Reagan Is Reneging on Drug-Abuse War

President Reagan has committed two strategic errors by cutting the budget for efforts to combat drug abuse that he authorized last fall. The first affects his presidency, the second his battle against drug abuse. The Administration’s budget proposal for fiscal years 1988 and 1989, for example, would eliminate the $225 million authorized each year for state and local drug law enforcement.

Admirers of Reagan’s persuasive portrayals of the national mood are becoming confused. Americans are proud to have their deeply and sincerely held beliefs given ringing expression by their President. Now, uncertainty clouds the very core of Reagan’s convictions--the heart-felt statements, such as that he would never ransom hostages from terrorists, or that he would seek a “drug-free generation” by means of the drug-abuse bill dramatically signed Oct. 27 before the media. The effectiveness of the President’s future appeals for public understanding on some now unknown issue, perhaps far removed from drugs or Iran, will be weakened should Americans come to believe that the most exquisitely articulated speeches are paradoxically a clue that misrepresentation may be at hand.

Reagan has not been well-served by those who persuaded him to backtrack on his “war on drugs.” He either should not have given the impression that he fully embraced the anti-drug act or he should have submitted a budget consistent with that law. What he has done is difficult for his supporters to understand.

Leaving aside the political symbolism of the drug-abuse issue and the rhetorical power of the presidency, the proposed cuts in funding raise questions about the Administration’s understanding of some important anti-drug efforts.

One of the most frustrating aspects of drug-abuse funding has been its unpredictability. There are good years and bad decades. When drug abuse is out of the headlines, funding drops. When politicians notice that voters are growing more fearful of drugs, they inject funds and the impact resembles a powerful stimulant. The drug-abuse field--enforcement, treatment, research--becomes euphoric, but the feeling doesn’t last. The problem for the United States is that the drug problem does not have a time-line of a few years. It is a long-term struggle that requires predictable, sustained support.

Consider treatment programs for youngsters and adults in trouble from drug use. These programs require the leasing or purchase of facilities, recruitment of trained personnel and time to draw into treatment the frightened, doubtful or angry clients who need help. These goals cannot be met by a short-term infusion of additional money toward treatment and prevention. Yet the cuts proposed by the Administration would slash the additional aid by half, spreading the $262 million allocation for 1987 over a two-year period.

The Administration may believe that drug use is declining and therefore less money is required than authorized by the 1986 law. Gratifying as the apparent decline in the use of some drugs may be, however, this in itself is likely to lead to an increased demand for treatment. As tolerance of drug use dimishes, more people will seek or be pressured into treatment.

The cyclical character of drug use is a compelling reason for our government to place a high priority on sustained support for basic research to combat it. It was because the painful reality of drug use during earlier times faded from public memory in the 1940s and ‘50s that the stage was set for another national lesson.

When we look at the history of our drug problem we ask ourselves, “What can we do for later generations to reduce the chance that the tragedies of the last two decades will not be repeated?” Certainly a major element in prevention is steady research into the basic knowledge of drugs and their interaction with the body. Yet scientists cannot even be trained in--much less expected to commit their research lives to--a field with roller-coaster funding. We must hope that recent increases in research funding will be maintained in the future.

Aid to drug education in the Reagan budget proposal has been cut for fiscal years 1988 and 1989 from $500 million to a total of $100 million. This is difficult to comprehend because in the current anti-drug environment, well-formulated education programs are most likely to reach and persuade a large number of students. Educational efforts in the early 1970s ran against the tide; now they would be facilitated by the changed national mood. This is the moment to seize the initiative and to accelerate the decline in drug use.

If Reagan believes the drug problem is as serious as he painted it last summer, he should reconsider cutting the funds to implement the legislation that he signed three months ago.