the military, are to units that not engaged in human rights violations. And I think that's important that we train them properly, that we go through education courses with them to prevent that from happening.

But this is a very difficult war that is there. And many of those good people are -- from the judges to the prosecutors -- are losing their lives, because they are risking themselves to stop the flow of drugs. I think that we can support in that effort.

MATALIN: Professor Nadelmann, let's switch for a moment to the demand side in the United States for a moment. I believe you're an adviser to George Soros, who is the chief bankroller of the Proposition 36 referenced in our opening there, where treatment would be given in lieu of imprisonment for possession of even the most elicit of drugs.

Martin Sheen, father of Charlie Sheen -- who we all have -- celebrity drug abuser -- had this to say in opposition to Proposition 36 -- quote -- "I have seen how devastating drug addiction can been. Drug addicts need to be held directly accountable by the court with real sanctions." And he says Proposition 36 removes any incentive to take treatment seriously, because there are no consequences. There is no accountability.

How do you think that's going reduce the demand for drugs?

ETHAN NADELMANN, LINDESMITH CENTER-DRUG POLICY FOUNDATION: Well, I mean the problem is, is Martin Sheen is inaccurate in his description. And so are you Mary in describing the initiative in your opening. And quite frankly, what Proposition 36 does, is it says: The first two times somebody gets arrested for simple drug possession, if they have no history of violent crime, no association with violent behavior, than they have to be sent to treatment.

Now, that is exactly what Martin Sheen wants. It is in fact court-mandated treatment. What we do know -- I mean, the California Legislative Analyst's Office analyzed this legislation -- what they determined was that this would reduce by roughly 25,000 the number of non-violent drug-offenders being sent to California prisons and jails next year.

It would save taxpayers a billion-and-a-half dollars and it would increase funding for drug treatment by $120 million a year. Mary, think about this...

MATALIN: But Professor...

NADELMANN: Yes, go ahead.

MATALIN: Correct me -- I mean, I am reading the public accounts of this. I'm not trying to mislead our viewers or misstate the program -- but the public account of this says that the $120 million appropriated by Proposition 36, none of that would be used for drug- testing. If there is no drug-testing, there's no accountability. If there's no consequences...

NADELMANN: Mary, there's no prohibition on spending money on drug-testing. The California government, the courts can spend whatever money they wanted on drug testing. All the initiative says that it won't be -- the money raised from this initiative will not be spent for that.

Look, the bottom line is: America has gone from 50,000 people behind bars on drug charges in 1980 to almost a half-a-million people behind bars on drug charges today. America locks up more people on non-violent drug charges than all of Western Europe locks up for everything. And they have more people than we do. So we have to break the cycle.

You know, Congressman Tom Campbell, the Republican who is running for Senate, he has put it beautifully. He has said this money for Colombia is a joke. This is another Vietnam we are walking into. If we are really serious, we should follow president Pastrana said yesterday: Invest the money in reducing demand here. And that means sensible, pragmatic drug treatment of all sorts -- not only coerce drug treatment through the courts -- all sorts: Methadone maintenance treatment. Whatever works should be what we are pursuing.

MATALIN: OK, let's not disagree there for the moment. But let's go back to Colombia. Barry McCaffrey says 90 percent of Colombia's cocaine comes here. And you are staying: OK, if we reduce it there, even if it works, it will pop up if Ecuador. But there's a whole mega-year train guerrilla operation. You don't think the multi- pronged attack in Colombia, if it reduces the coca there, you think that much coca can be reproduced in another country?

NADELMANN: You know, we have -- exactly -- we have to make up our mind on this thing. As a drug-control measure the $1.2, $1.3 billion to Colombia is a joke. We push down there, it will pop up either in Ecuador, or Venezuela, or again in Bolivia or Peru. This is a global commodities market. There is a supply. There is a demand. One way or another, it's going to come through.

So we should stop pretending that this is drug control. If the issue here is how to facilitate the peace process in Colombia, then the U.S. can possibly play a constructive role. And some forms of aid may make sense. But nobody is talking about that here. Nobody is coming up with a systematic policy, a five-year plan, a three-year plan, to deal with the guerrillas insurgences...

HUTCHINSON: That's not correct.

NADELMANN: ... and the right-wing paramilitaries down there. You know, what you have is a government sitting there. You have a Clinton White House. You have a drug czar that will be out of office in a few months. They are throwing a billion down there. Congress is wasting the taxpayer's money. There's no plan whatsoever.

PRESS: Congressman, do you want in there? Go ahead. I heard you.

HUTCHINSON: Well, I think, first of all, we have a coordinated plan in South America. Congress insisted upon not just aid to Colombia, but also to Peru and Bolivia, two drug-source countries. They have a five-year plan. And they have reduced the coca production by 50 percent during the last five years. So we have had some great success down there. I don't think that we in America should be able to say that we have to give up on this. And I think that's what the professor is saying.

