cannabisnews.com: Bennett's Fuzzy Drug-War Victory 





Bennett's Fuzzy Drug-War Victory 
Posted by FoM on May 21, 2001 at 11:45:17 PT
By Joel Miller
Source: WorldNetDaily
With President Bush's appointment of John P. Walters to the office of national drug czar, drug warriors are playing two different roles -- both of cheerleader and defense attorney. Ecstatic that one of their own is spearheading national drug policy, they cheer. Prosecuted in the court of public opinion, they brush up their Perry Mason impersonation. One such counsel for the defense is former drug czar William J. Bennett, whose May 15 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal puts it plainly: 
"The new 'drug czar' is being asked to lead the nation's war on illegal drugs at a time when many are urging surrender." How many? According to a Pew Research Center survey cited by Bennett, 74 percent of Americans believe the drug war has bombed. "And yet," says Bennett in a statement that would be surprising coming from anyone but him, "recent history shows that, far from being a failure, drug-control programs are among the most successful public policy efforts of the latter half of the 20th century." Get real, Bennett. Only if you compare drug policy to the colossal failure of social programs like welfare can that statement be even remotely accurate -- it's easy to be a winner when surrounded by bigger losers than yourself -- but even this is giving antidope efforts far too much credence. The failures of the drug war are obvious: destruction of First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, swollen prison populations and lives needlessly endangered and lost. The successes, on the other hand, are far less clear and far more dubious. "According to a national drug survey, between 1979 and 1992, the most intense period of antidrug efforts, the rate of illegal drug use dropped by more than half," writes Bennett, then questioning, "Why is this record described as a failure?" Easy. Those numbers are bunk. Every year, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration conducts the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse to estimate the use of illegal drugs and monitor trends in their use over time. The survey, in which randomly selected households are asked to answer a questionnaire about whether or not they've recently used any illicit drugs, has one obvious flaw -- one which amazingly few people have bothered to highlight and one which anyone with a college data-analysis or stat class should know: You can't ask people honest questions about their illicit behavior and expect honest answers. Michael Fumento pointed out as much in an Oct. 10, 1996, Sacramento Bee column throttling ABC News anchor Peter Jennings for taking results from the 1994 NHSDA at face value. "When questions are asked regarding illegal actions or even actions that are just frowned upon," says Fumento, "the persons surveyed often don't tell the truth." Now add to this fact one more variable, and you'll see why Bennett's victory is so hollow. Seems obvious that if people tend to lie when their behavior is looked down upon, they really lie when their behavior is heavily looked down upon. During a national crackdown on drugs, my money is on even marginally smart people not openly admitting drug use – which, as reflected in the numbers, would appear as if a decline in use had occurred. The same is true for the other half of Bennett's argument. With lax drug enforcement in the Clinton years, drug use went up, according to the numbers. Or was it people just more willing to admit they use drugs? Especially since Al Gore and Clinton both acknowledged use in the past themselves. With heavy drug enforcement under Reagan and Bush Sr., the numbers are low -- because survey respondents figure they might get hammered if they fess up. With Clinton, the numbers are up -- because enforcement is lax, people don't feel as threatened if they admit use. In other words, Bennett's "most successful public policy efforts of the latter half of the 20th century" is an illusion. It's reasonable to conclude that more people were using drugs "during the most intense period of antidrug efforts" than admitted it. And just in case Bennett can't tell the difference, that's not success -- that's denial. Joel Miller is the commentary editor of WorldNetDaily. His publishing company, MenschWerks,recently published "God Gave Wine" by Kenneth L. Gentry Jr. Source: WorldNetDaily (US Web)Author: Joel MillerPublished: May 21, 2001Copyright: 2001, WorldNetDaily.com, Inc.Contact: letters worldnetdaily.comWebsite: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/Related Articles:My Drug Lessons - Christian Science Monitorhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9810.shtmlSupreme Court's Reefer Madness http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9723.shtmlCannabisNews Articles - Joel Millerhttp://cannabisnews.com/thcgi/search.pl?K=Joel+miller
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #2 posted by Doug on May 22, 2001 at 09:48:01 PT:
Glad to See This
It's good to see someone attack the statistical basis of "we're wining the war." To anyone familar with statistics, these ones were always bogus. I read an article within hte last year -- I don't have a reference -- which described how some researchers surveyed teenagers to find out how many smoked cigarettes. After that collected data, they then told them that they could take swabs of their mouths and tell if they smoked cigaretts. The researchers than gave the same survey, and 30% more admitted to smoking. This study gives us an inkling of how much lying goes on in these surveys. I think that the amount of lying when asked about a completely illegal activity would be greater than the lying about an age-related illegal activity, but who really knows. In any case, the margin of error is so great that any statement regarding a small change from year to year is pure hogwash.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Dan B on May 21, 2001 at 13:48:29 PT:
Good Job, Mr. Miller
I would follow this one up with an article highlighting the following facts: * Between 1979 and 1999, drug overdose deaths increased nearly seven-fold (about 1700 overdose deaths in 1980, 11570 such deaths in 1999). * New incarcerations for drug arrests between 1979 and 1992 grew 11.5 times (about 8800 in 1979, 101600 in 1992).* Arrests for "drug abuse violations" increased threefold between 1980 and 1999 (580,900 in 1980 to 1,532,200 in 1999).* Self-reported rates of heroin use and inhalant use are currently at their highest levels since such use began being measured in the late 1970s.* About 90% of high school kids say that marijuana is easier to get than alcohol. Miller might also mention that "societal costs" associated with drug use increased from 1975 to 1985 and, again, from 1985 to 1992 (the only years for which I can find data on that particular statistic), and hospital visits related to illegal drug use increased every year since 1990. Drug purity has also increased as drug prices have decreased--with the exception of hikes in the price for cannabis, the most benign of all illegal drugs (arguably the most benign of all legal ones, too), indicating an enormous increase in supply despite a drug war budget that has bloated from $1.531 billon in 1981 to a projected $19.2 billion in 2001. Bennett's assumption that self-reports of drug use are somehow accurate representations of actual drug use is erroneous at best. Every other indicator suggests that drug use and, yes, abuse has grown every year since 1972, the beginning of the modern war on some drugs. It's time for Bennett, Walters and their cronies to wake up and smell the cannabis: illegal drugs are here to stay. We should work to reduce the harms associated with that reality, rather than trying to arrest and incarcerate drug use out of public view.Thanks, Joel, for the great writing (as usual). By the way--know of any openings for a new writer at WorldNetDaily? I'd love to have a shot at writing for you there.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: