The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

9, 1988 Intro JIM LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Friday, President Reagan expanded the protective mission of U. S. ships in the Persian Gulf. Two Marine helicopter pilots missing in the Gulf were declared killed in hostile action. And the Associated Press reported there's a deal for General Noriega to step down but to stay in Panama. We'll have the details in our news summary in a moment. Charlayne Hunter Gault is in New York tonight. Charlayne? CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: After the news summary, Judy Woodruff reports on the terrifying flight of Aloha Airlines. Then a documentary report on the drug wars between Los Angeles gangs. We'll follow that with a discussion on whether decriminalization is the answer to drug abuse. South Africa's Archbishop Desmond Tutu will be here for a newsmaker interview. And essayist Roger Mudd has some final thoughts about the final words in the political debate.News Summary LEHRER: President Reagan today widened the U. S. military role in the Persian Gulf. He decided to extend U. S. Navy protection to all neutral ships that come under attack and request help in the Gulf. Up until now, U. S. ships protected only 11 Kuwaiti tankers that were reflagged with U. S. flags. The announcement came late this afternoon and followed a meeting President Reagan had with Secretary of State Shultz, Secretary of Defense Carlucci and other top security advisors. In the final policy statement, Carlucci said, ''We cannot stand by and watch innocent people be killed or maimed by malicious, lawless actions when we have the means to assist and perhaps prevent them. '' The Marine Corps also announced today that two helicopters pilots missing in the Gulf since April 18 are now considered dead from hostile action. The two men were involved in the fighting with Iran, but the announcement today said there was still no definite evidence their Cobra helicopter was shot down as Iran has claimed. The dead marines are Captain Stephen Leslie and Kenneth Hill. Charlayne? HUNTER-GAULT: Panamanian strong man Manuel Noriega is reportedly on his way out of power, but not out of Panama. White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater today confirmed talks between the State Department and Noriega had taken place, but he would not elaborate. The Associated Press quoted an unnamed administration official as saying the talks involved a U. S. broker deal in which Noriega would relinquish power, but be allowed to remain in Panama. News of the deal triggered a pro Noriega march in Panama City and angry denunciations from Panamanian exiles in Miami. Late today, Panama's Foreign Minister denied the reports and said Noriega had not agreed to any deal to give up power. LEHRER: The search was on today for what caused an explosion aboard an Aloha Airlines jetliner. An airline attendant was killed and 60 passengers were injured in the incident. The Boeing 737 jet was flying at 24,000 feet when the explosion occurred, peeling back a portion of the plane's roof. The pilot landed the plane 15 minutes later at Kahului Airport with one of its two engines on fire. National Transportation Safety Board investigators are looking for the cause of the explosion. FBI agents are also on the scene to determine if a bomb may have been on the plane. Early reports say the focus is on a possible structural failure. HUNTER-GAULT: In Washington, Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci said today that the Soviet Union is preparing an elaborate system of underground bunkers and subways to protect its leaders in case of nuclear war. That was one finding in this year's annual report on Soviet military power, which was released today. Carlucci said the United States is developing ways to threaten the underground system, but didn't elaborate. He said the U. S. has known about the system for some time, but recent analysis has shown its full dimensions.

FRANK CARLUCCI, Secretary of Defense: To have something comparable, we'd have to have facilities where we could put every governor, mayor, every cabinet official, and our whole command structure underground with subways running here. And there can be only one purpose for these shelters. To prove the Soviet leadership the ability to fight a protracted nuclear conflict. These facilities contradict in steel and concrete Soviet protestations that they share President Reagan's view that nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought. LEHRER: There was more labor trouble in Poland today. But how much was in dispute. Labor leaders claimed workers at a heavy machinery plant in Southeastern Poland went on strike. A government spokesman in Warsaw denied that, saying any employees who do strike will be fired. The walkout of thousands of workers at a huge steel plant outside Krakow went into its fourth day. The government is threatening to call out riot police to stop it. It has not yet done so. Labor leaders also claim the government had arrested 21 leaders of the Solidarity Movement, but there was no confirmation of that report. HUNTER-GAULT: In South Africa, thousands of black and mixed race students boycotted classes today to protest that country's sqcially segregated school system and the detention earlier this week of a black teacher. The teacher, who was later released, was reportedly detained for his anti apartheid activities. The current demonstration is the largest since the nationwide classroom boycott ended in 1986. LEHRER: The World Health Organization released some new statistics on AIDS today. As of Wednesday, 88,081 cases of the killing disease have been reported throughout the world. That marks an increase of 2,808 over the previous month. All but 400 of the new cases were in the United States. One hundred thirty seven different countries now have reported at least one case of AIDS. Also today, the head of the U. S. Presidential Commission on AIDS told a House subcommittee the government is not moving fast enough to fight the disease. Admiral James Watkins said new AIDS drugs will be delayed because the Food and Drug Administration does not have enough staff or facilities to test them.

