NATION'S DRUG CZAR SPEAKS OUT ABOUT HOW OFFICE IS FARING

WASHINGTON - The television ads are startling:

"Yesterday afternoon, I did my laundry, went out for a run, and helped
torture someone's dad," one young man informs the camera. "Last weekend, I
washed my car, hung out with a few friends, and helped murder a family in
Colombia," another says.

"Drug money helps terror," both ads warn. "Buy drugs and you could be
supporting it, too."

That is the message the White House has been sending across the country as
it pushes the war on drugs by linking it to the fight against terrorism.
And though the strategy has produced some controversy among those who
question the wisdom of associating drugs with terrorism, it certainly has
attracted attention.

The White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy, run by drug czar
John P. Walters, has a media budget of $180 million to use in the war on drugs.

Walters, who worked in the drug office under the first President Bush,
joined the current Bush administration in December. He recently sat down
for a question-and-answer session on his plans and policies. Here are
excerpts from the discussion:

Question: Are these advertising campaigns successful, and how do you
measure that success?

Answer: We have a media campaign that is designed to produce changes in the
attitudes about taking drugs and prevent drug use. We have a sophisticated
evaluation mechanism that measures attitudinal changes and tries to isolate
what contribution the ads themselves make. Means to the end of actually
achieving something through action.

Does it really pull the community together? Does it energize key
institutions? Do they work together to get people into treatment and
provide better safety to get more young people from the ravages of use and
addiction? It works in two stages. Do people understand and accept and
remember the message? And, do they act on it?

There certainly is evidence that there is understanding, particularly. Part
of our media campaign is targeted at youth and part at parents. If parents
reinforce the message with young people, we get maximum effect.

The last evaluation showed that not only had the message to parents been
received but that the questions asked of young people - do your parents
talk to you about drugs? - showed that kids were actually having
conversations with their parents initiated by their parents in larger
numbers than any advertising campaign before. Ultimately, our goal is to
reduce drug use.

Q: What is the most effective way to reduce drug use: prevention or
interdiction?

A: The most important thing we do is prevention. I know it's difficult to
demonstrate. We can do more harm than good if the administration and
national leadership suggests this is not a priority, not a serious matter,
is not on the agenda or is something that we talk intelligently or
seriously about. That is not essentially measured in dollars.

Most law enforcement is done at the local level. Most prevention and
treatment is done at the local level. We are providing revenue and
resources to other people. Our leadership is very powerful. It can have
negative consequences if we don't do it right. But it can have positive
consequences by setting a tone for young people. We know that if young
people don't use drugs through teen-age years, they are unlikely to use
them later on.

Q: Whom are you trying to reach to prevent drug use? And what drugs are at
the root of this country's drug problem?

A: Of the 4.5 million who need to benefit from drug treatment (in the
United States), 23 percent are teen-agers. We've never had an estimate
suggesting that high a percentage of people with substance abuse problems
were that young.

Secondly, people have not talked about and focused on marijuana. Of the 65
percent of those people in that dependency category, their primary or
secondary dependence is with marijuana. It is by far the single largest
factor in illegal drug addiction in the country. The conventional view out
there today is that marijuana is a soft drug, that marijuana is harmless
and that it is not addictive, and there is no withdrawal. It's not just a
gateway drug. If you are not talking about marijuana, you are not talking
about the central part of the problem.

Q: How does that fit into the debate concerning medical use of marijuana?

A: The medical marijuana issue should be handled directly in the way that
we do other things in medical science. We have the finest health care
system in the world and in world history. We have very reliable ways of
taking substances that have medical efficacy, proving that efficacy and
safety. The medical marijuana debate has been used as an argument that
(officials) are unjustly keeping people who are suffering from medicine.
The problem is that the debate is sidetracking legitimate concerns about
the drug, and people are suggesting that there is some kind of bigotry by
those who express concerns about the drug.

Q: How seriously do you take methamphetamine as a problem, especially in
rural America?

A: We take methamphetamine very seriously. From my view and my experience,
when drug problems have spread and become very serious, it's because they
have not been recognized having serious consequences early enough. It's
safe; it's fun; it's not going to be a real threat. Methamphetamine has
spread rapidly. It looks like it's coming from larger laboratories. Right
now, it has not reached the level of cocaine or heroin or marijuana. But
its seriousness is growing.

Q: The United States has given more than $1.7 billion in aid in the past
two years to Colombia. Should more of it go to the police instead of the
military to focus on the drug trade and not on the rebels?

A: We are providing aid to Colombia's military and police. In all candor,
with the new president of Colombia, we are going to be partners in this. We
can't defend democratic institutions and the democratic future of Colombia
if we are not working together with the democratic rulers.

Q: Afghanistan has been a huge supplier of heroin to the world, though not
the United States, which gets most of its heroin from Colombia and Mexico.
What will the toppling of al-Qaida and the Taliban mean to world heroin
markets?

A: In history, heroin derived from (Afghan) poppies has gone mostly to
Europe. It's a world market. The volume is so great and has been so great
that it would be hard for (Afghanistan's growers) not to affect the world
market. The Taliban's ban on poppies didn't have much effect. We need to
help the new government get institutions in place to provide development as
well as suppress the opium trade. Right now, the limiting factor is security.