Despite growing evidence that treatment is a less costly and more effective
response than locking up nonviolent drug offenders, American politicians remain
addicted to the war on drugs. Two-thirds of the $19.2 billion federal anti-drug
budget is spent on interdiction and law enforcement, which has done nothing to
reduce the availability of dope, and presidents ranging from Bill Clinton to
George W. Bush have proved unwilling to back a different approach for fear of
being seen as soft on crime.
Physician Leadership for National Drug Policy (PLNDP), which formed in 1997
and is based at Brown University's Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies,
offers a novel approach to trying to make some progress in the public interest.
By marshaling prominent leaders in public health policy, including high-level
officials from the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations, PLNDP brings the
rationality and prestige associated with physicians to the debate on drug
policy. As project director of PLNDP, Dr. David C. Lewis has been a strong
advocate for a smarter approach.
In keeping with the theme of "Security First" for 2002, the Action Speaks
lecture series at AS220 (115 Empire Street, Providence), continues Tuesday,
October 22, with a look at the 1973 introduction of the Rockefeller Drug Laws
in New York. These laws foreshadowed the intensification of the drug war and
the wholesale incarceration of nonviolent drug offenders.
Action Speaks, which highlights under-appreciated days that changed America,
is a production of AS220 and the Rhode Island Committee for the Humanities.
Here's a rundown on subsequent weeks in this year's lineup: October 29,
"Reagan's Department of Education Publishes `A Nation at Risk' (1983): Massive
Assault on Public Education Begins"; and November 5, "Sugar Hill Gang Releases
`Rapper's Delight' (1979): First Commercial Rap Hit Breaks Out: A `Mad' New
Culture Is Born." Each forum runs from 5:30 to 7 p.m., and will be broadcast on
WRNI (1290 AM), on the subsequent Sunday at 8 p.m.
Lewis spoke with the Phoenix from his office last week.
Q: Can you envision a time when our conduct of the so-called war on
drugs will move in a significantly different direction?
A: It's happening right now. Quite clearly, people talk a lot about
increasing treatment opportunities, taking a public health approach, and
they're not talking about legalization when they say that. They're mostly
talking about getting rid of the excessive incarceration and punishment that
typifies our prohibition against drugs. And we have evidence of that shift in a
lot of different ways. I think enthusiasm for drug courts, even though there's
some controversy about them, is one manifestation, the push of the White House
by two drug czars, [Barry] McCaffrey and [John] Walters, for treatment.
Most important is the evidence of public support of voters in several states
for treatment options in lieu of incarceration. Proposition 36 in California is
an example. There's one in Arizona. The public is essentially saying, we think
we've had enough of prison. The public is particular about what it means. I
think for nonviolent offenders, it means to decrease penalties that, for repeat
offenders, some times exceed those for rape and murder. That's my evidence that
things are changing. There's also an economic reality about the comparisons of
prison costs and inmates vs. community-based treatment. There's quite a
profound difference -- about $8000 or $9000 [for sustained treatment] to
$25,000 to $30,000 for a prison inmate . . .
I think there's an astonishing relationship between incarceration and people
of color. In New York, it's very obvious. New York sends more African-American
and Latino men to prison each year than it graduates from state colleges and
universities. Despite the constancy of drug use across all races and
socioeconomic levels, some 94 percent of the incarcerated drug offenders in New
York are African-American and Latino. So we're talking about an astonishing
statistic.
I don't expect that [the drug war] will persevere for human reasons, for
common sense, and for justice and humanity. I think there are a lot of
conservative voices to improve the way we handle this problem, and many of them
speak out for greater public health and medical approaches.
Q: What would be most effective in overcoming political obstacles to
bring about a more treatment-based approach to drugs and addiction?
A: You have to have a change in the most vociferous grassroots
constituencies, because they have determined a lot about what happens in the
political arenas. The parents groups started off as a national evolution of the
concerns of parents about their children, but have become a major political
force for "Just say no" and for abstinence. Part of that is healthy and part of
that is excessive. The documentation, for instance, in Michael Massing's book,
The Fix, about how these groups primarily interested in marijuana pushed
out treatment options for hard drug use. The wish is that you could prevent
this, and we have the slogan in the Partnership for a Drug-Free America. The
reality is people take drugs and they get into trouble, and we need to reach
out and help them.
That dynamic, the priorities in that dynamic -- because of community
constituencies and people who deliver services -- has been going on for a long
time. It's partly played out in needle exchange and in medical marijuana . . .
I don't think they have to do with legalization, but that's the claim -- that
they produce the wrong message.
There has to be some better dialogue between scientists, social scientists,
parents groups, politicians, and health professionals and legal professionals.
Both groups, both political forces want the same things - safe communities and
safety for their kids, so the question is, how do you get there? Do you get
there by throwing people in prison and dealing with their problems when they
get out or using [their involvement with the criminal justice system as an
opportunity for tackling the problem]?
Q: What have been the most significant successes of Physician
Leadership for a National Drug Policy?
A: I think the main thrust of what we did was to push for treatment,
basically, as a viable alternative to incarceration and as an effective
anticrime measure, and the kind of language and backup evidence that we
presented in this presentation. How we presented it seems to have been
presented in public policy dialogue, in legislation, in political discussion
among candidates for federal office. It's gratifying to see how much material,
even an episode of The West Wing, seemed to come out of the reports we
presented, to make the point that we've gone too far for the punishment side.
I think the pendulum is ready to swing, was about to swing, for economic, for
human reasons, and we provided the rational basis for people to discuss this
without totally getting caught up in irrational battles. It's not seen as
presenting an ideological point of view, but using experience in treatment and
addiction. [Our] new report on drug problems in youth was released a week ago,
and hundreds of requests have been coming in.
Q: What would you say to those who believe that incarceration-based
policies have significantly contributed to reductions in crime?
A: I notice that the criminologists argue about it. I'm not a
criminologist. I know the crime rates are very tied to economic circumstances.
There are obviously other factors. I don't think it's simple like that, and I
know that the criminologists debate that. I do know that even when you arrest a
dealer and put the dealer in jail, there's another dealer the next day, so my
intuition tells me it's much more complicated.
Q: How would you describe the legacy of the Rockefeller drug
laws?
A: I think they're an embarrassment to the Rockefeller family. I notice
that some members [of the family] recently were complaining that that they
haven't been changed. I think the laws are racist. The campaign around their
repeal is clearly based in the Latino community in New York. I think it's kind
of a dirty little story that the more people know about it, the more
embarrassing it is. The only question is, who's going to step forward and
appear not soft on drugs?
Ian Donnis can be reached at idonnis[a]phx.com.
Issue Date: October 18 - 24, 2002