JAMES WATKINS, U. S. Presidential Commission on AIDS: We need to bring a new spirit to the FDA so that people will want to go work for the FDA. I had some of their top scientists corner me in their laboratories over there, pleading with me to help them get back on their professional feet. They're getting embarrassed by their own lack of facilities over there. We look like a third world research institute over there. When we ought to have the very best. LEHRER: FDA Commissioner Frank Young told the same House committee that testing new AIDS drugs was his agency's highest priority. He said new procedures are in place for a timely and efficient review of promising drugs. Also in Washington today, comments by Health and Human Services Secretary Otis Bowen concerning the war on drugs were made public. Bowen is quoted as telling President Reagan in a private meeting earlier this week that the Administration must rethink its approach to the drug problem. He said more attention should be paid to treatment programs among other things. HUNTER-GAULT: There was more evidence today that the economy has all but forgotten the October stock market crash. The Commerce Department reported that its main gauge of future economic activities shot up . 8% in March. This after an even bigger rise in February. The back to back gains represent a sharp turn around for the index, which was signalling an impending recession after the crash. Analysts say while today's report points to future growth, it also renews fear that inflation may heat up. That's our news summary. Still ahead the midair explosion aboard Aloha Airlines, L. A. gang wars, combatting drug abuse, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and a Roger Mudd essay on the part of debates the candidates like the most. Terrifying Trip LEHRER: The mysterious explosion aboard an airliner in Hawaii is the story we go to first tonight. Judy Woodruff is in charge. Judy? WOODRUFF: The accident occurred while the Aloha Airlines jet, a Boeing 737, was on an afternoon flight from Hilo on the island of Hawaii, to Honolulu, toward the western end of the Hawaii Islands. The aircraft was about 25 miles southeast of the island of Maui, flying 24,000 feet above the Pacific Ocean, when a blast ripped open the roof of the plane. The pictures you are seeing were taken by an amateur cameraperson who arrived on the scene shortly after the plane landed. Investigators are looking into whether some sort of structural defect, rather than a bomb, may have caused the blast, which left a gaping 20 foot hole in the plane's fuselage. Passengers described what had happened.

ERIC BECKLIN, passenger: I was working in my seat in back of the Aloha Airlines, and all of a sudden there was this loud noise. I heard an impact, looked up and I saw that the plane was falling apart in the front. I thought we were done. DON McKAY, passenger: I was praying to God trying to forgive me of my sins, and saying a little prayer to my wife, to let her know I was thinking of her. I just made my peace. WOODRUFF: The one person onboard who was killed was a 37 year old flight attendant, who was evidently sucked out of the plane when the hole opened up by the front door, where she was standing. Passengers helped save the life of another attendant, who was also standing, by grabbing hold of her legs to keep her from being blown away. For 15 minutes, passengers and crew hung on for their lives.

ERIC BECKLIN, passenger: I had my head down between my knees, behind the seat, to keep out of -- to breathe -- WOODRUFF: One woman said later she sang every hymn she could think of. Meanwhile, the pilot, 42 year old Robert Schornstheimer, guided the plane to a smooth landing. By the time the plane touched down, he was also contending with an engine that had caught fire. On the ground, passengers praised Schorndstheimer for his skill in bringing the plane in. And the flight attendants for keeping everyone calm.

Mr. McKAY: It was incredibly efficient. We -- as soon as the plane landed and we stopped, we all got up, and we all went to the back to get off the plane. We had a slide on one side and the steps on the other side, and everyone was calm and got off the plane. WOODRUFF: The pilot later told his father that when he had heard a loud noise and felt the plane flying differently, with a big drag on it, he immediately decided to change the flight plan to land at the nearest airport, at Kahului, Maui. Of 89 passengers onboard, 60 went to the hospital. Thirteen remained there today, two in critical condition, two in serious condition.

