"You should know that every year
for the last three years, murders have dropped and robberies have
dropped and drug use has dropped... The number of cocaine users
has fallen by 30 percent in the last three years alone."
-- President Bill Clinton, kicking-off a new anti-drug campaign
at Miami, Florida's George Washington Carver Middle School, April
"Cocaine-related episodes reached
their highest level in history. An estimated 142,400 cocaine-related
episodes were reported in 1994, a 15 percent increase from 1993
and a 40 percent increase from 1988... In 1994, there were 508,900
[total] drug-related hospital emergency department episodes representing
an increase of 10 percent from the 1993 estimate." -- U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services' Preliminary Estimates
from the Drug Abuse Warning Network, which studied the number
of emergency department drug-related incidents, released in November
"The rate of current illicit drug
use increased for youth 12-17 years old between 1993 and 1994
(from 6.6 percent to 9.5 percent), after declining from 18.5 percent
in 1979 to 6.1 percent in 1992." -- U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services' 1994 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse,
released in September 1995. ii
The American Drug Problem
Beginning in the late 1960s and continuing
through the 1970s, illicit drug use rose to such a degree that
it became, to some degree, a socially-acceptable practice. Drugs
pervaded American life throughout the 1970s, reaching its zenith
in 1979. In 1979, there were an estimated 25 million drug users,
representing 13.7 percent of the population. iii
Following the election of Ronald Reagan
in 1980, a new national initiative to deter the use, sale and
distribution of illegal drugs was launched. Spearheaded in part
by First Lady Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign,
this national "war on drugs" included a national education
campaign featuring the First Lady, athletes and other prominent
Americans; public service announcements run by the national media;
the appointment of a new national office of drug control policy
to improve coordination of drug-control efforts by federal agencies;
and increased federal efforts on drug law enforcement and illegal
Through the 1980s the public perception
of illicit drug use went from social acceptance to social disdain.
Due to this national effort, and its continuation during the Bush
Administration, according to a University of Michigan Monitoring
the Future study, the lifetime illicit drug use rate (the number
of people who say they have used illegal drugs in their lifetime)
among high school seniors in 1991-92 dropped to a rate lower than
any reached since before 1975 in most drug categories. iv
According to the same study, 1992 marked the lowest reported use
of marijuana by high school seniors in the history of the study,
which tracks the use of illicit drugs among the nation's teen-agers.
But, since 1992, the war on drugs has
not been so successful under the watch of the Clinton Administration.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services' National Household Survey on Drug Abuse reported in
September of 1995 that, since 1992, marijuana use among young
people has increased an average of 50 percent.
The Health and Human Services report also
found that recent marijuana use jumped 137 percent among 12-13
year olds since 1992 and 200 percent among 14-15 year olds.
Health and Human Services found that,
in 1994, 2.9 million 12-17 year olds claimed to have used marijuana
within the past year. That's an increase of 1.3 million children
According to the U.S. Department of Justice,
227 positions were eliminated from the Drug Enforcement Agency
between 1992 and 1995.
The Administrative Office of U.S. Courts
reported a 12 percent drop in the number of individuals prosecuted
for federal drug violations between 1992 and 1994.
The 1990s: Giving Back Gained
Youth Drug Usage
On December 15, 1995 scientists from the
University of Michigan released a study of America's illicit drug
epidemic formally titled Monitoring the Future. The study was
originally funded by the Special Action Office for Drug Prevention,
the forerunner of the U.S. government's Office of National Drug
Control Policy, and has since been underwritten by the National
Institute of Drug Abuse.
According to Monitoring the Future:
"The use of drugs among American
secondary school students rose again in 1995, continuing a trend
that began in 1991 among eighth-grade students, and in 1992 among
10th- and 12th-graders, according to scientists at the University
"The proportion of 8th-graders taking
any illicit drug in the 12 months prior to the survey has almost
doubled since 1991 (from 11 percent to 21 percent). Since 1992
the proportion using any illicit drugs in the prior 12 months
has risen by nearly two-thirds among 10th-graders (from 20 percent
to 33 percent) and by nearly half among 12th-graders (from 27
percent to 39 percent)." v
Monitoring the Future shows a rise in
teenage drug use between 1992 and 1995, and charts America's overall
drug use problem since 1975. According to the study, 1991 marks
the last year drug use declined. The study indicates that drug
use among American teens has risen every year since 1991. Between
1991 and 1995, eighth graders having ever experimented with or
used any illicit drug in their lifetime rose nearly 10 percentage
points, from 18.7 to 28.5, and tenth graders having done so rose
over 10 percentage points, from 30.6 to 40.9. The percentage of
students having used any illicit drugs within the past 12 months
rose over 10 percentage points in each of the three grade levels
-- 8th, 10th, and 12th. vi
Monitoring the Future shows a dramatic
increase in the percentage of teens who say they have tried marijuana
within the past 12 months. Between 1991 and 1995 the percentages
rose from 6.2 to 15.8 among 8th graders, from 16.5 to 28.7 among
10th graders, and from 23.9 to 34.7 among 12th graders. vii
Lloyd Johnston, a social psychologist at the University of Michigan
and director of the Monitoring the Future study, noted that the
"continuing rise in daily marijuana use" is "of
particular concern," viii because, as the Center on
Addiction and Substance Abuse has found, 12-17 year olds who use
marijuana are 85 times more likely to use cocaine than those who
abstain from marijuana. ix Johnston's Monitoring the Future
study showed that the percentage of students using marijuana on
a daily basis increased every year between 1991 and 1995 in all
three age groups. From 1991 to 1995 the percentage of 8th grade
daily marijuana users rose from .2 to .8; 10th grade users rose
from .8 to 2.8; and 12th grade users from 2.0 to 4.6. x
The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN)
survey is produced by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, and studies the trends and numbers of drug-related hospital
or emergency department episodes. Relating specifically to marijuana/hashish,
the DAWN study released in November 1995 showed:
rose from 28,900 in 1993 to 40,100 in 1994, a 39 percent increase.
Since 1990, marijuana/hashish-related episodes have increased
155 percent... Between 1993 and 1994, increases were seen among
both sexes, all age groups, and both whites and blacks."
Again relating to marijuana/hashish, in
the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's Losing Ground Against Drugs
report, released in December of 1995, the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services' Preliminary Estimates from the 1994 National
Household Survey on Drug Abuse is cited to have found:
"The category of 'recent marijuana
use' was up a staggering 200 percent among 14-15 year-olds; among
12-13 year-olds, use was up 137 percent. Translated into raw numbers,
this means that in 1994, the number of youthful, past-year marijuana
users reached 2.9 million, compared to 1.6 million in 1992. In
other words, nearly 1.3 million more young people are smoking
marijuana today than were do so in 1992." xii
For cocaine, according to the DAWN study:
"An estimated 142,400 cocaine-related episodes were reported
in 1994, a 15 percent increase from 1993 and a 40 percent increase
from 1988." xiii
Both the Health and Human Services' 1994
National Household Survey on Drug Abuse and the University of
Michigan's Monitoring the Future study conclude that the number
of cocaine users has remained relatively static since 1991. xiv
According to the DAWN research released
in November 1995:
"Between 1988 and 1991, there was
a decrease in methamphetamine-related emergency department episodes.
However, from 1991 through 1994, methamphetamine-related episodes
rose 256 percent from 4,900 t o17,400. Between 1993 and 1994,
methamphetamine-related episodes increased 75 percent from 9,900
to 17,400." xv
Hallucinogens: LSD and PCP
The DAWN study indicates:
"From 1988 through 1991, there was
a dramatic decrease in episodes involving PCP and PCP combinations
(from 12,300 to 3,500); however, from 1991 through 1993, there
was a 91 percent increase (from 3,500 to 6,600). There was no
change in PCP-related episodes between 1993 and 1994." xvi
The University of Michigan's Monitoring
the Future study shows:
"The use of LSD continued to rise
in all three grade levels [8th, 10th, and 12th] in 1995, continuing
long-term increases that began at least as far back as 1991."
xvii The 1995 figures are almost a full percentage point
higher than the 1994 results, and at least two percent higher
than 1993 among 10th and 12th graders.