PRESS: But here's the... (CROSSTALK)

HUTCHINSON: ... government's business. It's not the government's business if somebody just uses drugs, whether it's heroin, whether it's cocaine. I've seen the damage to young people and the families because of drugs. I don't think we can just say: It's OK. I think we have to continue the enforcement effort.

PRESS: All right, Mr. Nadelmann, go ahead. Go ahead, Mr. Nadelmann.

NADELMANN: I think Congressman -- Congressman, sit down and read Milton Friedman. You know, what he'll explain right there is that whether you push down in Bolivia and Peru, it will pop up somewhere else. What's happened in Colombia, it's essentially like Chicago under Al Capone but times a hundred and going over 30-40 years.

We've been hearing this stuff about supply reduction, and crop substitution and crop eradication for 40 years now. It's a joke. At some point, we need a different approach. In California, there's an alternative approach to substitute real treatment. What needs to happen, what the American people are beginning to look for is a little bit of leadership from Congress. We see that from Tom Campbell, we see it from some other people who are actually saying, let's invest in real drug treatment, let's stop make believing that somehow we can cut off this global commodities market.

HUTCHINSON: We are investing enormously...

PRESS: Hey, Congressman...

HUTCHINSON: ... in drug treatment and demand reduction as well.

NADELMANN: Not enough, not enough.

PRESS: Congressman, let me ask you just before we go to a break here about this whole war on drugs, because it didn't just start this year. I mean, it started back with Richard Nixon 40 years -- 30 years ago, and let me just show you the figures on what we've spent on the war on drugs. By the way, it's $45 billion a year now, state, federal and the local governments. Back in 1968, Richard Nixon was spending -- spent $65 million in that year fighting the war on drugs, the year he announced it. By 1982 under Ronald Reagan it had jumped to $1.65 billion. This year under President Clinton, $18.5 billion.

Isn't it clear, Congressman, we are never going to win this war? In fact, we are fighting the wrong war because we're putting all this money into trying to stop supply instead of dealing, as Mr. Nadelmann says, with demand and with treatment in this country.

HUTCHINSON: Well, if that was correct, it would be a wrong strategy. We don't put all the money in supply. We put money in demand. In other words, we put millions and millions -- hundreds of millions dollars more in educating our young people not to use drugs. There's been positive results from that. There's more conversations with parents and teenagers about not using drugs. We've seen some significant progress in some of the statistics. We also put money in drug rehabilitation.

So we are putting in a balanced effort. To say that we should give up on this is like saying that if criminals get guns we should just give up on trying to prevent them from getting it, if teenagers are using alcohol we should just stop trying to prevent them from getting alcohol. I think that's the wrong approach. When something as harmful for society -- we as a society should stay engaged in the battle to prevent the harm and the losing of lives.

PRESS: All right, well, we'll pick up on that very question when we come back. With this war on drugs going on so long, is it time to consider a different approach? Isn't it time maybe to even make illegal drugs legal? When we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PRESS: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE.

Remember Nancy Reagan, just say no? If only it were that simple. But 30 years since Richard Nixon declared the first war on drugs, we are spending more money than ever with little show of progress. So is it time to rethink our whole approach to drugs?

That's our debate tonight with Republican congressman and former federal prosecutor Asa Hutchinson joining us from Fort Smith, Arkansas; and Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Lindesmith Center-Drug Policy Foundation in New York -- Mary.

MATALIN: OK, Professor Nadelmann, let's go back to your admonitions about the current system and how California leads the way, there is such leadership out there in California. The critics of Proposition 36 say there isn't any accountability, there is no consequences, hence there is -- if there is no consequences, drug abuse will continue. California also leads the way in decriminalization and has the hugest effort for legalization. This much we know in this leadership role California is taking: that if you legalize drugs, use goes up. It happened in Great Britain with Heroin. It happened in the Netherlands with Marijuana. No?

NADELMANN: Mary, I wish there was one accurate thing in the way you posed that thing. I mean, quite frankly, you know, California does not lead the way in any of the ways you're talking about. We are not talking about legalization here. The critics of the California initiative are fishing with things and they're making up one half truth and mistruth after another. The bottom line is we need a variety of treatment options in this country for people who have problems with drugs.

You know, look, the evidence is in on methadone maintenance. The National Academy of Science says there is nothing that worked so well in terms of reducing the illegal heroin use and the death, disease, crime and suffering associated with it. This should be made massively available not just through clinics, which people don't want in their neighborhoods, but through ordinary doctors and physicians and pharmacies and what have you. Other types of treatment work, but the resources have to be there. A woman who is pregnant and who has a drug problem has almost no place to go in this country.

I mean, when you have the president of Colombia saying, please, please, if you're going to give me aid, don't make it all military aid, give us some economic assistance and meanwhile, spend more money on reducing the demand among your drug addicts, at least we should do the right thing in this area.

