Methcathinone

Drug czar Lee P. Brown drops in tonight at Marquette University.

Brown, 57, took over the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy in June 1993. Earlier the top cop in New York City, Houston and Atlanta, he is regarded as a pioneer in community policing. That movement links police with neighborhood residents to solve problems and attack crime at its roots.

Brown started out as a patrolman in San Jose, Calif., and, after earning a doctorate in criminology from the University of California at Berkeley, held several academic posts.

He spoke to Journal reporter Katherine M. Skiba after the release of the new national drug control strategy, which calls for a record $14.6 billon in spending.

Brown will speak about drug policy at 7 p.m. in the Monaghan Ballroom in the Alumni Memorial Union and afterward receive the Lex et Justitia award for contributions to criminology.

Q. Illicit drugs remain a large social problem in Milwaukee and across the United States. What persuades you that this latest anti-drug strategy will make a difference?

A. The president's 1995 National Drug Control Strategy is a comprehensive but balanced approach.

First of all, it supports efforts at the local level to educate young people about the dangers and penalties of drug use.

Second, we will provide drug treatment to those who are addicted to drugs, particularly the chronic, hard-core drug user, because it's that population that consumes most of the drugs, causes much of the crime, and overburdens our health care system.

And third, we want to punish those that break the law, but we also want to work to break the cycle of crime and drugs by providing treatment to addicts in our jails and prisons.

And fourth, we will be working with foreign governments to cut drugs off at the source.

Q. How is the strategy different from those of your predecessors Bob Martinez and William Bennett?

A. Previous strategies focused mainly on interdiction. We have reduced interdiction and are placing more resources at stopping drugs by going to the source countries themselves.

Previous strategies focused mainly on the casual, non-addicted drug user. We're placing a greater emphasis on the hard- core user. That population comprises about 20% of users, but they consume 80% of the cocaine sold in our streets.

In addition, previous administrations' strategies looked at drug control as separate from other policies, foreign and domestic. That's a big mistake. Drug control is an integral part of overall domestic policy, whether it's economic development, job development, health care reform, education reform or decent housing.

Q. Hard-core addicts seem to be a very tough group. How do you change people with longstanding addictions and often a panoply of social, educational and economic woes?

A. We know that most people, after being involved in drugs over a period of time, want to change. Being a drug addict, out there hustling to support their habit day in and day out, is a miserable life.

Most people who are addicted to drugs ultimately run afoul of the law. We want to make sure that while they're under the control of the criminal justice system, we provide them with treatment. We know treatment works.

If the person is unskilled, unemployed, then we have to provide some type of vocational training so when the person is released, he or she can obtain meaningful employment.

Q. According to your office, 2.4 million drug users need treatment and there are about 1.4 million spaces available. How do you close that gap?

A. We're asking Congress for more resources . . . I've been a cop for over 30 years, and I've arrested many drug users and I know we can't arrest ourselves out of this problem.

In New York City when I was the police commissioner, for example, we would arrest up to 100,000 people every year just for narcotics violations. That's a number that's larger than most cities in America. And did we stop the problem? No.

Q. Drug agents in Milwaukee tell me cocaine remains the No. 1 problem, and the supply appears plentiful, that high-quality white heroin can be had, and that labs in the Upper Peninsula are funneling a manufactured drug similar to speed, called methcathinone or CAT here. Why should the average person be persuaded that the enormous sum of money earmarked for the War on Drugs has helped?

A. Well, previous strategies obviously have not helped. We have to give this administration's strategy a chance, and that's where the Congress comes in. We have to get what we asked for

otherwise this strategy makes no difference.

Last year, for example, we asked for 355 million new dollars to treat the hard-core drug addicts. Congress gave us $57 million. We asked for 191 million new dollars for prevention programs for our youngsters. Congress gave us $87 million. They cut our interdiction program by one-half billion dollars.

We have the right strategy, but with Congress not appropriating the funds, the strategy has not worked . . .

Government alone can't do the job there's a responsibility for parents, individuals, schools, religious leaders and the media.

Q. To what extent do you feel the Democratic administration's plan is threatened by the Republican hold on Congress?

A. We know that the component of the {1994} crime bill that supports our National Drug Control Strategy is already being threatened by Republicans trying to dismantle the historic crime bill.

I stress that this is not a Democratic issue or a Republican issue: This is an American crisis. I'm going to be on Capitol Hill fighting like mad to make sure that we get the resources we need.

Q. Since you took the job as drug czar, what has troubled you the most about the drug problem in our country?

A. Most troubling is that starting in 1991, our young people started using more drugs and having a more liberal attitude about drugs. We have to get the message to young people: Use of drugs is not only illegal, it's dangerous.

Q. You're referring to studies that say more 8th, 10th and 12th graders are using drugs. Why is that?

A. We see a resurgence in the use of drugs, particularly marijuana, among our young. One reason is a decrease in media attention. At one time, we had about $1 million a day in pro bono public service announcements; that's decreased 20, 30%.

Second, there's what I call the baby-boom parent conflict. Many people who grew up in the baby-boom generation also tried drugs, and now they find themselves with children, and feel in conflict about what they can tell their children.

Third, there's insufficient education in our schools.

And fourth, we find more legalization rhetoric today. And that sends our young people mixed messages.

Finally, we're finding a reglamorization of drugs in our entertainment, in our movies and our rap music.

Q. The War on Drugs was a cause celebre when the drug czar's office was created in '88. How difficult is it to keep the momentum up?

A. The issue is not on the radar screen of the media. A study found that in 1989, there were 518 drug stories and 542 crime stories on ABC, CBS and NBC News. And in 1993, there were only 66 drug stories and 1,632 crimes stories.

What they have neglected to do is to tie in the fact that crime and violence are byproducts of the drug problem. The media has to help us get the message out: The drug problem is still a major, major problem with the real potential of getting worse.

Copyright 1995
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.