"As a category, hallucinogen use
rose from 5.8 percent in 1991 to 9.3 percent in 1995 among 12th
grade students. xviii
According to the DAWN study:
"After a drop [in the proportion
of heroin-related episodes] in 1990, increases continued in 1991,
1992, and 1993; however there was no change in 1994. Heroin-related
episodes were at there highest level in 1994, since the DAWN survey
The University of Michigan's Monitoring
the Future indicates:
Heroin users among 12th grade students
went from less than 1 percent in 1991 to 1.6 percent in 1995.
Perceptions of the Most Vulnerable: Our
It is often said that the hope of a nation
lies in its young. Many of the anti-drug efforts of the 1980s
were aimed directly at America's youth, children ages 12-17, who
are highly susceptible to persuasive drug pushers. Education programs
pitched drugs as "uncool," dangerous, unnecessary for
success. The statistics in Monitoring the Future show that those
efforts were effective in attaining their goals. In 1978, only
43.5 percent of high school seniors disapproved of occasional
marijuana use, but by 1986 that number had risen to 69 percent,
and by 1990 it reached an 80.5 percent disapproval rate. In 1979
less than 75 percent of surveyed 12th graders disapproved of trying
cocaine, but by 1991 the disapproval rate was over 93 percent.
xxi The numbers indicate that the drug-educational programs
during the Reagan-Bush years helped to take drugs from a socially
positive and unharmful "high" in 1979 to a dangerous
and unaccepted "addiction" by the 1990s.
But the overall negative perception of
drugs by America's youth has undergone a drastic decline in the
1990s. "Drug awareness," a term describing the perceived
dangers of drug usage, has dropped well-below the levels attained
throughout the 1980s and early 1990s.
The University of Michigan's Monitoring
the Future study plots the long-term perceptions of 12th graders
concerning their perception of the harmfulness of drugs and the
trends in 12th graders' disapproval of drug use by their peers.
Dating back to the end of the 1970s and
asking 12 graders: "How much do you think people risk harming
themselves (physically or in other ways) if they... Try marijuana
once or twice?" the highest percentage responding "great
risk" was reached in 1991. This followed a steady incline
over the entire decade of the 1980s. But from 1991 to 1995, the
study indicates, those percentages have fallen each year, resulting
in a seven percent drop from 1991. xxii
The highest percentage of those 12th graders
perceiving a "great risk" to people trying or taking
cocaine was reached in 1990 and has since steadily declined after
years of a consistent rise in risk perception. xxiii In
1978 only 68.2 percent of surveyed 12 graders viewed regular cocaine
use as a "great risk," but by 1990 that number had reached
91 percent after rising in each year through the 1980s.
The same also holds true for heroin use.
The highest percentage of 12th graders perceiving a "great
risk" in experimental or regular use of heroin was achieved
in 1990, but has trailed off each year. xxiv
Another significant and disturbing find
among the sampled 12th grade students is the incremental downslope
of the percentage of students who "Disapprove of people (who
are 18 and older) [who]... Try marijuana once or twice?"
The highest disapproval rating in this category came in 1992 and
teen disapproval has decreased in every subsequent year. The highest
disapproval rate for those who "smoke marijuana regularly"
came in 1990 when it reached 91 percent, but in just five years
that number fell to 81 percent by 1995. xxv The 81 percent
disapproval rating is the lowest since the beginning of Nancy
Reagan's efforts in 1982, xxvi and another 10 percent decline
like the one between 1990 and 1995 would mean that by the end
of a second Clinton Administration in 2001, the disapproval rate
would regress to that of 1975.
It is not surprising nor, arguably, coincidence
that the highest disapproval and "great risk" ratings
were consistently attained in 1990 and 1991. The 1980s saw a well-waged
war on illicit drugs. First Lady Nancy Reagan's "Just Say
No" to drugs campaign, the consistent media attention to
the drug problem, coupled with high drug interdiction levels and
a relentless effort to keep drugs off the streets, worked to reduce
the percentage of Americans who use and try drugs, as well as
to increase "drug awareness" among teenagers. It should
be noted that even as the favorable numbers and percentages today
fall from their 1990 and 1991 pinnacles, their levels are still
far preferable to the levels seen during the 1970s and the early
stages of the drug war in the 1980s.
The troubling data, however, is that America
has been unable to sustain the progress of the 1980s past the
first year or two of the 1990s and, most noticeably, during the
Clinton Administration. With drug use rising and the negative
perception of drug use falling, America is regressing toward the
tragedy of the 1970s. And, as Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman of
the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, noted in the Senate Judiciary
Committee's 1995 report, Losing Ground Against Drugs, that is
especially frustrating after America made such great progress
throughout the last decade, when the number of Americans using
illicit drugs plunged from the peak of 24.7 million to 11.4 million
in 1992. xxvii
The Clinton Administration's
The Clinton Administration has recently
received some political pundit and media attention for its apparent
inattention to the war on drugs. The San Diego Union-Tribune reported
on December 21, 1995 that:
"One of President Clinton's first
orders of business upon assuming office in 1992 was to cut the
staffing levels at the White House drug policy office from 146
people to 25. So for much of the past three years, [then White
House drug policy director, Lee] Brown has been trying to wage
war on drugs with fewer than 20 percent of the troops commanded
by his predecessor. Meantime, Brown has been regularly upstaged
by prominent government officials, such as former Surgeon General
Joycelyn Elders, who suggest maybe drugs should be legalized."
Law Enforcement Cuts
The cut in the White House drug policy
office was not the only cut that President Clinton made after
occupying the Oval Office. The U.S. Department of Justice reported
in its December 4, 1995 Budget Memorandum that between 1992 and
1995, 227 agent positions were eliminated from the Drug Enforcement
Agency (DEA). xxix This is a somewhat peculiar budget ax
to wield for a President who campaigned heavily on crime control
and putting more police on the streets. But the Clinton Administration's
Fiscal Year 1995 budget proposed cutting 621 drug enforcement
positions from the DEA, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the
Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. Customs Service,
and the U.S. Coast Guard. xxx
These drug enforcement cuts imposed by
the Clinton Administration have had a noticeable effect on the
number of drug prosecutions in the United States. There has been
a 12 percent drop in the number of individuals prosecuted for
federal drug violations between 1992 and 1994. xxxi Cuts
also have resulted in a weakening of the government's ability
to seize and interdict drugs coming into the United States. This
is not surprising when it is noted that, as stated by the President's
own Office of National Drug Control policy, "the overall
proportion of the Customs Service budget devoted to drug control
fell from 45.5 percent in fiscal year 1991, to a projected 33.9
percent in fiscal year 1996." xxxii The Clinton Administration
cuts in the Customs Service interdiction budget coincided with
a 70 percent decline in Customs-supported cocaine seizures. xxxiii
In budget terms, the Customs Service interdiction appropriation
has been cut nearly 20 percent from 1992 to 1995. xxxiv
The Clinton Administration's drug enforcement
cuts also affected the U.S. Coast Guard's interdiction capabilities.
The Coast Guard's anti-drug mission operating budget fell from
$449.2 million in fiscal year 1991 to a projected $314.2 million
in fiscal year 1996. xxxv As reported in the May 13, 1996
edition of The Weekly Standard:
"The result? Coast Guard cocaine
and marijuana seizures are down 45 and 90 percent, respectively,
since 1991. In 1994, the Customs Service let two million commercial
trucks pass through three of the busiest ports-of-entry on the
Mexican border without seizing a single kilogram of cocaine. Between
1993 and early 1995, the estimated smuggling 'disruption rate'
achieved by federal interdiction agencies fell 53 percent -- the
equivalent of 84 more metric tons of cocaine and marijuana arriving
unimpeded in the United States each year." xxxvi
These budget cuts by the Clinton Administration
have made controlling the flow of illicit drugs across our borders
more difficult, and the consequence is evident. Drug interdiction
levels between 1992 and 1995 are well below the levels of the
The Clinton Cabinet: Not of
A polarity can be found in the Clinton
Administration's anti-drug positions. President Clinton's appointed
Surgeon General, Joycelyn Elders, called for the legalization
of many illicit drugs, while Donna Shalala, Secretary of Health
and Human Services, was reported in the December 17, 1995 edition
of The New York Times saying:
"Your children are at risk. We have
a generation at risk. We need a broad national effort to reach
young people and to give them safe passage through their teen-age
years or else, in a few years, we're going to find ourselves right
back where we were in the old days, when children and teen-agers
viewed drug, alcohol and tobacco use as perfectly normal and acceptable
This is evidently the position of the
Health and Human Services Secretary, but not the position of the
Clinton appointed Attorney General, Janet Reno. As The Wall Street
Journal put it, "soon after assuming office, [Attorney General
Reno] announced that she wanted to reduce the mandatory minimum
sentences for drug trafficking and related federal crimes."
