Evening Exchange; War on Drugs

Whatever happened to the War on Drugs Are there any new tactics being used to aid in the fight. We'll find out. Up next an evening exchange. I'm Kojo Nnamdi welcome to evening exchange if you've been in the Washington area for any length of time during the past year you have probably read or heard of the notorious Peace Street crew described as one of the biggest drug gangs in Washington. It was allegedly possible for a major portion of the crack cocaine trade. The arrest of the gang members made headlines for days on end and involved the collaboration of what seemed like every federal and local law enforcement agency available a total of four hundred and fifty officials. Now we learn mostly from the back pages of the newspaper that charges against some crew members were apparently dropped or dismissed others plea bargained and most will serve five years or less in

jail. There is no evidence that there is any significantly less crack cocaine available on the street. So is there really a war on drugs. And if so whom is it directed at and who is winning. Joining us in our first segment to discuss the issue is the Hon. United States attorney for the District of Columbia. Steven good to have you here. Morris Davis of the Drug Enforcement Agency DEA. Good to have you. Kevin Keith of the Drug Policy Foundation. Tony Nelson Pemberton of and Nelson of the law firm and Jonathan Cohen of the Partnership for a Drug Free America. Mr. Stevens allow me to start with you if I have mischaracterized how the Street Crew case turn out. Feel free to correct me. But it does seem that for a while we had made a major dent in cocaine trafficking in Washington. And it just seems to have frittered away. Let me say this. Our office did not prosecute street. That case is handled out of Virginia by Richard Collins office in Alexandria. So I really can't comment on that case that was not our

prosecution. Let me say this about our gang initiative here in Washington. We have launched I believe a very broad based assault on our conduct trafficking here in the nation's capital. Part of that assault is an attack on gangs that are terrorizing areas of the city that are overrunning certain communities. We have indicted as you may remember and convicted many of these people. Raphael Edmond Marcos Andersen the Upshur Street Crew the Newton Street Crew indeed today five members of the RC crew were convicted of racketeering. These are essentially a modern day organized crime groups that are responsible for a substantial amount of violence in this city. I think we have made a very significant impact on the gangs operating in this city. We are continuing to focus on that because I believe they are responsible for a substantial amount of the violence for destruction of many of the communities here in Washington. And I think we have seen some significant progress. Indeed if you look at drug testing drug testing of defendants who are arrested every adult is tested here in Washington. In

1988 78 percent of the defendants arrested tested positive for drugs. Last month that was down to 48 percent. A very significant reduction that it may indicate a reduction but I use the term seen. We have seen a reduction from the point of view of the average driver or pedestrian. We still seem to see as many open air drug markets as many people standing on corners and as many apparently addicted people on the street as we did before. The change certainly isn't visible to the average citizen. I think there has been some change here in Washington. I think there's a lot more that needs to be done. As I said this is a broad based effort. I think law enforcement can carry that effort to a certain degree but you need to bring in some education some demand reduction and perhaps some treatment or treatment I think needs to be focused in a very disciplined environment in the area of violence and violence I think is very much wrapped around the drug trafficking here in Washington. We have started to see a change there as well. Last year there was about a 10 percent reduction in homicides the

last six weeks. There have been 34 homicides here in Washington last year in that same period there were 50. And in 1991 there were 57. That's almost a 40 percent reduction in homicides in the first six weeks. Over the last two years so yes you see a lot of market open air markets and I think the law enforcement community is focusing Broad based on on gangs on street organizations as well as on retail sellers on the street corner there's a lot that needs to be done. But I think we were making some progress. Steve's makes the point that that we need a multifaceted approach and we're hoping that what you'll see around this table this evening are those people representing aspects of the fight against drug abuse that a Clinton administration would want to all participate in the fight. We'll just see how this potential partnership can work. Let us now turn to the Drug Enforcement Administration and put the weight of the peace treaty bust anew because as a professional skeptic when I saw the arrests on television and when I saw the kind of media attention that it attracted. Having been in this business for 19 years I

said oh there we go again they're saying that they've made another big dent and a few weeks down the road we find that this thing fizzled. It certainly appears that it fizzled. Did it. Well I don't know much about the Peachtree investigation as I didn't participate in it. But the agency that yes to a degree we did participate in it. As you indicated earlier there were several agencies who participated in it. We didn't initiate the investigation but came on as a part of it. It was a a an effort that involves several agencies who had different pieces of the investigation and sometimes these investigations take that format. It may be investigated by several agencies and as a consequence we will all get together for a prosecution. But there are a number of these type gangs operating all over the country and you have that much most I would suggest of your professional life

over 20 years to what has been known as the war on drugs. Does it disappoint you when you ride down the street in your car and you see more open air drug markets than there were when you started out 20 years ago. Yes it does disappoint me. I never expected. 27 years ago when I started in drug law enforcement too to see drugs at the level that we see today. But one of the major differences I've seen is that there were treatment programs. When I began this work they don't seem to be those kinds of programs. We do need a broad base effort here. It's not going to be done by enforcement alone or prosecution. We have very had very successful prosecutions here in D.C. and all over the country. The jails are full of people who abuse drugs and sell drugs. But enforcement alone is not the answer.

