White House Crafts Plan to Halve Illicit Drug Trade

The White House, in perhaps the most ambitious anti-drug effort the nation has undertaken, has devised a plan that aims to cut illicit drug supply and demand in half over the next decade.

The plan, to be released Saturday by President Clinton but obtained by The Times, contains specific 10-year goals for federal agencies involved in stemming the flow of drugs into the United States, as well as those departments involved in educating youths about narcotics abuse and reducing drug use in the workplace.

The plan represents the first time the government has issued specific targets for such sharp reductions in drug use. However, among criticisms it is likely to encounter is that its lofty goals are not backed up by money, at least for now. Clinton’s latest budget proposal, for instance, does not envision massive spending increases for drug control.

The plan, authored by Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, the White House coordinator of drug-control policy, says a cooperative approach by agencies such as the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Customs Service, the Coast Guard and Border Patrol can dramatically cut production of cocaine and heroin abroad and that new technology can be used to vastly decrease drug smuggling.

“Drug prevention, education and treatment must be complemented by supply reduction actions abroad, on our borders and within the United States,” McCaffrey declares in a draft of his “1998 National Drug Control Strategy.”

*

The annual report is being sent to some members of Congress and others in advance of its official release.

Although drug use has decreased in the United States--from a high of 25 million people in 1979 to an estimated 13 million in 1996--experts believe a much greater reduction can be accomplished.

Also, the effects of drug use are often felt disproportionately, they contend. In neighborhoods where illegal drug markets flourish, crime and violence are more common.

McCaffrey said targets over the next 10 years include reducing “the availability and demand for illicit drugs” by 50% and cutting the number of “chronic drug users” in half within the decade.

He also proposed halving “the prevalence of drug use in the workplace” within the next 10 years and “increasing the proportion of school districts that have implemented drug programs.”

Referring to the dramatic 10-year target of cutting supply and demand in half, McCaffrey said: “If this goal is achieved, just 3% of the household population aged 12 and over would use illegal drugs. This level would be the lowest recorded drug-use rate in American history.”

Mark Kleiman, a drug control expert at UCLA’s School of Public Policy, while reserving judgment of the plan until he could review it, questioned whether its goals, even if achieved, would have as much impact as some might expect.

“The real damage to our well-being and to our kids is caused by a relatively small number of users and dealers,” Kleiman said.

*

The plan also would institute what McCaffrey called “performance measures of effectiveness” to gauge progress by executive branch agencies in meeting his goals. In a separate volume to be released later, departments will be given specific benchmarks by which their anti-narcotics efforts will be measured.

In general, according to the report, these goals include efforts to “increase the percentage of drugs seized, jettisoned or destroyed in transit and arrival zones” and to disrupt drug-trafficking organizations to “reduce the rate of specified drug-related violent crimes.”

Drug education goals are grouped under such headings as “pursue a vigorous media campaign,” “provide sound school-based prevention programs” and “develop community coalitions.”

Officials of some agencies reportedly have complained that such measures represent an unwanted intrusion on their own management prerogatives, and McCaffrey concedes there are some in government who “are watching this with differing views.”

But he insisted, “Over time this will work.” If not, some of the 82 performance goals he lists “may be revised each year” if they prove unworkable, he said.

As recently submitted to Congress, Clinton’s budget for the 1999 fiscal year calls for spending $1.1 billion more for drug-control measures across all departments, representing slightly less than a 7% increase over the current year.

Of this, the Border Patrol would be given $163.2 million, including $24.5 million for drug interdiction, largely along the Mexican border.

This budget request includes 1,000 new officers as well as “funding for new technology which will enable the Border Patrol to allocate agents more efficiently based on current information regarding illegal alien traffic,” according to McCaffrey’s report.

Some congressional critics question whether McCaffrey’s goals are overly optimistic in view of this relatively modest increase in drug-control programs. But McCaffrey insisted his ambitious goals were not lightly drafted. They resulted from consultation with many anti-narcotics experts both within and outside government and can be achieved without large-scale spending increases, he said.

Not unexpectedly, McCaffrey’s report listed as one of his leading objectives improved “bilateral and regional cooperation” with Mexico and other Latin American nations to reduce smuggling of cocaine and heroin.

“Mexico, both a transit zone for cocaine and heroin and a source country for heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana, is key to reducing the flow of illegal drugs into the United States,” the report says.