A Vacant Bully Pulpit
While the Clinton Cabinet may suffer from
a mixed message, purpose, and direction, the President himself
seems to lack any message, mixed or otherwise. Even a liberal
Democratic congressman, a sympathetic ally of the President, has
noticed his inaction on the drug front. Democratic Representative
Charles Rangel (D-NY) commented, "I've been in Congress for
over two decades. I have never, never, never seen a president
who cares less [about drugs]." xxxix
President Clinton has paid little attention
to the drug war. A certain indication of the President's apathy
to this issue is the willingness of his appointed "drug czar,"
Lee Brown, to resign his post for a teaching position at Rice
University. Typically, when programs are effective and functioning
properly, their politically-appointed leaders do not abandon the
programs for professorships.
But some have argued that the President
has not merely been silent on the drug issue, but misguided. In
an article entitled, "General Clinton Losing the Drug War,"
the editors of The Weekly Standard concluded of the Clinton Administration's
war on drugs:
"Candidate Clinton didn't inhale.
President Clinton's surgeon general, Joycelyn Elders, made repeated
pronouncements on the virtues of drug legalization. Before the
ink was dry on his presidential oath, Clinton gutted the White
House drug office with a two-fold, shabby purpose: satisfying
a campaign pledge to trim his staff, and purging hundred-odd career
civil servants whose only sin was to have worked under a Republican
administration.... It really isn't true that Clinton has done
'nothing' about drugs.... It's worse, far worse: His administration
has engineered the most significant redirection of federal drug
policy in several decades." xl
The President's Failed "Redirection"
In 1994, President Clinton called for
a "change in the focus of drug policy by targeting chronic,
hard-core drug users." xli This policy aimed to help
those most addicted to illicit drugs through government funded
rehabilitation and treatment. One of the surest indicators of
the effectiveness of such an effort has been the Drug Abuse Warning
Network (DAWN), which monitors the number and pattern of drug-related
emergencies and deaths in 21 major metropolitan areas across the
country. xlii Rather than vindication for the President's
redirected focus, the DAWN study indicates that cocaine-related
episodes have hit their highest levels in history. Marijuana-related
episodes jumped 39 percent -- a level now 155 percent above the
1990 level. Methamphetamine cases rose 256 percent over the 1991
The President's plan to focus on hard-core
drug addicts has kept spending levels for federal drug treatment
facilities high and in demand, but the evidence suggests that
the federal bureaucracy has had a negligible, if any, effect on
the drug problem. The number of emergency room drug-related cases
has risen since the President took office and since the implementation
of his strategy, xliv but these are precisely the incidents
his plan was intended to reduce.
The Clinton Administration's
What has the Clinton Administration placed
as a greater spending priority than the fight against drugs?
For the 1995 fiscal year the President
sought funding for the following projects while proposing a cut
in funding for drug control and drug enforcement budgets.
High Performance Computing and Communications: A program funding research programs to create
more powerful computers with faster computer networks, and more
sophisticated software. Cost: $1.2 billion ($216 million increase
One-stop Career Shopping: A program designed to create a network of "career
shopping centers" to provide easy access to jobs, career
information, and federal training programs. Cost: $250 million
($200 million more than 1994).
Corporation for National and Community
Service: To implement "the
President's vision of national service" the Corporation will,
the White House says, provide opportunities to more than three-quarters
of a million Americans to engage in reimbursed community service.
Cost: $859 million ($275 million increase over 1994).
Intelligent Vehicles: A program created to find ways to increase highway
automation and make highways more productive. Cost: $289 million.
Partnership for a New Generation of
Vehicles: President Clinton, Vice
President Gore, and the CEO's of General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler
are seeking to enhance the competitiveness of the U.S. automobile
industry and to reduce auto emissions with taxpayer-funded research.
This agreement focuses on funding research for advancing manufacturing
processes and developing technologies for improvement in fuel
economy. Cost: $175 million.