Indeed the emphasis over the past several years seems to have been on enforcement and we just talk in Washington about the big picture involving the Peace Corps. I want to bring Nathan Pemberton into this discussion to talk about a smaller part of the picture because this past September I was doing what I considered my civic duty that is serving jury duty in the District of Columbia and the case in which I was surprised to be accepted by both sides to participate and the jury didn't give given my profession was a case involving the sale of crack cocaine by two individuals who were caught in an undercover operation in which the police officer said that he intended to buy two packages of crack cocaine worth $20 each from these two individuals for some mysterious reason they gave him three packets of crack cocaine and only one of the packets really had crack cocaine in it. The other two had some kind of powder mix and then the police in the middle of my trial before I got to participate in the decision mysteriously dropped the case. Is that the kind of thing that normally happens. That's not the kind of thing that normally happens but it is certainly most disturbing when it does

happen when are questions of Police Integrity and in a dry case of that nature. Those persons who were in charge the defendants who were on trial were each facing 10 to 30. I tend to 60 years sentencing sentences for the passage of that cocaine to the undercover officer. Saying it's the most disturbing kind of thing to see in the D.C. court. What disturbed me most about this and this is what I'm trying to find out to what extent this is normal is the fact that you had 12 working people assemble on a jury you had several officers of the court being paid by taxpayer dollars. What we were talking about was a total of 40 dollars of government money spent in this undercover operation. And there seemed to be a distinct possibility that that third bag had been planted when the officer found out that what he had in fact what was really powder and that these people couldn't be arrested for that and it seemed to be an enormous amount of money to be spending on the prosecution of what seemed to

be two fairly small street dealers. And I don't know if taxpayer money spent in that way is effective in the so-called war on drugs. What was not unusual about that case is that there was an incredible amount of time and money money and expertise. I went for five days spent on the on the trial and the prosecution of a very small amount of street drugs and that's why it's common in the D.C. Superior Court. And that's the problem with our resources right now at this time that we are. We we had these casualties of the drug war that are the addicts that are that the system and instead of putting them into health care systems into treatment there can be a diversion type program suggesting that your client in that case was presumably a small time dealer who was really good at it. I'm not suggesting any such thing in my client's case was dismissed against him. I'd like to make a comment here. It's your turn. Two things. One I think you're distorting very significantly what is actually going on out there.

If you look at what's happened in Washington in particular if you look at major prosecutors you've said something a pastry which had nothing to do with Washington D.C. and the drug war here and the prosecution and law enforcement agencies here in Washington what we had was occurring in northwest Washington. That's why it wasn't handled in the district but you look at what's happened in District trayful haven't yet. Marcus I understand you had up your street you've had Newton Street you are Street today five people had been convicted of racketeering 18 people who've been convicted racketeering in that case. You have Javier card we've indicted about 100 80 or 90 people who were alleged to be members of gangs. Virtually every one of those people who have gone to trial have been convicted with regard to the smaller cases there are a substantial number indeed in Superior Court there are probably ten thousand drug cases a year. Some of these are misdemeanors but about half of them are felonies. At one level Cojo you complain that there are drug dealers on the street at another level you complain the drug dealers on the street are being prosecuted. You want it both ways. I think you need a broad based program to

deal with the enforcement. And indeed if you are the person who's in the house you get darn tired of seeing the drug dealers do deals on your steps and you wonder where the police are and the police come and they take those folks off and they get prosecuted in court and almost always in superior court they get put back right on the street right on the same street corner. And that's the problem. Well Kevin Zeese of the drug policy foundation is calling on the Clinton administration to say make health not war. Exactly I think what we have in Washington D.C. is an example In fact what Mr. Stephen says is correct. Washington D.C. has been very successful in prosecuting people incarcerating people we have the highest incarceration rate in the world except for South Africa. So we should we've seen a successful law enforcement program but we haven't seen the successful drug policy. I think we hope the drug war is over because what we've had for the last 12 years has been that intense drug war which has been murder and mayhem to our streets. We've had thousands of young black men killed in Washington D.C. streets. We had tens of thousands of young black men put in jail. We have AIDS spreading rapidly. We need to start focusing on the real issues that are there that are depressing to

