"I would hope that we are judged by the lives that are touched and the hope that we give America," declared Asa Hutchinson, Bush's new Drug Enforcement
Agency chief during a press conference on his first day in his new job.
Considering that the DEA seeks to maximize the number of people that it
sends to prison each year for drug offenses, such "touching" rhetoric should
be chilling. But Hutchinson is barreling forward with page after page from
Bill Clinton's rhetorical playbook.
At the same August 20 press conference, Hutchinson announced, "I think part
of my mission is to give hope to America." A few weeks earlier, Hutchinson
made a stunning announcement: "I am excited to have the opportunity to serve
Arkansas and the country by beginning our great national crusade against
illegal drugs."
Perhaps Hutchinson has been too busy to tour any prisons recently. Prisons
are overflowing with hundreds of thousands of drug offenders. In the same
week in which he took over at the DEA, a federal report bragged that the
number of people convicted in federal drug courts had doubled since 1986.
Hutchinson's talk about "beginning" a "crusade" against illegal drugs
signals the Bush administration's intention to greatly ratchet up the drug
war. Yet the evidence of the failure of the punitive approach is
overwhelming.
Despite conservative caterwauling during recent years, President Clinton
actually greatly intensified the drug war. Four million Americans were
arrested for marijuana violations, the vast majority for simple possession,
during Clinton's reign. The number of people arrested for drug offenses rose
by 73 percent between 1992 and 1997, according to the American Bar
Association.
But Clinton's crackdown was a dismal failure. More Americans died from drug
overdoses and more Americans went to hospital emergency rooms for
drug-related problems in 1998 than ever before. More high-school students
(90 percent) reported that marijuana was "fairly easy" or "very easy" to get
than ever before. The price of heroin and cocaine were near all-time lows at
the end of the 1990s -- signaling the total failure of U.S. interdiction
policies.
Like a good Washingtonian, Hutchinson is responding to these debacles by
redefining the baseline: "I think you have to put this in perspective; that
whenever you look at national social problems, whether you look at child
abuse, whether you look at teen violence, whenever you impact people's
lives, it's a victory." Thus, as long as the DEA continues sending
tankerloads of people to prison each year, the drug war is going just fine
and dandy.
Hutchinson was asked by the Philadelphia Inquirer what action he would take
to stem the flow of fraudulent arrest statistics from the DEA (which, in the
past, has routinely seized credit for drug busts made by other police
agencies or other nations). He responded: "We have to have the correct moral
compass and the proper training to make sure we gather our statistics in a
correct and truthful fashion." But Hutchinson seems far too infatuated by
the righteousness of law enforcement to exert the effort to make the DEA go
straight.
At his inaugural press conference as DEA chief, Hutchinson proclaimed, "I
believe that law enforcement sets the right tone for America." During his
time as a congressman, he was perennially hysterical about any proposal to
limit the power of law enforcement. In 1998, when Congress was considering a
law to require federal prosecutors to cease violating the ethics code of
state bar associations, Hutchinson exploded: "This would jeopardize our
fight in the war against drugs. The winner would be the drug cartels,
fraudulent telemarketing operations, and Internet pornographers."
In 1999, when Congress was considering a law to restrict federal agents'
power to confiscate private property, Hutchinson proposed a substitute bill
that would have greatly increased government's power to grab. Hutchinson
whined on the House floor, "How does disarming law enforcement fit into the
war on drugs?" Thus, decreasing a DEA agent's power to seize someone's car
is the equivalent of taking away his sidearm. Apparently, the main
"armament" in the war on drugs is the sweeping power of law enforcement over
nonviolent, private citizens.
In his new job, Hutchinson occasionally sounds like a bleeding-heart
liberal, declaring that the DEA must embark on "a compassionate crusade."
Unfortunately, people suffering from the side-effects of chemotherapy are
outside the bounds of Hutchinson's compassion.
The new DEA chief declared, "It is very important that we understand that we
don't want to do anything to take pain medication away from people. We all
have sympathy for folks that need medication, but we have to listen to the
scientific and medical community and they're saying that marijuana has no
legitimate medical purpose." According to Hutchinson's view, Americans
should pretend that recent studies in the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, the American Journal of Psychiatry, and the British
medical journal Lancet on marijuana's medical
benefits and risk were never published.
Perhaps it is impossible to fight a "war on drugs" without institutionalized
dishonesty. Hutchinson's comments signal that drug policy is likely to be
the area where the Bush administration does the most harm to civil
liberties. Regardless of how much the "great crusade" is ratcheted up, the
government will continue losing its war to minutely control the daily life
and habits of every citizen.