Small Business Administration: According to The Washington Times, "It would
be hard to find another agency that has been victimized by more
waste, fraud and abuse than the SBA. The General Accounting Office
reports have detailed how it has lost hundreds of millions of
tax dollars, eventually billions in bad loans, noting that it
has helped relatively few businesses." ("Clinton's 'Tough'
Budgeting Leaves Lots of Room for Cuts," The Washington Times,
February 13, 1994). Cost: $742 million ($70 million increase over
Climate Change and National Action
Plan: intended to encourage individuals
and firms to invest in cost- and energy-efficient equipment or
other technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to their
1990 levels by the year 2000. The need for such a program is scientifically-disputed.
Cost: $283 million ($238 million increase).
Selective Service Draft Registration:
a system annually registers between
1.5 million and 1.8 million 18 year olds for a nonexistent U.S.
draft. Although the Department of Defense concluded in 1994 that
the Selective Service draft registration system could be suspended
"without irreparable damage to national security," President
Clinton ignored this advice. Cost: $23 million.
National Helium Reserve: a program started in the 1920s, this program was
created to ensure a source of helium for blimps the country might
need in a time of war, but it is without modern application. Cost:
President Clinton's Campaign
In election year 1996 President Clinton
has stepped up his drug war rhetoric. Not wanting to fall prey
to Republican attacks as a "do nothing" President on
the issue, in April of 1996, Clinton kicked-off an anti-drug campaign
in a Miami, Florida junior high school. Warning children about
drugs and touting his own efforts, agenda, and results, Clinton
discussed his drug-control strategy. Unfortunately for the President
and for a nation in need of honest leadership, the President was
misleading in his characterization of the nation's drug situation.
The President asserted in his speech that
"drug use has dropped" over the last three years.
xlv But, in fact, the percentage of teens using any illicit
drugs over the past three years has risen by eight points among
8th graders, thirteen points among 10th graders, and twelve points
among 12th graders. xlvi Since 1992 there has been a 52
percent increase in the number of high-school seniors using drugs
on a monthly basis. xlvii Concurrently, the National Household
Survey on Drug Abuse found that "The rate of current illicit
drug use increased for youth 12-17 years old between 1993 and
1994 (from 6.6 percent to 9.5 percent), after declining from 18.5
percent in 1979 to 6.1 percent in 1992. xlviii The President
also falsely claims that "the number of cocaine users has
fallen by 30 percent in the last three years." xlix
This assertion is made by the President in direct contradiction
of the facts coming from his own Cabinet's studies on the issue.
The Health and Human Services Drug Abuse Warning Network study
show that the number of "cocaine-related episodes reached
their highest level in history... A 15 percent increase from 1993
and a 40 percent increase from 1988. l
The blatant inaccuracy of President Clinton's
assertions about the war on drugs suggests that he playing politics
with the American people, willing to say whatever necessary at
a given time in order to appear effective. But in a war against
drug lords, pushers, and on behalf of thirteen year old children,
"look good" politics isn't what America needs.
The drug war of the 1980s desperately
needs to be reactivated and the President's involvement and attention
is needed to accomplish the task. The statistics from the President's
first term in office are bleak. His redirection of the drug control
strategy from one of law enforcement and national education campaigns
about the dangers of illegal narcotics to one of occasional photo
opportunities has failed to reduce the number of drug addicts,
failed to increase drug awareness among teens, failed to adequately
confiscate illegal narcotics and failed to sufficiently prosecute
drug dealers. These were, however, the accomplishments of the
1980s drug control campaign led by a President and First Lady
dedicated to fighting the drug war.
Hollow rhetoric and presidential campaign
promotions will do nothing to stop the flow of illegal drugs ensnaring
America's youth, who, increasingly, are unaware of the dangers
these drugs pose. Cutting the drug enforcement budgets of the
DEA, FBI, and Coast Guard will only exacerbate the problem. The
President needs to re-examine his efforts and study and adopt
the effective strategies of his predecessors in order to avoid
a re-enactment of the drug crisis of the 1970s during the closing
years of the 1990s.
i The 1994 Preliminary Estimates from the Drug Abuse
Warning Network, released by the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (November 1995), p. 2, 3.
ii The 1994 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse,
Department of Health and Human Services (September 1995), p.12.