Mr. McKAY: There were a lot of lacerations of the face, and one of the flight attendant's face was bloodied. I don't know how bad she was cut. And there was a lot of passengers along the outside edge that were really cut badly. WOODRUFF: Another Aloha Airlines pilot who saw the plane after it landed said he could not believe that the plane continued to fly after the blast opened it up, or that the people sitting in the area of the hold survived. He and an airline official credited the pilot with an extraordinary performance. Late today, the Associated Press reported that the Federal Aviation Administration is checking to see if possible structural failure in the plane's metal skin may have caused the accident. Concern about that kind of failure prompted the FAA last fall to order airlines to inspect older models of the 737 jets. Gang Wars LEHRER: Next, a crime and drug story in two parts. Part one is a documentary report from Los Angeles on the violent warfare between gangs, part two, a debate over new proposals to decriminalize the use of drugs. Now, part one. The reporter is Jeffrey Kaye of Public Station KCET, Los Angeles. [segments from various news programs about gang war] JEFFREY KAYE: The local news from the front is relentless. Last year, gang related violence claimed 387 lives in Los Angeles. By comparison, that was four times the number killed in Northern Ireland's civil war during the same period. Police raids on gang targets reveal a sinister pattern of drugs and violence. Weapons confiscated from gang members are invariably linked to the drug trade. Because of that connection, the story behind the upsurge of gang violence in Los Angeles begins 3000 miles away in Miami, Florida. Nearly four years ago, Vice President George Bush showed off a new tool in the war on drugs, a high tech chase boat. Bush's demonstration was part of the much heralded federal crackdown on Miami vice. The government vowed to choke off the Southeast as a point of entry for South American drug traffickers. But the smugglers stayed in business, looked to the porous California/Mexico border and came west. The market is a lucrative one. This surveillance tape shows Columbian cocaine dealers counting their take. They are reaping an abundant cash crop. They deal directly with veteran gang members, according to Lt. Clarence Chapman of the L. A. County Sheriff's Office. He says the well heeled middlemen who often launder drug money through legitimate businesses, use street gangs as a distribution network. Lt. CLARENCE CHAPMAN, L. A. Sheriff's Office: They will hang out with the gangs, they're very familiar with them. Our intelligence leads us to believe that they keep that working knowledge of the gangs to know who comes in and who goes out, who's controlling what territory and those kinds of things.

KAYE: The territories where the gangs sell drugs are often sidewalks or public parks. Here, a car drives up to what is essentially an open air market. A woman removes a package from her blouse. She makes a quick transaction, and waits for the next buyer. The hot item is crack, or rock cocaine, a mixture of cocaine and baking soda. It's easy to dilute, which makes it profitable. And it is highly addictive, even in minute quantities. The desperation of users creates a burgeoning demand. Street cops trying to stop the trafficking are overwhelmed and frustrated. Dep. ROBERT RIFKIN, L. A. Sheriff's Office: Cocaine and drugs are destroying this country, and it's going to get worse. KAYE: Why is it going to get worse? Dep. RIFKIN: Because we're out of control. We are out of control.

KAYE: Sheriff's Deputies Robert Rifkin and Mike O'Hara police the gang areas of Southwest Los Angeles. Neighborhood graffiti here marked territory. When one gang crosses out another's logo, it's a sign of war. Dep. RIFKIN: The Lags is the whole wall there. They wrote nice and big so all the other rival gangs that come by and see this belongs to Lenox, you're in Lenox area here.

KAYE: This area of South Los Angeles is chiefly Hispanic. Black and Hispanic gangs do not intermix. Dep. RIFKIN: This street here is well known for drug sales. Usually illegal aliens, Mexicans, will be selling dope on the street. See these two right here? They're local dope sellers. And gang members.

KAYE: The two, nicknamed Sneaky and Trapper, seemed accustomed to police pat downs. And they are proud of their gang loyalties. KAYE: You fighting with Inglewood 13? GANG MEMBER: Yeah. KAYE: Who else you fighting with? GANG MEMBER: Miamians. KAYE: What about (unintelligible)? GANG MEMBER: I don't like (unintelligible). KAYE: Don't like (unintelligible) right now, huh? Why not? GANG MEMBER: Chaolo!

KAYE: Sneaky and Trapper are Crips, on mneil e of L. A. 's two major gang groups. The other is Bloods. Bloods and Crips are mortal enemies, with hundreds of smaller neighborhood subgroups, called sets. Affiliations count for little, since sets of the same gang often fight each other. A few blocks away, we run into one of Sneaky and Trapper's adversaries, Chico, a rival Crip from the Tampa set. Chico says Tampa controls the area's drug distribution. CHICO: Nobody can hang around here. Lot of gangs. Dep. RIFKIN: What happens if they do? CHICO: I don't know. He can get killed. Dep. RIFKIN: Other gangs can't come here and sell all this dope in your area? CHICO: No. Dep. RIFKIN: You control this area? CHICO: Yep.

KAYE: Not far away is a black neighborhood, turf claimed by different, but just as violent, gangs. Here we find a different culture, but the same deadly code of retaliation. MAN: (unintelligible)

KAYE: Twenty six year old June Bug is a victim of this attitude. He lost his leg in a shooting at the age of 14. In January, he was left paralyzed after a drive by shooting. GANG MEMBER: How do you think gang members feel when they do a drive by shooting and hit an innocent person? JUNE BUG: They don't care. Dep. RIFKIN: Why don't they care? JUNE BUG: Don't care about themselves. Just want a reputation. Dep. RIFKIN: What do you mean by they want a reputation? JUNE BUG: They want to be known. Dep. RIFKIN: They want to be known within their gang that they're tough? JUNE BUG: Yeah.

KAYE: Often, drive by shootings are a form of gang initiation. The gangs are beating up their fire power, often with stolen weapons. Police too are equipping themselves with semiautomatic weapons for raids which have uncovered caches of assault rifles, semiautomatic and automatic firearms. MINISTER: Enough of the killing, enough of the terrorism, enough of the fear, enough is enough.