society which are really health based issues. We've been trying to deal with a social and health based problem with law enforcement. Law enforcement is not equipped to deal with social and health based policy. We need to bring in health workers social workers to deal with the real underlying causes of addiction and the real problem to addiction as well as the big problems of disease. Tuberculosis is spreading rapidly among drug users. AIDS is spreading tremendously not only in Washington D.C. but throughout the United States. In addition homicides and violence have public health solutions. We can see in Liverpool we can see in Scotland where they are trying new approaches where they're providing maintenance programs to addicts and crime rates are going down as well as addiction as well as dealing. But there are other solutions out there we pursue. We pursued the law enforcement strategy for many years a dozen years of the un-Republican administration with intense law enforcement. 70 percent of the budget going into law enforcement. What have we gotten for it. Record homicides record age record violence and increased drug use.

We're going to make the relationship Kevin as you make the claim that as a result of the war on drugs we see a lot more young black men killing each other on the street. How is that the responsibility or the fault of the war on the cause. Because when you take a law enforcement approach to this what you do is you increase the profit of the drug trade the drug trade is driven by profit. Like any business and you're saying that the more intense the law enforcement ever more profit goes up and the more the drug dealing goes up if we instead focused on the addicts and got them into treatment on demand type programs they could go in on their own or if we got them into health clinics where we provide them with maintenance drugs of a variety of choices that are out there if we took those kinds of approaches we would be taking away the market from the dealer rather than giving the dealer a bigger profit. Jonathan Cohen is with the drug the Partnership for a Drug Free America and those of you who are familiar with it have probably seen the egg frying when they say that is your brain on drugs. We have another one of their public service announcements here this evening. I'm trying to find out if we can run it right now so we can see the other kinds of things that Jonathan

Cohen and the partnership are doing. And let's take a look at it and then everybody can comment on whether they think this is one of the more effective ways of combating drug abuse. This marijuana and most of the work. We've been I've got 15 years. Nothing's ever happened. I just don't know that people do anything. In fact actually I was in my first job. You know I'm off marijuana I can make nothing happen to you too. The reason why I raise that question is because when I saw the egg frying public service. Announcement. I didn't think it was very effective where I was concerned because the public service announcement that I've seen warning people about cigarettes and about alcohol give you tend to give you the medical facts about what happens to this public service announcement simply said if you

use drugs for your brain and I think there's so many millions of casual drug users in America who will say that has not happened to them and they function every day and they go to work playing a little bit about please do get in here. The partnership. Has always had the mission of reducing trial. And non-addicted use of illegal drugs. That is our sole function. We have focused on that because we believe that was where we can be the most effective the frying egg commercial was one of what are now over 300 messages which have been created. We were able to rally the entire advertising marketing and media industries in this country behind the idea that we could Ancel Americans and reduce the demand for illegal drugs if we spoke to each group concerned. Since speaking to young kids teenagers young adults and the people who influence them their parents their employers get everybody in society involved in the attitudinal change that needed to take place. Now the fried egg

obviously wasn't targeted to you so I'm not I'm not surprised that you didn't find it effective. But certainly we know that our children watch a lot of television and I'm sure anyone here with children will recognize that they're influenced by what extent have you been able to measure the overall effectiveness of your campaigns. We do the largest attitudinal tracking study on drugs in the country. We began the month before the campaign began and we have continued that research every single year with approximately 7000 people being interviewed. The research clearly shows that where the messages have run the heaviest in the cities and in parts of the country where they get the most exposure that attitudes have changed two to five times faster than in the balance of the US and also the other two national studies being conducted on illegal drugs by the federal government confirmed this the same trend. It's very difficult to draw causal relationship and there are many factors going on in each of these markets. But we strongly believe that it's a contributing factor in the next segment.

What you do with the local level. But go ahead look at that research in fact that the partnership does and what it mainly is are more intercepts. It's really though the worst scientific style where you basically approach someone in the mall and ask them questions. It's not really that kind of a lie on Actually all the things. The other thing is that they've tried to do the kind of course you talk about we talk about the fact that they did one on marijuana where they showed someone's brainwave alleged brainwave while using marijuana. They to take it off the air because it was a lie. And they here because what they actually did was show so in a coma not so when we use marijuana. Fortunately unfortunately these ads provide false information and scare tactics which are counterproductive when you move away from scare tactics mood toward honest information. I think you can accomplish a lot by that education program particularly if you focus it in combination with an enforcement program. I have some substantial doubts the idea that you can just immunize somebody against the violence when you watch what's going on in the streets with the 9 millimeters and you know not what you said. The suggestion here was well health is assault. Total solution we give somebody a shot. We can do with all the shot.