iv From the news release accompanying the Monitoring
the Future prepared by Lloyd Johnston of the University of Michigan
(December 11, 1995), Table 2.
v From the news release accompanying the Monitoring
the Future prepared by Lloyd Johnston of the University of Michigan
(December 11, 1995), p. 1.
vi From Monitoring the Future, Table 1 (December
viii From the news release with Monitoring the Future
(1995), p. 2.
ix Quoted by Senator Orrin Hatch in the introduction
to the Senate Judiciary Committees report, Losing Ground Against
Drugs (December 19, 1995), p. 1.
x From Monitoring the Future, Table 1 (December
xi From the 1994 Preliminary Estimates of Drug-Related
Emergency Department Episodes, prepared by the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services (November 1995), p. 3.
xii From the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
report, Losing Ground Against Drugs: A Report on Increasing Illicit
Drug Use and National Drug Policy, citing the U.S. Heath and Human
Services' Preliminary Estimates from the 1994 National Household
Survey on Drug Abuse, (September 1995), p. 61; p. 4.
xiii From the 1994 Preliminary Estimates Drug Abuse
Warning Network, prepared by the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (November 1995), p. 2.
xiv 1994 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (September 1995),
p. 16. Monitoring the Future, prepared by Lloyd Johnston of the
University of Michigan (December 1995), Table 2.
xv From the 1994 Preliminary Estimates Drug Abuse
Warning Network, prepared by the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (November 1995), p. 19.
xvii From Monitoring the Future, Table 1, (December
xviii Ibid., Table
xxiii Ibid., Table 7.
xxv Ibid., Table 9.
xxvii Statement of Sen. Orrin Hatch, press conference
to release committee report Losing Ground Against Drugs (December
xxviii The San Diego Union-Tribune (December 21, 1995),
Section: Opinion; Ed. B-12; p. 6,7,8.
xxix U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement
Administration, Budget Memorandum (December 4, 1995).
xxx Office of National Drug Control Policy, National
Drug Control Strategy: Budget Summary (February 1994), p. 88,
93, 96, 140, 151.
xxxi Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, L.
Ralph Mecham, Judicial Business of U.S. Courts, Report of the
Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (1994),
xxxii Office of National Drug Control Policy, National
Drug Control Strategy: Budget Summary (January 1992), p. 172;
Office of National Drug Control Policy, National Drug Control
Strategy: Budget Summary (February 1995), p. 190.
xxxiii Department of the Treasury, Bureau Critical Measures,
Report of U.S. Department of the Treasury; U.S. Customs Service,
U.S. Customs Air Program FY 1995 Statistics as Requested by the
Senate Judiciary Committee (December 8, 1995), p. 2.
xxxiv Office of National Drug Control Policy, National
Drug Control Strategy: Budget Summary (February 1995), p. 235.
xxxv U.S. Coast Guard, Coast Guard Drug Budget Expenditures
and Resource Hours (September 19, 1995), p. 2.
xxxvi The Weekly Standard (May 13, 1996), David Tell,
for the Editors, p. 10.
xxxvii The Associated Press, carried in The New York
Times (December 17, 1995), Section 1; p. 45; Column 1; National
xxxviii The Wall Street Journal (April 6, 1995).
xxxix As quoted in The Weekly Standard (May 13, 1996),
xl The Weekly Standard (May 13, 1996), p. 9.
xli President Clinton's message accompanying the Office
of National Drug Control Policy's National Drug Control Strategy
(February 1994), p. iii.
xlii The Senate Judiciary report Losing Ground Against
Drugs (December 19, 1995), p. 5.
xliii U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Preliminary Estimates from the Drug Abuse Warning Network Advance
Report (November 1995).
xlv White House briefing, Announcement of 1996 National
Drug Control Strategy (April 29, 1996).
xlvi Monitoring the Future, Table 1, (December 1995).
xlvii Senate Judiciary Committee Report, Losing Ground
Against Drugs: Key Findings (December 19, 1995).
xlviii The 1994 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse,
prepared by the Department of Health and Human Services (September
1995), p. 12.
xlix White House briefing (April 29, 1996).
l Preliminary Estimates from the Drug Abuse Warning
Network, prepared by the Department of Health and Human Services
(November 1995), p. 2.