The Great Debate (Part 1) 12/2/03 On Thursday, I told you about a debate that was scheduled on C-Span. It ended up getting pushed back due to coverage of a Thanksgiving Dinner, so I missed it when it aired, but the full audio is available at Drug Sense (RealAudio file) and I finally got a chance to listen to it. I planned to just give a report, but it was really quite interesting, so I ended up transcribing large sections of it for you. The event: The Debate of the 21st Century on "The Future of American Drug Policy" (held in New York City in October). The participants: Republican Activist William Bennett and Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel vs. Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson and Former Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke (moderated by drug war cheerleader Joseph Califano). Each participant started with 6 minutes to make their presentation, followed by 2 minutes of rebuttal and then questions from the audience. Today, I'll just give you the first section (the 6-minute presentations). What to look for: William Bennett: I've always been annoyed by Bennett. He acts like he knows all the answers and is very smooth at what he says, but he twists words to make his statements appear to have the power of expertise. Here's an example from his presentation: Another point to bring up, I think, that's very important, is that as we all know, people's behavior - and the social scientists have taught us this and the psychologists and psychiatrists have taught us this - people's behavior is a function of a lot of things. And when it comes to drugs, a lot of it has to do with people's opportunity, the stigma attached to it and the price of the drug. Now take a close look. He talked about what "we all know" and he talked about social scientists and psychologists and psychiatrists, but didn't really say anything from the point of view of experts other than "people's behavior is a function of a lot of things." He then brought up his own views regarding drug behavior, but tried to make it appear that this was a followup to the experts and our certain knowledge. Watch for this approach throughout his speech. Also note that Bennett takes one set of numbers of drug users for a particular set of years and uses that to justify the entire war on drugs (more about this in Part 2). Gary Johnson: This guy is amazing. He just finished (earlier this year) climbing to the summit of Mt. Everest (He's also a triathelete.) He's used drugs in the past (so knows what he's talking about), but decided on his own that they weren't for him. He's a strong proponent of legalizing and regulating drugs because it just makes more sense. One quote from his speech: I don't think that there's a bigger problem facing the world today than the war on drugs and I think it has a practical solution. I think the war on drugs is an absolute miserable failure. We need to stop looking at drugs first as a criminal justice problem rather than a health problem. Democratic Congressman Charlie Rangel is just plain bizarre. I know that Bennett was really wishing he could make a partner trade. Half of his statements had me doing Jon Stewart's "Whhaaaa???" and the other half made no sense at all. I really believe he didn't understand half of the issues. But if we're talking about just making drugs available - How are my poor addicts going to pay for it? Well, you're dealing with the wrong administration, and Bill can tell you if you're talking about increasing Federal programs. What are we going to have - food stamps, voucher stamps? How are we going to manage it all to make certain that we don't legalize our drug dealers to have the free marketplace work its will? Whaaa? (Be sure to check out his amazing story about his grandfather's beer bucket. It's priceless... in a stupid way.) Kurt Schmoke takes less of a legalization approach and more toward harm reduction. Very well presented. In my view, the war on drugs, as conducted in the United States, is our domestic Vietnam, full of body-count numbers and all kinds of simplistic notions that distort us, and move us away from looking at the truth. So here's the full text (except opening instructions and introductions and similar stuff). Bill Bennett (left out some opening thank you's and nice comments about the other panelists). There's a lot to talk about, and we're going to talk about future directions in drug policy, but I think the not-so hidden agenda is the question of legalization, so I will address that, but I'll start by saying some things I think we need to do. First of all, before I was the first Drug Czar, um, which I often say has very few advantages as a title except that I could refer to my wife as czarling, and our two kids as the czardines. But, I was the Secretary of Education, and I think we can all agree that we need to do a better job on education about drugs in this country. I was associated early on with D.A.R.E. - drug abuse resistance education - it's come under a lot of criticism - some criticism - some people think it's outmoded. D.A.R.E. is reinventing itself - it's going to get back into the classroom - with the help of scholars in the field, researchers and educators and I'm going to be part of that effort. I say that only that, in the recognition, that many state budgets are being cut back. I hope we can continue to educate children about the dangers of drug use and to do so in an effective way, and there are many ways of doing that. Look, I think to legalize or decriminalize drugs would be a dopey idea. I don't mean a pun on that. I don't think it's a good idea. I don't think it makes sense. We have a lot of priorities in our country. We have a lot of problems - a lot of things we need to take care of. I don't think that, really, this is going to be something that would be particularly helpful. Not only would it not be particularly helpful, I think most of the arguments about legalization and decriminalization of drugs, are based on faulty premises. The major premise that I have heard. We may not hear it tonight, but I've heard it around the country, is that everything we've done in the war against drugs has been futile. It's been a futile exercise - tilting at windmills - we have had no effect in this effort. This is just false. Just patently false. From 1979 to 1994, drug use, illicit drug use, went down by 50% in this country. Overall drug use went down by 50%. Marijuana use went down by 60% and cocaine use went down by 70%. 