The Bible says that spending 70 percent on law enforcement and only 30 percent on education and prevention and health I think is definitely it may support not necessarily but I think some substantial focus on demand reduction. It depends on what community you're focusing on demand reduction has been very successful in groups of people that are subjected subjected to deterrence and to change a message. It is harder to reach certain inner city groups I think with a demand reduction message you know maybe they are. My experience is otherwise we've just finished the largest quantitative research study done with inner city youth in this country's history. We interviewed over 7000 students in inner city communities throughout New York City and what we found was that nine out of 10 of these students recognize the physical dangers of using drugs and they recognized anti-drug messages as being a major source of that information what we found though was that while these kids knew the risks of using drugs and the physical dangers and they understood what would happen to you if you use drugs they were still very scared and they felt very alone

because of the horrible environment in which they were growing up. Let me get back to that for a second here because while as you pointed out charges against your client were dismissed. The fact of the matter is that the people who nelson Jonathan is trying to educate and the people whom Kevin is trying to get involved in rehab programs are still regarded as criminals by the system they acted like prosecutor and that is a major major problem. And that's where we're wasting all of our resources and it's not working. That's why we still had drug markets on the street today in D.C. because it's resources that doesn't doesn't possess the moral dilemma for people such as yourself if on the one hand you want to advocate treatment but you're really advocating treatment of people who are paid to prosecute. I don't see that as a problem at all. It's only you who is there's a moral dilemma. That's that it's not a crime I think if you looked across this country you'd find that the overwhelming number of folks in this country view it as criminal activity that it should be treated as criminal activity. That does not mean however that in terms of the punishment or the treatment that follows after after you have determined and allowed them to after you determine

accountability that there shouldn't be some way of trying to bring at least a certain level of those folks out of that through education or through treatment there is a group however that I think it is appropriate as we've done through our gang an issue to deal with these folks. And if they are going to continue to spread violence and poison on the streets of the city or across this country. But you don't buy it for them just into me as a user and the dealer or you absolutely do. OK we've got to take a short break break right now and Kevin and Pete and Jay are going to be staying with us then we'll be joined by some more people to continue this discussion. Stay with us. Welcome back we're talking about the war on drugs. And joining us in this segment is U.S. attorney for

the district attorney Steven is still with us is Pete Morris of the Drug Enforcement Administration as this Kevin Zeese of the Drug Policy Foundation joining us in this segment. And Hawkins is with the D.C. community prevention partnership as its technical assistance director and Dr. Pat Owen is director of research for the Hazelden Foundation. Welcome to both of you. Anita Hawkins could you please amplify for us what it is that the D.C. community prevention partnership does. Because that I understand is funded by the larger group right. That the D.C. community prevention partnership is a nonprofit organization. It's funded by the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention and it's community demonstration partnership demonstration grant. The focus of those grants are to develop partnerships in various parts of the nation that will mobilize community based organizations to address alcohol and drug abuse prevention. What we primarily do is get service

providers community residents to work together to identify the issues in terms of prevention not through treatment or law enforcement and to work on developing strategies for prevention and the District of Columbia was I think the first place that you were right located at what evidence is there that your efforts have been in any way affected the evidences that we've actually built a number of coalitions and among the service providers and in the Washington area it's going to take a while to see the kind of impact I think that we want to look at in terms of quantitative numbers. But as far as prevention what we're looking for is to see service providers to see community people aware of the problem and working concertedly to address the issue before it becomes a problem for law enforcement before it becomes a problem for treatment. So we have community folks who are educating each other taking responsibility for their children in their own communities. Pat on the work that she describes is probably very good work but at this point has a

fairly low profile here in the District of Columbia and we were just quizzing Jay Stevens about the possibility of a moral dilemma between treating this both as a crime problem and there's a health problem that the Hazleton foundation seems to feel that it has had great success in treating this as a health problem. That's correct. Treatment does work and that is the message of hope and a fact that we know that with appropriate treatment as many as two thirds to three fourths of people can go on to lead productive lives. As I think most of us know addiction is not an acute disease where a person gets treatment and goes out and lives happily ever after without ever having to give it another thought. Instead we as a society need to be prepared to give support and help to people and a long term basis. Well I'd like to hear how the law enforcement community response to the fact that President Clinton has cut the drug czar's office staff by some 83 percent according to the Drug Policy Foundation. I didn't make that calculation. He has cut it significantly on the one hand while on the