And at the same thing, we should not be conflating every small reform with outright legalization. You know, for 15 years, people have played this game. People talk about medical marijuana and the other side yells, legalize it. People talk about needle exchange and people say, oh, that's legalization. That's a lot of hooey, a lot of bull. I think we need an honest, frank conversation about pragmatic options, and we know that some pragmatic options work, including drug treatment.

MATALIN: Professor Nadelmann, I don't suppose there is one thing I can say that you're not going to say I'm making it up, but I'm just giving you the facts...

NADELMANN: Tell me I persuaded you.

MATALIN: No, I'm not against treatment. What I'm trying to get you to answer is, treatment without some accountability, without some consequences, without the specter of incarceration is not going to -- it's not going aid it -- it's not going to lead to prevention. It's not going to diminish the demand.

NADELMANN: But, Mary, Mary, there's two problems with that. The first one is that Proposition 36, in fact, does still have the element of coercion over it, it still does have probations and parole officers and judges playing a role. So that's the first point. The second point is it's a myth to say that no treatment can work without coercion.

You know, millions of people in this country have gone to A.A., Alcoholics Anonymous without the coercion of a court or a police officer and many of them have gotten better. Methadone maintenance -- people are not sent there with coercion, yet hundreds of thousands of people have gotten their drug addictions behind them as a result of that. Think about what you know about people...

HUTCHINSON: Something...

NADELMANN: ... food addiction, or with cigarette addiction, or all sorts of other addictions.

Some people need coercion, but a lot of people come -- a lot of people put their drug addiction behind them, not because somebody's holding a club over their head, but simply because something changes in their lives.

PRESS: Congressman Hutchinson, before we get to this legalization question, as a Californian here, I have to come to the defense of my beleaguered state, and ask you just a question about this Prop. 36. You know, in California, we have more people in prison than any other state -- two million. Since the '80s, we've built 24 new prisons in California to house mostly nonviolent drug offenders. We have not built one new U.C. campus in that time.

Now if this measure is going to gets people into treatment and out of prison, keeps 25,000 people out of prison but into good treatment programs, don't you think that's worth doing?

HUTCHINSON: Well, there's two problems. First of all, there is not sufficient consequences to encourage the treatment. Secondly, our young people are guided by symbols in our land. And even though this does not deal with legalization, that's behind the motivation of many people who support these type of propositions, and that's the ultimate goal and the young people get these signals.

What's working in California, and we need to do more of, are drug courts, where the prison sentence is hanging over a person's head, an addict's head or a user's head, and because of that, they are mandated to have drug testing every week, to report to a probation officer, to go to counseling and rehabilitation, and I've heave their testimony that it works under those circumstances, but consequences are important. And many of the addicts testify that what made them confront their drug use was a police officer arresting them.

In fact, the president of the United States, President Clinton, told me, he thanked me for savings his brother's life, because I was the one responsible for prosecuting him for cocaine distribution, and he turned it around, and it was the prosecution...

(CROSSTALK)

PRESS: Go ahead, Mr. Nadelmann.

NADELMANN: Congressman, treatment is a matter of different strokes for different folks. There are people who benefit from coercion, and a lot of people who ended up worse off because they go to jail or prison. Sending people to jail or prison is not the best form of drug treatment out there, and pouring all of your money and the taxpayer's money into treatment only behind bars and through the criminal justice system.

HUTCHINSON: You must not have heard what I said.

NADELMANN: ... is not helping people.

I heard what you said. You're talking about the...

(CROSSTALK)

MATALIN: OK, gentlemen, gentlemen, we obviously haven't won the war on drugs tonight. Thank you for joining us, congressman, and you, professor.

Bill and I will be right back and continue our nightly war here on CROSSFIRE.

Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PRESS: Mary, I think this is one issue on which both George W. Bush, and Al Gore and you are wrong, and I used to agree with you, until a conservative Republican judge from Orange County, California pointed out to me that 80 percent of his time, of the cops' time, of the bailiffs' time, of the courts' time, of the prison guards' time are consumed by nonviolent drug offenders. This is crazy.

MATALIN: It is his job. I'm looking at this not as a conservative as a liberal, but a mother of kids. And when I look at the drug use among 12-year-olds, 12-17-year-olds, it's increased 14 percent in Clinton's term. I'm not blaming that on Clinton. I'm just saying everything has to be done, including punishment and certainly eradication or diminution of supply. There's no punishment, if there's no consequences. It's just use your common sense.

PRESS: No, no, no. The problem now is all of it goes into punishment, and all of it goes into destroying crops in Colombia, which is absolutely insane.

MATALIN: That's not true.

PRESS: It is true. That's where the money goes, and that's why it's not working.

From the left, I'm Bill Press. Good night for CROSSFIRE.

MATALIN: And I'm Mary Matalin from the right. Join us again tomorrow night for more CROSSFIRE.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com

 Search   


Back to the top  © 2001 Cable News Network. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines.