Drug czar should go
$400 million goes up in smoke
By Timothy Lynch

Washington Times
Saturday, February 6, 2010
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/06/drug-czar-should-400-million-goes-up-in-smoke/?feat=home_commentary

Voters are disgusted by the reckless spending of politicians in Washington.
The backlash is coming, so policymakers are now scrambling to do something,
or at least be seen as doing something, about the enormous federal debt. Now
is a good time for Congress to abolish government agencies that are
outdated, dysfunctional or just unnecessary.

A prime candidate for abolition is the office of the so-called "drug czar."

The position of the drug czar was created by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act in
1988. It was a time of drug war hysteria. Former first lady Nancy Reagan
called casual drug users "accomplices to murder." President George H.W. Bush
vowed to make the war one of his top priorities. During his inaugural
address, he said, "Take my word for it. This scourge will stop." The
conservative firebrand William Bennett became the first czar and made
headlines with brash talk of beheading drug dealers. The nation's capital
was declared to be a "high intensity drug-trafficking" zone. There were
raids and arrests - including the notorious trial of then-Mayor Marion
Barry.

In theory, the drug czar's office was supposed to develop a long-term
strategy to win the drug war and bring about a "drug-free society." Each
year, the czar would call for more governmental efforts to "reduce demand"
and to "disrupt the supply" of narcotics. Instead of millions, the
government started to spend billions.

The bureaucracy flourished as more agents were hired and more high-tech
equipment was purchased. The criminal justice system expanded to handle the
influx of cases. More prosecutors. More judges. More prison guards.

And yet, millions and millions of Americans continued using drugs.We now
know that Presidents Obama and Clinton were among them. Indeed, nowadays,
police agencies like the FBI can only recruit young people if the agencies
are willing to overlook past drug use.

The goal of "disrupting supply" has been proved farcical. Drugs are as
widely available as ever. Indeed, Washington remains a city with thriving
drug traffic. There are open-air drug markets in many neighborhoods. More
than a decade after the drug czar went into business, a commission on
federal law enforcement practices gave this blunt assessment: "Despite a
record number of seizures and a flood of legislation, this Commission is not
aware of any evidence that the flow of narcotics into the United States has
been reduced." No one thinks that hiring more Border Patrol agents will make
a dent.

The violence and destabilization have become most acute at our southern
border. According to the Los Angeles Times' ongoing project on the drug war
in Mexico, more than 9,900 people have been slain in Mexican drug-related
violence since January 2007. The kidnappings and killings that have become
commonplace across the border are now spilling into the American Southwest.
Government efforts in Colombia have already cost U.S. taxpayers more than $5
billion, and Mexico is slated to receive about $1.4 billion. Meanwhile, the
killings continue at a rate that has prompted the State Department to issue
travel advisories to Americans traveling to our southern neighbor.

The drug czar has also meddled in local politics. Some states, for example,
have moved to change their laws to allow marijuana to be used by certain
patients in consultation with doctors. Whenever a state has a referendum
about medical marijuana on the ballot, the federal drug czar typically comes
in to lobby against the measure. Since the czar was created to oversee
federal policies, such politicking at the local level is outside his sphere
- and is thus an abuse of power.

The office of the drug czar issues an annual report regarding the efficacy
of drug policies. Scholars are skeptical of those reports because the
bureaucrats invariably prepare reports that come to the defense of existing
policy and "spin" the data to find good news and "progress." An independent
analysis of the drug office in 2007 found "overwhelming evidence of
consistently false and dishonest claims."

Perversely, Congress tends to reward government agencies that perform
poorly. When the drug czar's office was created in 1990, its budget was $12
million; this year, the office will cost more than $400 million.

If Congress wants to take a serious step to curb reckless and wasteful
spending, it ought to admit the futility of the drug war in the same way we
came to realize that alcohol prohibition was misguided. If Congress is only
ready to abolish some of its very worst mistakes, it should get rid of our
drug czar.
--
Timothy Lynch is director of the libertarian Cato Institute's Project on
Criminal Justice.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/06/drug-czar-should-400-million-goes-up-in-smoke/?feat=home_commentary