other hand saying that this National Office of Drug Policy will now be a Cabinet level position. How do you feel about the cut instead. I think it's really too soon to say what what that means for drug policy under the new administration. It seemed to be part of an effort to at least in reality or symbolically to cut White House staff. Whether that will be replaced whether the office will be refocused remains to be seen. It also of course is a second issue whether or not the drug policy office plays a critical role in the law enforcement effort in the treatment effort in the prevention effort. Those are issues I think that are that are open. I know there's there are different views on that question. I think it will be part of this administration's At least I trust to be part of the administration to have a strong enforcement program as well as a treatment program as well as a prevention program prevention keeping people out of the criminal justice system is a very efficient and effective way to deal with this problem. Treatment can help but

despite I think the figures suggested here treatment is a very difficult road once you are addicted. There is a real risk of sliding back into that addiction and the success rate is difficult to maintain. So the the ultimate answer is demand reduction and keeping people away from the drugs keeping drugs away from the people so that we don't have such a heavy job to do. And so the treatment folks don't have so much work to do. Well Davis everywhere I look at it it seems to me that the Clinton administration is making tentative steps in the direction of reducing the emphasis on law enforcement the trial balloon was the 83 percent cut in the staff. They said that these people can't tell the DEA what to do they can't tell HHS what to do so they might as well go. Does it send the same signal to you that it looks like the role of your agency and others will be diminished. Well not really. If you recall in 1973 when the drug enforcement administration was formed it was formed to coalesce the federal effort to bring it under one house. Subsequent to that

time we began we got to the point where we have over 30 agencies now involved at the federal level in drug law enforcement and which created the need to have a drug czar to coordinate this. So the fact that we see the reduction in numbers at the drug XYZ office could signal more a a turning back to what the original purpose of our agency was to get those resources put back into the age. We're doing primarily a law enforcement agency any longer you will not necessarily have to function. We do have other functions other than law enforcement. We that the public knows about we're heavily involved in the demand reduction and drug prevention and we work closely with community organizations around the country to work to do that. But we recognize the fact that this is not an enforcement problem alone.

One point that might be worth noting is that while the drug policy office has an effect on federal policy a lot of the activity in fact the vast majority of activity that relates to drug enforcement as well as drug demand reduction and treatment is at the state and local level there's a substantial responsibility there at local level in terms of treatment and prevention in terms of developing community based programs that really gets to the heart of what's going on in the in the drug battle. Kevin you celebrated this 83 percent cut. Yes. In fact you advocated for it happened we're going to see President Clinton moving in that direction. I think the drug czar's office was mainly a political propaganda organization that didn't really do much substantive work. In fact even moving the drug czar to a cabinet position while I was opposed to initially it actually can be a benefit because I think there needs to be a great deal of restructuring in our drug control strategy. We have someone with the power of the Khem little position to do something like cut the DEA completely. I mean the DA's work is duplicated by the FBI Customs BND the FDA D.O. the Coast Guard.

The DEA is really an honest agency. I I'd like to see a move away from that. We don't need an agency just focused on the drug war let's instead focus on the borders focus on the prescription problems. Those kinds of issues. The other thing other good signs I like to point out is the moral dilemma you talked about prosecution and treatment. Today President Clinton appointed attorney general from day Kennedy of Florida Ms. Ms. Reno and indeed Kennedy had a an interesting novel program where they would provide an alternative to prosecution to individuals involved in drug offenses where they push him out of the criminal justice system and into a treatment approach. And so they're even trying that now for a couple of years has been actually pretty successful as far as assistants go. So they may have found a way to get that more of the lead and hopefully with that experience the federal government can fund that kind of project at the local level. I've got to get to the telephone. Thank you for waiting call or you're on the air go ahead please. Hi. I'm here to tell you to night. Don't be fooled by this smokescreen going on in west east south.

D.C. and all adjacent areas in Maryland and Virginia the only thing is happening is that you are arresting more and more black males. I don't care what what you say J.C. or Hartford. Nobody should try to put out press people. It is not work. No matter how many ups your street crews you get rid of the. Regardless the quantity and quality of crack cocaine. You may not tell them that but I know for sure of myself because I've seen these things go on. And the main thing the main problem about it is white men like you chase people who bring in these drug country. You need to step shop in your own color color color Please Please Jay Stevens the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia and I will not allow you to accuse him of bringing drugs into the United States. That's right. There is evidence about that but you have made a point and that is a lot of people say the war on drugs really results in the arrest of large numbers of particularly African-American males and it doesn't seem to be reducing the problem in any way shape or form

in Washington there are substantial numbers of arrests regarding the drug war. I think one thing we haven't focused on which the caller hasn't focused on really is the violence that is wrapped in the drug trade. The city is very violent. People in this city have a fundamental right to be free from that violence to be safe and secure in their homes and the drug trafficking and the drug trade brings violence to their doorsteps. They're caught in crossfire as innocent citizens cross fire between drug dealers and law enforcement plays a critical role and must play a critical role in that keeping people out of the of the justice system I think is also a significant role. And I would trust that the caller is involved in trying to keep young people out of the criminal justice system by providing some guidance some structure some leadership. And some training and some moral support. So they don't get involved in the criminal justice system to get back to the telephone and you on the caller. Go ahead please. Yes thank you. Good evening. I'd like to piggyback slightly on that first caller and say

that I resent Mr. Stevens application that in a city you are only motivated by incarceration because as I understand it and I like Mr. Stevens Mr. Davis confirm it is true that the profile of a drug use in America is a white male between the ages of 18 and 25. If that's the case we should be up in Georgetown looking for cocaine instead of se. And that caveat Mr. Steven is using is not quite true because it is that youth is middle class white that creates the drug atmosphere and that generates about it. Thank you very much. It has been said that 70 percent of the people who use drugs in the United States live in the suburbs and are white. Yet the people who we see getting prosecuted and going to jail if we are to judge by what we read and see on television and read in the newspapers are predominantly black and live in the inner city. What's responsible for that apparent discrepancy. Well I don't know if it's a discrepancy but the inner cities have

traditionally been targeted as the end distribution point for drugs. Historically we can weaken document that and it's at this level where you find the volume of drugs on our streets and the attendant violence and other crimes associated with drug use that we have to suggest that if people would merely stay indoors and not be violent on the street then there would not likely be a great deal of arrest and prosecution for drugs in the United States because the law that was it that wasn't it you didn't give me an opportunity for. You no the point is that it ends up here in the inner city. That's why you have such a high rate of prosecution here. But we have not focused we in the drug enforcement administration our efforts are focused at transhipment and cultivation points around the world. We have agents in seventy three cities in 52 countries.

And we try to position ourselves along the traditional routes that drugs are trafficked and grown. The PBS special program Frontline aired a week ago and made the argument that the interdiction and other methods being used both by the DEA and the Coast Guard are grossly ineffective at preventing drugs from coming into this country of course is that therefore we should spend more money on law enforcement for interdiction the people like the Hazleton foundation will say it the level I think I think we need more of an effort. We need to bring other people into the battle. We have many more miles of border to cover than probably any other country in the world and we're under attack by those who are in this drug. I would like to say that it's not an either or issue that certainly it's not either interdiction or prevention or treatment. But the fact of the matter is that laws alone won't make a difference that no matter how hard we try to stop the drugs from coming into the country it will not succeed. And as long as we

frame it as a war on drugs I believe we will never succeed. Why is that. Because it makes it sound as if the problem is out there somewhere and the problem is not out there somewhere. It's us. We as a society have a problem with addiction and how can we tackle that problem. It's through taking responsibility as communities whether it's from the prevention end or the legal end or from the treatment and it all has to come together. I agree with that proposition. I think the caller suggested that it's somebody else's problem out there that somebody else is bringing it here and it is causing the violence. What was suggested here is that you have to look to yourself and take responsibility for your conduct. Drugs have had lead to devastation of values in a society that destroyed the family destroyed communities destroyed cohesion and communities. There is no support structure out there to give guidance and direction to people anymore. You have to start looking at that structure with us from a community based operation and treatment. Law enforcement does provide some discipline and

an environment to deal with the traffickers and the people who are dumping the poison on the street. It is not the only answer. Alcohol abuse in the United States is higher than the incidence of drug abuse. How can you say that it is drug abuse illegal drug abuse that has led to the deterioration in families and social life without talking about alcohol abuse. Does the legality of alcohol abuse mean somehow that it has the medical capability of keeping families together while the illegality of drug abuse causes families to fall apart. There are those who argue that the criminal penalties for drug use is what is indeed calling causing the social fabric of families to fall apart. How would you respond. I disagree completely with that premise it seems to stand reality on its head. It is not to suggest that alcohol abuse is good. I mean alcohol abuse has serious impact on families too. But if you look. Close at hand you will see that drug abuse has led to a loss of self respect a loss of respect for others a loss of hope for the future. It has led to a tremendous rate of violence all around us

and you can say what you want about alcohol abuse. It has not led to gangland slayings bullets 15 bullets in the back of people's head. And that's what drugs have done in this city. Well I was thinking first of all alcohol we have to keep talking about alcohol as a drug and it's not alcohol and drugs alcohol is the major drug in this country. One of the things that that we look at in terms of prevention is looking at the first line of defense which is is alcohol alcohol has deteriorated our communities and has had the impact that drugs have had on the community. The other drugs have had on the communities it has torn families apart. We look at the social or social services to my foster care system our day care system. A lot of those kids are in our or become wards of the city because of alcohol problems and neglect. So I you know I don't want to separate the two. I mean they're very very much the same. Take one more telephone call in the segment you and your caller go ahead please.

