THE PHONY DRUG WAR

By Michael Kramer

When he last ran for President, Bill Clinton fixed on the nation's drug problem to blast George Bush savagely. "Bush confuses being tough with being smart," Clinton told me in 1992. "You can't get serious about crime without getting serious about drugs. Bush thinks locking up addicts instead of treating them, or teaching kids to resist using them in the first place, is clever politics. Maybe so, but it's lousy policy and the consequences of his cravenness could ruin us."

From there, Clinton pleaded passionately for treatment on demand and drug education for all. Under Bush, two-thirds of the $13.1 billion federal antidrug budget went for interdiction and law enforcement, only one-third for education and treatment. "I'll invert that ratio," Clinton promised.

But today nothing has changed. The 2-to-1 split persists. A million more drug-treatment slots are still urgently needed; an additional 1.5 million chronic drug abusers are on probation with no treatment available. And antidrug-education programs in schools have grown in number but not much in effectiveness. Last week a federal study found that drug users among children ages 12 to 17 have more than doubled in four years, to nearly 11%. If nothing is done, that percentage is likely to double again in five years. "It's tragic but not surprising," says Rosalind Branningan of Drug Strategies, an antidrug research group. "In many schools, putting up posters is the sum of drug education. The few programs that do work use a host of proven methods and involve rigorous, normative teaching," which means getting kids to realize that most of their peers are not doing it.

Stung by last week's survey, the Administration's spin machine countered with a three-pronged strategy. First, conveniently forgetting Clinton's own Bush bashing, the President's troops slammed the G.O.P. for "politicizing" a problem affecting "all our kids." They then repeatedly carped that the increase in drug use began before Clinton took office. And, shrewdly, the Administration deflected focus on the drug report by leaking its forthcoming (and welcome) attack on tobacco companies for hooking children on cigarettes.

Why have Clinton's actions failed to match his beliefs? Could it be that he views the treatment and education approach as too "soft" in the current climate? "Well," says a Clinton adviser, "no politician has ever seen his approval ratings decline by being tough on drugs."

"But we've actually proposed a lot," says Clinton aide Rahm Emanuel. "The Republicans gutted our budget requests." That's true now, but the Democratic Congress cut similarly before the G.O.P. took control, and Clinton, who uses the bully pulpit better than anyone, has mounted it mostly to push other causes.

Sensing a wedge issue, Bob Dole has promised a "war on drugs." But he won't even acknowledge that education and treatment should be favored over interdiction, as a large majority of the nation's police chiefs advocate. With nothing of substance to say, Dole has lamely promised that winning the war will be his "No. 1 priority." That's his fourth No. 1 priority so far--after school choice, a balanced budget and tax cuts. As for Clinton, recalling an old pledge might help. "If I've fallen short this year," he said in 1993, "it's in drug [prevention] programs." He's still falling.