50, 60, 70. That's not 100, but that's progress. With another hat on, in another field, I can tell you that if the High School dropout rate had dropped by 50% or 60% or 70% we wouldn't be talking about giving up on the enterprise. If the teenage pregnancy rate dropped by 50 or 60 or 70 percent, we wouldn't throw up our hands and say "This is futile." Actually 50, 60, and 70 percent reductions in that period of time, and if you go to 1991, rather than 1994, the numbers are even greater. In fact, it is one of the most successful interventions on the part of government in social policy and social behavior of the last 50 years. Let's bear that in mind, and the population was increasing at that time. Another point to bring up, I think, that's very important, is that as we all know, people's behavior - and the social scientists have taught us this and the psychologists and psychiatrists have taught us this - people's behavior is a function of a lot of things. And when it comes to drugs, a lot of it has to do with people's opportunity, the stigma attached to it and the price of the drug. And on all three fronts, I think, the argument for legalization fails. If we make drugs more available, there will be greater opportunities, and as most of our experience tells us - and the research tells us - when things are prohibited, when things are against the law, that is a barrier for most people. Everybody talks about drugs being available everywhere, they're so easy to get and so on - it's still the case that more than 50%, more than 50% of our High School students say that it would be difficult to get a hold of illegal drugs. Now that 47 or 48 percent say that it's relatively easy isn't great news. But the notion that it's as available as, if you will, alcohol and cigarettes, is false. It is not. And that, I think is the third point I'd emphasize before closing. We have lots of ways to get yourself in trouble in this society, and many of us have gotten ourselves in trouble with various activities and recreations in this society. Um... I've experimented with a number of them, myself, growing up and even sometimes when grownup. Do we need more ways to get ourselves in trouble? Do we need more ways to get buzzed out? Is that what the republic needs at this time? We know - as the parent of teenage boys - we know about the challenges of alcohol and teenagers. We know about the challenges of cigarettes and tobacco use among teenagers. These are very serious matters. They are used in great degree by our teenage kids. That they are legal and available, even though they are prohibited to young people, makes a difference. Make illicit drugs more available and their use will skyrocket. We don't need to do that. Gary Johnson (left out opening remarks about his business background and family) I had never been involved in politics prior to being elected Governor of New Mexico. I got elected on a promise to put the issues that should on the front burner, on the front burner, regardless of the political consequences, because I'd never been involved in politics. And I think I was very, very successful as Governor of New Mexico. We took the issues head on and I will tell you that at the beginning of this year when I left office, I think there were 2 states in the entire United States that were in the black. One of them was New Mexico and I take credit for that. I don't think that there's a bigger problem facing the world today than the war on drugs and I think it has a practical solution. I think the war on drugs is an absolute miserable failure. We need to stop looking at drugs first as a criminal justice problem rather than a health problem. Look I was governor of the state of New Mexico and I'm not alone. I was one of 50 governors. Half of what we spent on law enforcement, half of what we spent on the courts and half of what we spent on the prisons is drug related, and yet drugs are cheaper, they're more potent, and they're more readily available than they've ever been before. We arrest 1.6 million people a year in this country on drug related crime. That is like the equivalent population of New Mexico, and I am struck by that. And I've gotta tell you here, I am not pro-drug; I am not pro-alcohol; I am not pro-tobacco. I want to make a pitch to all of you. I see all of you are enjoying your cocktails this evening. I have not had a drink for 17 years - the best decision I ever made in my entire life. I want to make a pitch to all of you tonight to make this your last drink. You have no idea what a handicap alcohol is, even in small amounts, until you quit. And yet, you know what, I'll bet nobody quits this evening. And I'm going to grant you that, as long as you don't drink and get behind the wheel of a car. Why can't we apply that same measure to marijuana? So what I suggest is that we legalize marijuana. 95 million Americans have smoked marijuana. And when I say legalize marijuana, it's never going to be legal to smoke marijuana and get behind the wheel of a car. It's never going to be legal for kids to do marijuana; it's never going to be legal to sell marijuana to kids. When I say legalize, I'm talking about controlling, regulating, taxing. When it comes to these other drugs, all the other drugs, we should look at harm reduction strategies, and when I talk about harm reduction strategies -- reduce the things that we really care about. Let's have strategies that reduce death, disease, crime, corruption. Let's put more of our resources into education. Let's put more of our resources into treatment for individuals that need treatment. I happen to believe that 90% of the drug problem is prohibition related, not abuse related, and that is NOT to discount the problems of abuse, but that ought to be what we're putting our resources behind. Our drug laws are terribly discriminatory. If you are of color and you are arrested, there's a seven times more likelihood that you will go to prison than if you are white. Because of mandatory drug sentencing in this country, we are releasing violent criminals out of prison to make room for mandatory sentenced non-violent drug criminals. There's a case here - Nevada recently. It was on the ballot. "Should we legalize marijuana?" "Two ounces." We saw that this last November. It was defeated 60% to 40%. I've got to tell you, that when a super-majority of the population does not agree on criminal penalty, what you have is a disrespect for the law, and that's what we have in this country, is a disrespect for the law in my opinion, based on our drug laws. Thank you. Congressman Rangel (Note: I did not add [sic] to the transcript or I would have had to do it about 100 times. Take my word for it. This is exactly what he said.) Could you pass that wine over there. Thank you. I just want to say to the Governor, if you think I'm enjoying this you're making a mistake. Medical science says a man of my age has to do this in order to prevent heart disease. So that's the problem. Let me say this, that this is not the first time that I've gotten to some kind of debate and confrontations with the debate team on the other side. I had thought that I had put this issue to rest when both of them left public office, but is seems as though they keep coming back and I'm still around. The fact that they both have sincere and good arguments that we should reform the penal system and the criminal system in the United States of America - Count me in! Mandatory sentences is stupid. Arresting people who have illnesses and putting them in jail is stupid. Not allowing them to be trained and adjust to society and training and giving them their drivers licences and the right to vote is just dumb and vindictive. But you don't have to legalize dope in order to do what you have to do to reform a system that clearly is not working. And when it comes to education, where did we get the idea that we have to legalize drugs in order to fund a decent education for all of our people? Anyone should know, that without the legalization, that we should give every kid an opportunity to get an education, to get the training, to get the self-esteem, to get a job, to get married, to have a family, to pay taxes. You don't have to do, legalize drugs in order to say that education is good for America. And this whole concept that we can reduce the cost of law enforcement and use this for education and prevention -- what administration are we talking about? Next week, we're going to vote for another 87 billion dollars to modernize Baghdad. You know, and we're certainly not going to do in the prison system in order to raise the money. We're talking about two different arguments. Now when you talk about legalization -- Why do I get the idea that you're talking about bringing into my congressional districts, and those that are similarly situated, people that are giving away drugs. Well, I THINK the reason I'm suspect is because there're more drug users and abusers of illicit drugs outside of the inner cities than they are in the inner cities. They're just not getting arrested. If you got the money - if you're in entertainment, if you're a doctor, and a lawyer, and yes, even well known news commentators - you really don't get busted because you're getting illegal drugs. And so, if indeed we're talking about the relationship between crime and drug abuse, then you're talking about those who are getting arrested - I agree with the Governor. Over-arresting doesn't mean you have to legalize a real serious problem that we have. And if indeed you decide you're going to put these in my district, it's not because it's crime that's causing the abuse, or abuse that's causing the crime. It's poverty that's causing the crime. And so, if you're not going to educate, if you're not going to create the jobs, are you not telling me that you're giving up on that, and if they have to do drugs rather than commit the crime, give it to them. Well suppose I yield to that argument. Give it to whom? How much? And what do you have to do to be eligible? Well first of all it's my understanding that people who buy drugs are not just doing it for recreation. They want to get high. Does the dispension agency says that there's a cut-off? Is there going to be a legal dosage? And if they do cut it off, so that you don't get high, and you don't overdose, isn't that a place for the market, the illicit market to produce it? And suppose they say, "and you have to be an adult in order to use drugs"? Well, how do you make a kid that's not doing drugs eligible? Except through the illicit market? And listen, I was telling Bill Bennet - Access to things that are illegal make all the difference in the world. I was raised by a grandfather had no legal training and he told