I could go either. I would like to say that to talk about drug in without the context of what is happening in our community is to beg the question. OK. Our communities are under siege. It's not just drugs that is important in our community. I mean to a tremendous degree but guns because we don't manufacture. I mean to our men to our community our communities are our people in our community they're being killed off by AIDS. And now there's a new strain of TB and I mean we need to ask them question why are our communities. Why are black communities all over the country under the kind of thing that they are. And if we don't look at it and answer the question honestly I see your expression even and you need to you need to be honest and open about what you dissipate. It I I really don't understand the last part of your remark but I'll allow

Jay Stevens to deal with that. I will attempt to answer that. The larger part of your question but we've got to take a short break. We'll try to do that when we come back. Welcome back. We all seem to be agreed that there needs to be a decrease in drug abuse in

the United States whether that should be characterized as a war on drugs is something that we are still here in disagreement on but we know that with you participating in this discussion hopefully by the time we're finished we will arrive at some conclusion. U.S. Attorney Jay Stephens is still with us as is Pete Davis of the DEA and Kevin Zeese of the Drug Policy Foundation. Pat Owens of the Hazelden Foundation is still with us and we are joined now by holos. I'm somebody who is with the Citizens for a crime the D.C. who's the director of Human Resources and he will explain to us about the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi his program of Transcendental Meditation Sidhi being proposed to battle drug abuse in the District of Columbia. Thank you very much for that introduction. And I think that before I actually say it there should be a preference prep here made and I seem to find we seem to find ourselves in the same position as Einstein found himself in 1913 in 1930. Nine I think it was with the knowledge of the atomic bomb even though it's a different situation it's the same in

terms of those who are not familiar with science might find what I say is fantastic but because of its implications and ramifications for society it's something that needs to be looked into seriously. So that brings us to one fundamental principle that underlies everything I have to say and that is at some level we are all interconnected just like a plant or tree there are many branches leaves fruits flowers and everything and they're all connected to the SAP. If there's some way you can do something to the CEP it influences every aspect of the tree like that the mind of every individual is connected to the unified field. This is what this is what the Unified Field theorist of physics calls it. So we have the technology that's been proven over 30 years that allows an individual to come to that level of attention bring their attention to that level it enlivens that level. And as a consequence everybody who is also attached that feel begins to be more Y becomes wiser and happier. The reason I say happier because people are seeking drugs often time because they're not happy but you are

really talking about a spiritual phenomena and this spiritual phenomenon people usually associate adherents of spiritual phenomenon with people who want to volunteer their efforts. You are calling for 6 million dollars from the District of Columbia in order to finance your efforts to use transcendental meditation CD in order to reduce the level of drug abuse in the District of Columbia. Why don't you simply volunteer to do it. Well there are many people who do volunteer but like every profession people have to buy food. They have to have someplace to live and they have bills. So the money is only for that purpose. And what would happen is first two years approximately we would bring in experts to immediately create the influence of reducing violent crime and all other crime but at least violent crime specifically by 20 percent within two months and over five years totally eliminate crime because the technology is there. And so within that context people do have to have a profession and in that time those thousand people could be trained in the local area to maintain this influence forever and they will

in turn train young people in the District of Columbia to practice this along with the experts and you feel that this collective meditation will have that effect. Kevin Zeese the Drug Policy Foundation is calling for another kind of drug expert to participate in the new Clinton administration's efforts against drug abuse. But you never actually defined what you meant by real drug experts use says William Bennett you say William Bennett was not a real drug expert. What do you define as a real expert. Well there are people who have actually had experience in various aspects of dealing with drug control. There are people who've worked in treatment field prevention fields education fields and fortune fields. And unfortunately we've had two drug czar so far. Had those experiences. We had Secretary Bennett who after serving use drugs or went on to become the head of the Republican National Committee and we had come Martinez who was basically someone who lost an election in Florida and as a result got the job of a drug czar. So you have no real experience there. We're just covering their experience. I think if you've been in the field you've seen what happened I think the comments that we've heard tonight from people in the