KAYE: In the gang ridden sections of Los Angeles, the communities are in perpetual mourning. Here, for a young girl killed in a random shooting. And here for a police officer shot when he confronted two street corner drug dealers. The June '87 killing of officer James Pagliotti brought an outraged Chief of Police to the scene in the North Los Angeles community of Sylmar. Chief DARYL GATES, L. A. Chief of Police: These are no good, miserable sons of bitches that are plaguing this city and we gotta get rid of them.

KAYE: One of those charged in the crime is 19 year old Thomas ''Peewee'' Nixon. According to the police report, Nixon said he was in the area selling rock cocaine, because his own community was saturated with dealers. Police say Nixon's friend was the trigger man, but as his associate, Nixon is also charged with murder. He has pleaded not guilty. Nixon, who has a record as a small time drug peddler, is held in a section of L. A. County Jail reserved for the Bloods. His red shoelaces distinguish him from Crips, who often wear blue. THOMAS ''Peewee'' Nixon, accused murderer: -- decide that I live with, selling dope's wrong? Dep. RIFKIN: They got more money than we do. Dep. O'HARA: Driving nice cars, having the ladies, all the jewelry. And that's to them their role model. Mr. WATKINS: They can't get jobs. But you belong to a gang and the gang's out making money and doing whatever they do. You can forget about to read and write. You understand? I could go out and make me some money, and I want a piece of the American dream.