me, "Charlie, if you want to be successful in life and make something out of yourself, stay out of trouble. And get yourself a job with a pension." Well, God knows I did get a job with a pension, but -- one of the things I used to get for him was to get his beer bucket filled at the local bar. And now that I'm writing a book, I almost forgot that beer bucket. Never was as filled when it got home as it was when they filled it with beer. Thank God he didn't send me out to get his weekly allegation of crack, because what would have happened to me there? But if we're talking about just making drugs available - How are my poor addicts going to pay for it? Well, you're dealing with the wrong administration, and Bill can tell you if you're talking about increasing Federal programs. What are we going to have - food stamps, voucher stamps? How are we going to manage it all to make certain that we don't legalize our drug dealers to have the free marketplace work its will? Kurt Schmoke Let me start by first of all saying that the issue tonight is not legalization - or not legalizing drugs. By raising the issue of legalization, Mr. Bennett has simply set a trap for a discussion - a discussion that is far more complex than a simple answer of legalizing or not legalizing. The question is: Putting a mirror up to national drug control policy and seeing: Is it successful? Has it achieved its goals? Or hasn't it acheived its goals? And where do we go in the 21st century? It's far broader than just a simplistic question of legalization or not. In my view, the war on drugs, as conducted in the United States, is our domestic Vietnam, full of body-count numbers and all kinds of simplistic notions that distort us, and move us away from looking at the truth. And as Governor Johnson says, we SHOULD have a war on drugs, but it should be primarily a public health war, rather than a criminal justice war. A war led by the Surgeon General, not the Attorney General. Now let me tell you why we are really here tonight. It's because next year, we will celebrate the 90th anniversary of the Harrison Narcotics Act - that's 90 years since this federal war on drugs began with the passage of the Harrison Act. And if the goal, if the goal of the federal drug war is to make the United States a drug-free America, it has failed. It has failed in achieving the goals in the same way that in the 1920s we sought to be a alcohol-free America, by using primarily the criminal justice system. During the 1920s, yes indeed, alcoholism rates did go down during prohibition. But at what social costs? What was created was a huge underground, massive corruption of officials, children used as lookouts for speakeasys, people dying of adulterated drugs - alcohol, I'm sorry - and we decided as a country that the use of the criminal justice system primarily to fight alcoholism was not worth the cost that it was imposing on our society. Now from our point of view, looking at the so-called drug problem in the United States - that is, from the cities - the drug problem is a three-headed monster. It's the problem of addiction; it's the problem of AIDS; it's the problem of crime. Now two out of three of those are clearly public health issues, but what we have seen, far too often, is a response from the national government that's driven NOT by science, but is driven by politics. Let me give you an example. Far too long we have been saying with respect to this war on drugs that one aspect of this problem is people who are intravenous drug users, who are using needles, who are sharing needles with others and spreading the problem of AIDS. If we could implement a carefully structured program of needle exchange - sterile syringe exchange - then we could reduce the spread of AIDS in our community and save lives. But the federal response was to say "No. We can't fund it. You can't do it." But then, but then the scientists weighed in. The Institute of Medicin of the National Science Academy came out in 1995 and said that a carefully structured needle exchange program will reduce the spread of AIDS without increasing illegal drug use and then the Department of Health and Human Services weighed in later confirming that finding and said that needle exchange is important and it won't increase drug use - "Do it." But the federal response was "No. We are not going to fund these programs." And I can tell you, the reason that they didn't had nothing to do with the science, had everything to do with politics. Governor Johnson is absolutely correct. This war on drugs is not a single war. It impacts people differently. And this war on drugs is different in its impact if you're white rather than if you're non-white. It is different if you're poor, rather than if you're not poor. It is different if you are insured, rather than being uninsured. And so what we're suggesting is that at this time, we take this opportunity to step back, look at some successes, but also admit some failures in the war on drugs, and take a different direction. And I do believe, as a part of that, that we should remove criminal penalties from the possession of marijuana. And I think that it would be very important for us - and a positive step forward also - we need to eliminate the discrimination that people in recovery now feel, that we have so many laws, so many laws, that impact people who are in recovery who can't get benefits from our society, and that is discrimination. And finally, we should respond to the fact that the American Medical Association and the American Bar Association have viewed addiction as a disease, not as a vice, not as a crime, but as a disease, and ladies and gentlemen, you can't prosecute your way out of addiction and disease. Next: Part 2 - Rebuttals