field are more enlightened than those who are not involved. What would you say if I were to recommend pap on to be the head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. That would be a vast improvement over anything we've had before. What would you law enforcement types say. Well if somebody with no law enforcement experience but who has a great deal of experience in the treatment of people who have suffered from drug abuse was put in charge of the entire affair. What I'm hearing and I'm not comfortable with it is that law enforcement is bad law enforcement is not bad. It is very necessary in trying to reduce drug abuse and to bring it under some kind of controls here. So just I think as much as I can make a point here and I would agree with you I think where we're missing something and perhaps all of us are is that 50 to 75 percent of all people who end up incarcerated in federal and state prisons are there in part at least because of their drug abuse. And yet 11 percent or fewer actually get any kind of treatment whatsoever. It's

a wonderful opportunity to provide treatment. Absolutely. I think you have a as it were a captive audience and that is a wonderful place to begin this program. You know one of the problems with law enforcement is the high rate of recidivism especially when it comes to drug related crimes. One of the ways to to deal with that would be while population it probably has benefited me whether or not there is likely to be greater with citizen recidivism as a result of people going to jail or as a result of people going in. Actually there has been excellent studies on that because there are some very good treatment programs in prisons and they follow people in look at two things. One is we incarceration and also arrest rates and if found those have been drastically decreased by good treatment in prison compared with control groups. I got to go back to the telephone. Thank you for waiting call. You're on the air. Go ahead please. Hello. I would I know what you are doing. Is that coming to

this country. OK. If we can stop that. We should be able to do that job. Because they won't be able to get paid for it just like that 18 wheeler it was coming all the way from Florida. We have. Million dollars worth of junk and the only we're running out of time. But I do have your question. Kevin is this let me put it to you there are a lot of people who feel that the United States has the power to stop all drugs from coming into this country. They could stop a grit from getting in from Chile then they can stop all that. Is it possible. I wish it were possible is not possible. We spend about $3 billion on trying to do that. The Department of Defense is the lead agency involved in that who has not been successful. In fact cocaine prices drop in the last decade. In fact we can't even keep drugs out of prisons a highly controlled environment where people are searched when they go in. In most cases people are monitored closely and drugs are in prisons. So if we can't get in our prisons how do we expect to keep

them out of the borders while we come back to the same thing. It doesn't matter who you put in the White House it doesn't matter. All these things. As long as you're dealing with the same understanding of nature the understanding of nature is offed. And that's what we're trying to say here. The transit of meditation and team city program is based on in modern terms quantum physics. This is the most precise and well documented science in existence at this point. The research on transcendental meditation in prisons and drug rehabilitation and economic development all these areas indicate that the technology does what it says it will do. And so what has to happen is we have to look at that because the president no one else can make good decisions in a crime infested atmosphere. I frankly was fascinated by these mysterious ads that kept cropping up in the paper by this thing called Citizens for a crime free D.C. and we felt that the public's curiosity was also around. So we wanted you to come here. You're on call you're on the air. Go ahead please. Good evening. I guess it's just to piggyback on you first because I think I would like to put it in a better way. Until America changes its attitude

about what inner city you especially black males and stuff allow you to be a part of America. That of course we will not eradicate that problem within the black community. The other thing is that when you look at the very situation how that was treated versus the Petey's council member said it's enough to outrage the black community situation. You're talking about officers the chairman who. What situation of course is that. I know that's one of the Viji councils are going to be counting the time that Marion Barry is preventing drugs and very it to lead the individual who prosecuted that case respond. I don't really comment on that because I think it goes to the heart of what a lot of us have been talking about tonight and without making too much of those cases if I remember correctly in the P.G. County case the individual who was charged admitted his responsibility admitted his culpability pled guilty and was was sentenced in the Barry case. He refused to acknowledge that

responsibility he continued to blame everybody else in the world for what had happened to him. He denied his responsibility to the very end and he was convicted and incarcerated. It goes back to what a lot of folks around this table are saying and in some of the callers have been say you have to look at taking responsibility for your conduct and providing that kind of guidance education treatment for young people so that they stay out of the criminal justice system. We can't just say it's the problem of the Colombians or the Chileans or the Bolivians or the Panamanians we're dumping drugs the United States it is our problem for using them. And if you can't keep drugs out of prisons it suggests there is an insatiable demand there that must be treated through education and treatment as well. We're out of time and Stephen has ended up sounding like Pat Owen right from the it. We've got to take a short break. We'll be right back. Stay with us. Well how quickly the time passes when you're solving the nation's problems.

We hope that the diversity of this discussion has added to your understanding of the nature of the problem of drug abuse in the United States and has added to your understanding of what we may need to do in order to solve that problem. We love to thank our panelists for joining us and of course to you for participating in our discussion. That's all the time we have the Night.