For most of this century, America has pursued a harmful drug policy. During the Reagan Administration, that policy was pushed to what seemed its most destructive extremes. Mr. and Mrs. Reagan be-ieved, as did many decent people, that a harsh, military-style drug war was the only effective method for saving the soul of America, and the world, from chemical enslavement.

However, after eight years ofthat multi-billion dollar Reagan war, our prisons are bursting, violent drug traffickers are terrorizing our cities, and drug abuse is rampant. Drug-dealer turf wars, just outside the doors of the White House, have made the District of Columbia the murder capital of the civilized world. So much cocaine has come into the nation through our vast defenses that the price has dropped to one third its 1981 rate. Consequently, our children find it easier to buy crack and cocaine than the less harmful marijuana.

As the Bush era dawns, those with a sense of history must ask if the perverse tragedy of American drug policy will continue for the remainder of the century. Careful analysis of Mr. Bush's work as the Reagan Admini-stration drug czar (he was never actu-ally given that title), of his actions during the beginning of his term in the Oval Office, and of the 1988 drug bill combine to show a national policy full of internal contradictions.

The drug czars

While serving as Vice President, George Bush led the drug war of the 1980s. He commanded the South Florida Task Force, the Reagan showpiece effort that combined all civilian and military enforcement elements in the region. Out of the experience of that regional task force grew a series of national and international narcotics task forces that emphasized tough law enforcement and military intervention. A visit to Bush's office a few years ago revealed a drug staff emotionally dedicated to the proposition that coordinated military and police power could be effective in a harsh war against traffickers, sellers and users.

But barely had President Bush warmedhis seatin the Oval Office before he dismissed it all offhand. Education, not law enforcement, was the answer, he casually observed. He appointed for-mer education secretary William Ben-nett as the National Drug Control Di-rector, or drug czar. During the Reagan years,l3ennett'sdrug education program amounted to right-wing rhetoric. And how was Bush planning to make this previously ineffective education strat-egy suddenly work in the inner cities? He had no answer in his Jan uary budget message, which rehashed tougher law enforcement solutions. The young Bush Administration was confused.

The bad news in the act
Many provisions of the 1988 drug law promise only to continue the di-ug abuse disaster. "It is the declared pol-icy of the United States Governnient to create a Drug-Free America by 1995," the law declares. (Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, P.L. 100-690, Sec. 5251) While some may shrug off this statement as a harmless platitude, it is consistent with 75 years of drug demagoguery in America. From seemingly innocuous pieties have come repressive govern-ment policies that have created a great deal of suffering. The 1988 drug law will continue that suffering. Its prohi-bition on the use of most federal treat-ment funds for any program providing illegal drugusers clean needles, or even bleach to clean their needles, will con-tinue the spread of AIDS. (Sec. 2025)

Not only is Congress thereby declaring a real war on drug users but also a war on everyone else because intravenous heterosexual drug users are the main engine for transmission to the general population.

Other parts of the law may also create serious mischief. Congress took the harshest possible position on any form of practical compromise when it declared legalization to be "an uncon-scionable surrender in a war [where] there can be no substitute for total victory." (Sec. 5011)

Then the very next section of the law instructs the new drug czar to "develop a program to inform the American public of the provisions of this Act pertaining to penalties for use or possession of illegal drugs." (Sec. 5012) In other words, the discussion of legalization, decriminalization or any other compromise is off the agenda. Instead, the government promises to treat as the enemy anyone who simply uses, never mind sells, these banned substances.

These extreme warnings open Title V—User Accountability, which provides that drug users for the first time in history could, in addition to other penalties, now lose public hous-ing, jobs and a vast array of federal benefits. Moreover, government con-tractors may lose their contracts un-less they provide a drug-free workplace, which, as defined in this title, could involve an alien degree of intrusion into the privacy of employees.

The good news

Yet, there are many good provisions in the law that reflect the growing influence of reformist sentiment. The greatest hope for the future is found in Title II—Treatment and Prevention Programs. Anyone who favors rational approaches to dealing with drug abuse should become familiar with the posi-tive provisions of this title and they should make their voices heard in the debate now beginning in earnest on the actual funding to be made available for treatment.

It is encouraging to see that the highest priority is placed on preventing AIDS by providing treatment for intravenous drug abusers (Sec. 2012) and that treatment on demand (within seven days) is the goal, whenever prac-ticable (Sec. 2034). Of course, at some point in the near future, the nation must allow needle-exchange programs (a provision supported by many ex-perts for years and recently recom-ended by the National Academy of' Sciences) and legal narcotic mainte-nance by prescription. But this law makes an excellent start to develop new treatment approaches for all those in trouble with drugs and alcohol.

Every person involved in the treatment field should consider submitting applications for funds under Title II so as to help shape the precise details of programs—and also to experiment with new approaches to help
abusers. The range of possibilities is enormous and includes grants and contracts by the Secretary of Labor with multitudes of private employers to establish Employee Assistance Programs. (Sec. 2101) EAPs represent yet another example of the compromises in the middle ground that many drug war critics support wholeheartedly.

Key elements of these EAPs run directly counter to the drug war mentality. Rather than treat users as the enemy, EAPs emphasize a) judging employees on the basis of performance, b) respect for the individual's privaey, c) confidential referral to treatment, d) avoidance of the criminal law, and e) retention in employment.

Government grant officials have said that they would look with favor on applications for some of these funds from foreign officials and experts. While mainly intended for America ns, gran ts may be made to those in other coun-tries where the possibility of greater experimentation is present.

Barely noticed in the debates 011 the law is the fact that a huge program of assistance to state and local narcotics control agencies has been set up through the Bureau of Justice Assis-tance in the Department of Justice. (Title VI, Subtitle C) This program has the potential to develop into one on the scale of the old Law Enforcement As-sistance Administration. Much of this lode may go into standard law enforce-ment, but there is room here for inno-vation in criminal justice. Moreover, there is a provision for developing a massive training program through the National Institute of Corrections that will improve all manner of rehabilita-tion programs for criminals convicted of drug-related crimes and for drug-dependent criminals. (Sec. 6292)

In sum: while a fresh rereading of the Reagan-Bush record and of the 1988 drug law should send chills up the spine of anyone who understands the history of American freedom, drug policy reform advocates must build on the positive opportunities that exist, creating positive programs within a generally negative policy universe. In time the good sense of the positive programs may come to dominate.

AST

References
For AIDS and drug abuse prevention fund-ing: Treatment Research Branch and Community Research Branch, Division of Clinical Research, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Md. 20857. (301) 443-4060 and 443-6720, respecti vely.
For EAP funding: Office of Policy, U.S. Sec-retary ofLabor, 200 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210. (202) 523-6666.
For narcotics control funding: State and Local Assistance Division, Bureau of Jus-tice Assistance, 633 Indiana Ave., N.W., Room 1044, Washington, D.C. 20531. (202) 272-6838. Eugene Dzikiewicz, Director.
For drug offender rehabilitation funding: National Institute of Corrections, 320 First St., N.W., Room 206, Washington, D.C.