Jennifer Nelson’s column appears every other Thursday.
The "Just don’t do it" slogan from Bob Dole’s anti-drug campaign
may, upon a cursory evaluation, appear to be an inefficient way of
confronting the growing problem of national drug abuse. After all,
it is hardly reasonable to believe that a potential drug user will
specifically consider these words before deciding whether or not to
get high.
However, this slogan, and the man that stands behind it,
represent a sorely needed, value-oriented stance on the issue that
has been lacking in the Clinton administration. The president’s
cavalier attitude has been responsible for a dramatic increase in
drug abuse among teenagers.
While Clinton’s baby boomer generation has dismissed aggressive
anti-drug campaigns as ineffectual, the truth is that tough
approaches to the problem have proven to be very successful. The
Nixon, Reagan and Bush administrations are direct examples of
this.
When Richard Nixon began his first term, use of marijuana and
heroin had reached an all-time high. In response, he vowed to wage
a national attack on narcotics abuse which involved reducing the
flow of drugs into the country while stepping up drug treatment
programs.
Nixon began his work by arranging for the extradition of noted
heroin chemists, and sent ambassadors to negotiate narcotics
agreements with foreign countries. Turkey, which provided about 80
percent of the U.S. heroin supply promised a complete cessation of
its production in exchange for $35.7 million in aid.
On the national level, the Nixon administration further proved
its dedication to the cause by legalizing the use of drugs to
combat addiction and by encouraging anti-drug commercials and
television programs.
Although many were doubtful that these measures would have any
impact, they did help to dramatically curtail drug abuse. In 1975,
the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) announced that while the
purity of heroin had declined, the street price was four times
greater. The result was a marked decline in heroin abuse.
Unfortunately, the Carter administration failed to continue the
vigorous anti-drug campaign. In fact, President Carter at one time
advocated that marijuana possession be legalized. It is little
wonder that, in the absence of strong moral leadership, by 1979
half of all teenagers were experimenting with the drug.
Fortunately, Reagan was elected at this crucial time, and was
succeeded by George Bush, who both strongly supported drug
interdiction. Between the years of 1979 and 1992, teenage drug
abuse was reduced by one-half.
The fluctuation of drug abuse statistics in accordance with
changing political leadership is not coincidental. It is a direct
reflection of the importance of presidential guidance on this
issue.
The Republican presidents that took an aggressive anti-drug
stance helped to drastically ameliorate the problem of addiction.
Under their leadership, societal attitudes towards drug use
changed. The belief that taking drugs was morally incorrect became
more widespread. Most importantly, they proved that the war on
drugs is not a losing battle. Parents, educators and law
enforcement officials do not have to accept drug abuse as a growing
and irreversible trend.
Sadly, the Clinton administration appears to be espousing
Carter’s apathetic stance on the issue. For the first part of his
term he appointed a surgeon general who voiced support of drug
legalization, and reduced the amount of resources available to the
White House drug office. Evidence has emerged indicated that
members of his own staff have taken drugs, and it is no secret that
they have been subject to regular drug testing.
Most dismaying is that instead of denouncing his attempt to
experiment with marijuana, President Clinton has made light of the
subject, cavalierly joking about it on Music Television. If the
President of the United States does not vehemently condemn the
action of taking drugs, how can society expect today’s youth to
attach any stigmatization or sense of shame to drug abuse?
In the wake of this record, it is not surprising that the use of
heroin among teens has more than doubled in the last year. Last
month 32 out of 4,500 teenagers surveyed admitted to using the
substance in the past year. In 1995, the number was just 14. In
another survey it was shown that in the same one year period the
number of teenagers who responded that they do not expect to take
drugs in the future has dropped by 35 percent.
Recent polls have further shown that the problem appears to be
rooted in the fact that many baby boomer parents experimented with
drugs in their youth, and subsequently expect that their children
will do the same. Eighty-three percent of parents who had never
smoked marijuana believed it would be a "crisis" if their children
were to experiment with drugs, as opposed to just 58percent of
parents that had smoked marijuana. These statistics show that,
under Clinton’s liberal example, a large segment of our society has
resigned itself to accepting drug use as a part of our culture.
While it is true that catchy slogans will not win the war on
drugs, they are a small step toward changing the attitude of
indifference that has made this battle increasingly difficult to
fight.
Our permissive culture and inadequate presidential leadership
have played a negative role in curtailing drug addiction among
teens. It is time to elect a president whose party has proven
itself to be effective with this important issue. If elected, Bob
Dole has vowed to make monthly speeches against drugs. He has also
promised to reduce drug abuse among teens by 50 percent by the end
of his first term.
While Clinton supporters doubt this claim, the same reduction
has been accomplished under previous Republican administrations. In
any case, Bob Dole would not continue to send Bill Clinton’s
messages of ambivalence to today’s youth, and it is clear that firm
moral guidance is the key to eradicating the problem of teen drug
abuse.