KAYE: But this is no dream. It's an American nightmare come to life. Police predict gang violence this year will top 1987's alarming record. LEHRER: Now to part two of our story, an update debate over proposals to decriminalize the use of drugs as a way to remove money, and thus crime, from the nation's drug problem. We have two views of it tonight. Those of Georgette Bennett, a criminologist and author of a recent book Crime Warps: the Future of Crime in America, and Congressman Charles Rangel, Democrat of New York, Chairman of the House Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control. Ms. Bennett, how would decriminalizing drug use help things in Los Angeles or anywhere else? GEORGETTE BENNETT, criminologist: Well, I think it would help a great deal, because the drug problem that we have today is very much a problem of our own making. In a sense, the policies that we started in 1914 when we criminalized narcotics, have created a larger problem than that which they were supposed to solve. Look, when we talk about drugs, we have to look at three different issues. There is the moral issue, there's an emotional issue, and then there's the practical issue. In terms of the moral issue, I think drugs are a tremendous scourge. I disapprove of them totally. I myself won't even drink coffee or eat chocolate because it has caffeine in it. That's how extreme I am on this issue. In terms of the emotional issue, what we have now is mass hysteria on a national scale. And it's a hysteria that will not allow us to deal with drugs in a realistic kind of a fashion, in a rational fashion. It's a hysteria in which all kinds of myths have been created about the extent of drug use and the properties of drug use. And then finally, the practical issue. And that's the one that I'm interested in. What works. What has not worked is the policy of criminalization. By decriminalization, we can do the only thing that will bring the drug problem under control, namely to take the profit out of drugs. LEHRER: Well, carry that on. You decriminalize, and then as a practical matter, follow your scenario out to where there's a good solution at the end. Ms. BENNETT: In terms of what decriminalization would look like? LEHRER: Right. Ms. BENNETT: Well, let me first make a distinction between legalization and decriminalization. I am not in favor of legalization. Because legalization implies a kind of lassez faire approach to drugs. And I believe that we need regulation. And that in fact would be what decriminalization would do. LEHRER: All right. Spell it out. Ms. BENNETT: Well, drug selling needs to be licensed. We need to do some very careful thinking about who would be licensed to sell drugs. It must be government controlled. There must be quality controls introduced. But above all, it must make it possible for drugs to be sold at their naturally cheap prices. Because it's the street value, the enormously inflated street value of drugs that have created this tremendous incentive for organized crime to get in on the act. In fact, it was a very natural transition for organized crime to make on the repeal of prohibition when the huge profits were taken out of bootlegging liquor. And now these gangs that we just saw this excellent documentary about, are tied in with organized crime. It started with the outlaw motorcycle gangs, and it -- LEHRER: So to carry it through, though, if you were to decriminalize and you were to remove -- if you lower the price, then what happens? You have less drug use? More drug use? What's the end result? Ms. BENNETT: The end result is that we would have a continuation of the trend toward less drug use. Because in fact, drug use has been declining across the board in the general population. It has been increasing among the criminals. That's true. But it has been decreasing across the board among the general population. And when you remove the incentive to sell drugs, you also remove much of the incentive to push people into using drugs. The most powerful way to stop people from using drugs is peer pressure. Not the law. But peer pressure, when it becomes something that is disapproved by people, that is a much stronger social control mechanism than defining it as a crime. LEHRER: All right, let's go to Congressman Rangel and go through her points. First of all, do you agree with her that decriminalization would do in a general way what she says it would do? Rep. CHARLES RANGEL, (D) New York: No, I don't think Miss Bennett has really thought out her position. It's good to sell books and cocktail parties chatter, but it's an outrageous position to take when we really haven't even begun to fight a war against drugs. At a time when we should be talking about education prevention, providing some opportunity to get our kids off the streets and giving them some job skills, when we really should have some foreign policy, which we don't. The Secretary of State has never put drugs on his calendar. And when you take a look at what the police are trying to do, they do this without any federal support at all. Some of the things that Miss Bennett obviously has not thought about is what will the eligibility be for those that would be the so called patients of this decriminalization of drugs? Who would be -- LEHRER: Who would be allowed to buy it? Rep. RANGEL: Who'd be allowed to buy them. And then I assume that there will be a lot of poor people that wouldn't have the money. And she would not want them to enter the criminal market. And so someone will have to pay for it. And you know where that's going to end up, with a federal program. I don't know whether it would come under her thinking under Medicaid or not. But it would be an entitlement. The question would be who would be entitled? Will there be an age limit involved with this? And even if you assumed that only adults would be able to get it, does the adult have to be addicted? And if they have to be addicted first, would they go to the criminal market for the addiction? How much do you give a drug addict when you decide that you're going tolegally dispense it? Most drug addicts don't want it to be maintained, they want to get high. Do we determine when to stop? And so what if we did? Wouldn't they go out and get their highs someplace else? Or perhaps Miss Bennett would have us to give it until they overdose. Because a lot of people, certainly not this author, believes that if this is what these bums want in this generation, even if it's a poison, even if it kills them, even if it means children will be born addicted, give it to them and get them out of our hair. So I would suggest that maybe when you're frustrated and you've been victimized and you just don't think the struggle is worth it, you throw up your hands and surrender. I say that this administration in 7 l/2 years has not developed a strategy, not a wall plan. And I think we ought to concentrate on what we can do before we give up. LEHRER: But what about her basic point. Even though -- and we'll go back through this -- but what the end result may be and some of the steps. But she says that a way has got to be found to get the money, the profit, out of drugs. As we saw in our film from Los Angeles, that's what drives the crime, that's what drives these kids, etc. How can you do it? Rep. RANGEL: First of all, what drives it is supply and demand. It's not necessarily just profit. If kids were driven because they thought that they needed a particular drug, are they going to be less addicted because the Federal Government or the local government or some private agency is giving it to them? She's not going to give it away. Somebody has to pay for it. If they don't have the money, does that mean less crime? And I'm saying that she's not going to come up with a legal dosage. They never do. But suppose she did. And they want more. Do they not go to the illicit market in order to get it? Let me say this. If you're dealing with the dispensation of a poison, an addiction, you don't reach that point until she's able to say, What have we done, really, to try to control demand? What have we done to make kids, and people realize it's a poison? What have we really done in telling foreign governments we won't tolerate them except in our economic and military assistance and making no effort at all to control the growth of drugs. I see in this administration the President's people have not been honest with him, and allow the president to say we're winning the war, when everyone knows that the casualties have just increased. LEHRER: We're not going to fight the administration battles. I don't think Ms. Bennett is prepared to do that. But, Ms. Bennett, what do you say to his just general -- well, you heard what he said. You've got a lousy idea. Ms. BENNETT: Well, I think that Congressman Rangel has raised some very important questions. And I think that they require a great deal of thought. I have certainly given them thought, and I'm willing to share that thinking with the Congressman and have other people participate in the thinking. The Congressman has certainly been in the forefront of trying to battle to get additional funds for treatment, for prevention, and I must say he's one of my strongest supportersof the point I'm making in that sense. Because I believe that's where the priorities ought to be. Not in enforcement, but in treatment, in education, and in prevention. Now, the other points that he raises, with reference to his foreign policy -- LEHRER: Excuse me, what about his basic point that you're really essentially saying, you're essentially throwing up your hands, saying that none of this other thing is going to work, let's surrender, let's make it legal and get on with it? Ms. BENNETT: No, I'm simply saying that the policy was wrongheaded to begin with. And has created the very problem it's intended to solve. You know, up until 1914, when drugs were first decriminalized, and that's why I think the Congressman's argument about what this administration has done, I agree with him about what this administration has done and hasn't done. But the fact is that we've been fighting this since 1914, and it simply hasn't worked. Up until 1914, narcotics addiction was primarily a problem of middle class rural white women, and it was after the criminalization of drugs that it shifted entirely and became very much a problem of impoverished populations of males and of minorities, who we know are the greatest victims, not only of addiction, but of the crimes that come along with supporting addiction. Rep. RANGEL: I just would like to know who would be eligible for this legalized drug program, that's all I'm asking. Ms. BENNETT: Well, who is eligible to smoke? Who is eligible to drink alcohol? Rep. RANGEL: Well, kids are not. Will addicted kids be able to sign up for the program? Ms. BENNETT: What do alcohol addicted kids do now? Rep. RANGEL: I'm asking -- Ms. BENNETT: It's an absolutely parallel situation. Rep. RANGEL: Well, do we -- if you cannot afford the drugs, would the federal government give drug stamps? I mean, who pays for the drugs? Will we have competition the same way we have with the cigarette and liquor industry? Where they're advertised in the baseball parks and the tennis matches as to which drug gets you high quicker? I mean, just how far are you willing to go when you're saying that you shouldn't have this being against the law? Ms. BENNETT: Well, I'm willing to go as far as we go with alcohol. Where advertising is restricted. Where in order to sell alcohol you must be licensed. where if you break the regulations, that is a crime. Now, of course, children who are addicted, we need to treat them. We have to put them in treatment programs. We have a history of clinics in this country. In the 1920s, addicts were able to go to clinics, and they were able to get maintenance doses. You do raise a very interesting point when you say that what do we do with the person who doesn't want maintenance? Because you're right. Addicts usually don't want to just maintain. And that's why the English system fell apart. Because those who weren't willing to settle for maintenance doses went to a black market, but Congressman, that black market would be very much smaller and very much less powerful than the black market that we have with the system that we have created today. Rep. RANGEL: It'll be hard for me to believe that you'd be willing to expose more and more young people to what clearly is an addictive and a poisonous drug, and to say that the federal government will allow this to be legal. Ms. BENNETT: But what makes you think that more kids will be exposed when it's decriminalized than when it's criminalized? Rep. RANGEL: The reason for this -- Ms. BENNETT: -- I argue less kids will be exposed. Rep. RANGEL: Because if you watched the documentary that we've had here, clearly the kids in poorer communities are looking for a way out of poverty, looking for a way out of pain. Some have no homes, no jobs, no hope. And if there's anything that they can make a trip on, whether it's alcohol, drugs, a combination of it -- we've legalized methadone, you know that. Now that methadone is dispensed legally, people then take other drugs to make certain they get their high. They divert it, they sell it. It just hasn't worked. And all I'm asking of you -- Ms. BENNETT: I agree with you. It hasn't worked. Rep. RANGEL: Well, that's a legal drug, it's being dispensed, the federal government is paying for it. And it's an addictive drug. Ms. BENNETT: But it has also made a lot of addicts lead productive lives, which they couldn't do before. Rep. RANGEL: Well, it's made pharmaceutical companies a lot more richer than they have been. LEHRER: We have to leave it there. Ms. Bennett in New York, thank you very much. Congressman, thank you both. A very interesting discussion. South Africa HUNTER-GAULT: We turn next to South Africa and an interview with one of the principal critics of the apartheid government, Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Since the beginning of the year, the government of President P. W. Botha has stepped up efforts to curb apartheid opponents, most dramatically in February, banning 17 major anti apartheid organizations. And also trying to cut off their foreign financial support. In response, churches stepped up their role in anti government protests, including one in February in which Archbishop Tutu and other clergy were arrested briefly while marching to parliament with a petition against the ban order. At the same time, the Botha government made a political gesture to blacks, proposing black participation in the white controlled electoral college, which chooses the country's president. But that move further incensed many of the country's whites, who are voting more and more for right wing parties that vow to resist any reform of apartheid laws. Archbishop Tutu is now visiting the United States. Late this afternoon, I spoke with him and asked about the impact of the government's ban on opposition groups. DESMOND TUTU, Archbishop of Capetown: It basically indicated that we have a government who are interested in negotiation. They are determined to smash up all legitimate opposition, except that which operates within clearly and narrowly defined confines set by the government. HUNTER-GAULT: But what has happened to those groups? Archbishop TUTU: They have been made ineffective really, because they've been told on the whole not to carry on the kind of functions that (unintelligible). One was a group that was keeping statistics about people in detention and trying to help out the families of people who were detained and then they can't carry on that kind of activity now. HUNTER-GAULT: So in effect, has the government effectively silenced dissent? Archbishop TUTU: They have, yes. The only opposition group that can now I think operate is the church. And that is why the government wants to smash that up as well. HUNTER-GAULT: To what extent, I mean, the banning order brought out an unprecedented show of strength on the part of the church. How has the church been able to fill that void, and indeed is it even trying to? Archbishop TUTU: We were aware that there was a vacuum now, and most of us in the churches -- and you're quite right, there was an unprecedented display of unity -- agreed that we would try as far as we could within the limits of our resources to do some of the things that we (unintelligible) have been doing. But it became more clear that we needed to do them now that these organizations had been rendered ineffective. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, some questions have been raised about how much political leverage clergymen can wield through tactics like the kind of civil disobedience you were practicing on the way to deliver this petition to P. W. Botha. How effective can the church be? Archbishop TUTU: If we were able to mobilize more white members of our churches, to be involved in this direct nonviolent action, the authorities would find it much, much more difficult to react, certainly they would not shoot at sight more or less as they do now when the people who protest are blacks. And I think it can be effective. If it wasn't going to be effective, the government would not be trying to undermine the churches by attacking certain leaders. HUNTER-GAULT: You said that the kind of -- that the South African government has deliberately obstructed peace and encouraged violence that you wrote could turn South Africa into a Lebanon like wasteland. Do you think that's really possible, or was that just attention getting hyperbole? Archbishop TUTU: I think we're already seeing some of the carnage that can happen in states sponsored violence such as in Pietermarittsberg, in Durban. I mean in Natal. And also in KDC where the government actually removes people who have been trying to bring peace, like Mr. Sisulu, who was involved in trying to bring peace in the Cape Town strife, that the government clearly is enjoying in a sense being able to speak about black on black violence. And we could end up with people saying, Well, to blazes with it. We've tried nonviolence and maybe it is better to die, but to die for something worthwhile. HUNTER-GAULT: You recently wrote that you believed that there would come a time when it's justified to take up arms to overthrow an unjust system. Do you think it's gotten to that point now? Archbishop TUTU: Well, the churches are saying we need to prevent that happening as much as possible. And this is why we're trying to get on to this thing of direct nonviolent -- and if that fails, and if the international community fails to intervene effectively on our behalf, we've had it. HUNTER-GAULT: You also said that you could sympathize with South Africans who have already decided to take up arms, that violence is justified. Archbishop TUTU: I can understand, and I can understand their impatience at the failure of all the efforts that have been taken to try to persuade the South African government, or governments, that black people are human beings and all they want is a South Africa where black and white can share. And to say you understand does not mean you condone. And many people try to make out that we condone and even encourage violence, whereas we've said times without number we oppose all violence, which is the position of the church. The violence of an unjust system and the violence of those who seek to overthrow it. HUNTER-GAULT: Do you see any room for encouragement at all in President Botha's proposal to allow blacks to participate in the white controlled electoral college? Archbishop TUTU: No. It doesn't make sense to be involved in electing an official who is after all not accountable to you. That is one thing. Because blacks are not in the parliament to which he has to give an account. Secondly, he's not told us just what representation blacks are going to have. I mean, he might put in two or three people, which bears no relationship to the numbers. And then supposing we say we wanted to elect Nelson Mandela. We are proscribed in our choice. And one is not interested really in that sort of thing where we get little concessions. HUNTER-GAULT: Some analysts have said that P. W. Botha is trying to have it both ways, trying to lure English speaking whites with some promise of reform, at the same time trying to placate conservatives by assuring them that reform will have its limits. I mean, if you were in P. W. Botha's shoes with the right wing showing steady advances in the last couple of elections, how would you walk that line? Archbishop TUTU: I would want to see Botha as being a very courageous man. Sadly, to turn around the English expression, her hasn't got the convictions of his courage. He has moved just enough to annoy his right wing. He has not moved nearly far enough to satisfy black aspirations. He should understand that we do not want adjustments to apartheid, apartheid made more comfortable. Apartheid must be removed. And if he had the convictions of his courage, he would say, Well, tough luck for the right wing. But I am going the whole hog, and I'm saying all South Africans are going to participate in the political decision making process. And he would win the (unintelligible) of South Africa and the world. HUNTER-GAULT: There were new efforts today in the United States Congress to toughen the U. S. sanction package. Now they got derailed for a variety of reasons. But there is an argument that you hear today that we've tried sanctions and they don't work. And yet you recently suggested that the U. S. and British veto of international sanctions was a staggering blow. What should Western governments be doing now? And what should their objectives be? Should it be just to get the state of emergency lifted? Should it be to get -- I mean, what is realistic now, given all that we have in South Africa? Archbishop TUTU: Let me, first of all, express my deep appreciation on behalf of our people to the many in this country who cared and have made possible for sanctions to be applied and it's important to express that. Then, to say why is it that it is only in the South African situation where people are always agreeing that sanctions don't work? You have (unintelligible) just now to Panama, and I haven't heard any discussions there about whether they work or not. But what we would want is the kind of action that would get the South African government to the negotiating table. We do want to negotiate a settlement of the crisis in our country. HUNTER-GAULT: But how do you do that, given all that's happening right now? Is that really, as they say in South Africa, on? Archbishop TUTU: The point is that the South African government knows, and you reindicated, the kind of thing that happens, that they will always be protected from the consequences of their actions by the intervention of Mr. Reagan or Mrs. Thatcher in vetoing any action that is taken by the Security Council. But we are asking why is it impossible even to consider breaking off diplomatic relations since this does not cost any jobs, it doesn't make anybody really suffer? HUNTER-GAULT: So that's what you're proposing. Archbishop TUTU: Of course. I'll be saying that if they were serious -- or let me put it differently -- what must South Africa still do to outrage the world so much that they would create clearly effective action? How much must our people still suffer before the world can hear our (unintelligible). Which is basically saying, We want to be able to live amicably with white people. We don't want to drive white people into the sea. Is that too much to ask? HUNTER-GAULT: Well, on that note, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, thank you for being with us. The Final Word LEHRER: Finally tonight, we have an essay. Our man in Washington, Roger Mudd, has some closing thoughts about some closing words.

ROGER MUDD: It's almost over. The primary season is almost over. Over after nearly 60 debates. If this campaign year has been anything, it's been the year of the debate. But looking back now, it's hard to remember precisely a single moment of revelation or of lasting importance. However, having moderated three of those debates myself, I can tell you which moments the candidates thought were important. The closing moments. Those 60 to 90 seconds at the end of each debate in which they got to look straight into the camera and tell America what was in their hearts. PAUL SIMON, U. S. Senator, Illinois: You who view this should ask which of these candidates can provide a better future for my children and grandchildren? ALBERT GORE, Senator, Tennessee: I ask for you help in order to build a future with hope in this nation, and rekindle the spirit of America. JACK KEMP: I don't believe there's any problem in this country that we can't solve working together. DICK GEPHARDT: This is a fight for America, its people and its values. It's been my fight, and I hope it's your fight, too. ROBERT DOLE: I've been able to make a difference in my life because I believe in strong leadership. JESSE JACKSON: I have stood with you. On Super Tuesday, stand with me. And together, we, the people, will win. PAT ROBERTSON: When we get back to those fundamental principles on which our founding fathers laid the foundation for the greatest nation that has ever been in the world's history. MICHAEL DUKAKIS: An America where the son of Greek immigrants with your help can seek and win the presidency of the United States. Thank you all very much.

MUDD: Those closing statements were sacrosanct, we were told. They could not be cut. They were critical for the candidate's campaign and his message. GEPHARDT: This is a fight for America, for its people and its values. That's been my fight, and I hope it's your fight, too. GEORGE BUSH: I think people want broad experience. And I've had it fighting for my country in combat. SIMON: Look at your children, your grandchildren, and ask yourself, which of these candidates can build a better future for them? BUSH: I think people are looking for experience. And mine? Combat. GEPHARDT: This is a fight for America, for its people and its values. And I hope you'll decide to make it your fight, too. DUKAKIS: My dad came to this country, and came here to Manchester, New Hampshire in 1912.

MUDD: Those closing statements were not negotiable, we were told. The format was negotiable, the closing statements were not. It was the only opportunity the candidates said they had without some reporter getting in the way. DUKAKIS: You know, when my dad came to this city in 1912, I doubt very much that he could have possibly imagined that someday his son would be a serious candidate for the presidency of the United States. JACKSON: I've stood with you. You stand with me. KEMP: There are no problems that we can't resolve working together. JACKSON: Together, we can win. I stood with you. If I've stood with you, you stand with me. KEMP: There are no problems in this country that we can't resolve working together.

MUDD: There was no way the candidates would cut their closing statements. It was the only way they said they had to keep their message current and fresh. DOLE: I've said all over this state, in all 99 counties where Elizabeth and I have traveled, that I've made a difference, I've demonstrated that I've made a difference. And I believe I can make a difference. I believe I've made a difference. GORE: We went on to provide the kind of leadership for America that could rekindle the spirit of this country and build a future with hope. SIMON: Your children, your grandchildren can have a better future. GORE: To restore this country's greatness, rebuild our economic strength, rekindle the spirit of America, and build a future with hope. SIMON: Which of the candidates can best provide a brighter future for your children and your grandchildren? BUSH: You'll need somebody in that hot seat with a cool hand on the stick. I've been copilot for seven years, and I know how to land a plane in a storm. ROBERTSON: I happen to believe the United States of America's the greatest nation that has ever been on the face of the earth, and I believe this is the greatest nation on the face of the earth. And I am proud to be an American.

MUDD: So whatever format they agree on for the fall campaign debates, let's not kill those closing statements. With closing statements, ladies and gentlemen, this nation, which is of course the greatest nation on the face of the earth, can stand with us, can land with us in a storm, can even rekindle our grandchildren. Those closing statements have made a difference, ladies and gentlemen, not only to Greek Americans who came to this city, but also to proud Americans who came to be our children. So let's keep closing statement for a brighter tomorrow. This is a battle for cool hands, ladies and gentlemen, it's your fight, too. Recap HUNTER-GAULT: Once again, the top stories of this Friday. President Reagan extended U. S. Navy protection in the Persian Gulf from 11 tankers to all neutral ships that come under attack. The Pentagon said the two marine helicopter pilots missing in the Gulf were killed in hostile action. A deal has reportedly been reached for General Noriega to relinquish power but remain in Panama. Good night, Jim. LEHRER: Good night, Charlayne. Have a nice weekend. We'll see you on Monday night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.