HaCKeRz KrOnIcKLeZ 3/HaCKeRz_KrOnIcKLeZ.iso/drugs/brown.interview2

Internet Message Format | 1996-05-06 | 13KB

Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 10:07:13 -0500
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Lee P. Brown Interview
To: [e-mail]

The following was reprinted without permission from The Dallas Morning News

INTERVIEW WITH LEE P. BROWN
(C) DALLAS MORING NEWS 5-21-95

    Lee P. Brown is the director of the White House Office of National
Drug Control Policy, now a Cabinet-level department.

    As the point man in the nation's war against drugs, Mr. Brown brings
years of police experience to the job. Prior to his appointment as drug czar,
Mr. Brown headed police forces in Atlanta, Houston and New York City, where he
instituted community policing in an effort to curb crime.

    While in Dallas this month, Mr. Brown spoke with The Dallas Morning
News editorial board and assistant news editor Linda Vaughan. He discussed the
drug problem in the nation, its cost to society and what his office is doing
about the problem. The following are excerpts:

Q:    Have you tried to determine why drug use is going up again?

A:    When we saw this trend occurring, I convened a panel of drug experts
and asked them the same question.  There is no one answer. We did find a
variety of issues.

    No. 1 is a decrease of media attention to the drug issue. For example,
back in 1989, the three major television networks covered drugs about 500
times on the evening news and crime about 500 times on the evening news. In
1993, they covered drugs 60 times and crime over 1,600 times. There's a big
gap between what they are covering. The irony of it is that they're not making
the linkage because the drug problem also pushes the crime and violence
problem.

    That's part of the concern.

    We also find there's a re-glamorization of drugs in the communications
and entertainment industry. As a result pf that, the president invited many of
the CEOs from the entertainment and communications industry to the White House
to give them a briefing on what is happening and what they can do to be part
of the solution.

    Also, the experts felt there's a "baby-boom generational conflict."
What they're trying to say there is that many people of the baby-boom
generation experimented with drugs and they are surviving. They're doing OK.
Now their children are at the age where they're using drugs and there's the
conflict between their experience and what their children are attempting; to
do.

    Then we find there are mixed messages going out. There's some, and I
suspect sincere, people talking about legalized drugs. People that are
respected - so there's the message that just goes out to young people, "Well,
it can't be that bad if this mayor, this judge, this media person, this
commentator is talking about legalizing it, or debating legalization." So we
get a mixed message.

    Our message is clear. There must be a no-use message, period.

    Then we have all the other things that are always in place, such as
peer pressure and hopelessness. There's no one answer.

    The one thing we all agreed on is that the drug issue is not on the
radar screen of the American media today

Q:    Why is the drug problem so often' ponrayed along racial lines?

A:    I'et me use my own experience as the police chief in Houston or New
York:

    We have "open-air" drug dealing in low-income areas, and you have
people on the street corner selling drugs. Easy; Please see As on Page lOJ.

BROWN: AS DRUG USE CLIMBS, MEDIA ATTENTION FADING

Continued from Page 1J.

to make arrests. Easy to televise and put on the evening news.

    So what did you see on television,? You find, generally, your young
African-American male with hands cuffed behind him being put into a patrol
car. That's the reason. The reality is that the majority of drug users are not
minority. About 70 percent of the drug users go to work every day. They are
our colleagues, our employees, our employ our co-workers. They are not
African-Americans or Hispanics.

    Television is really the reason. And that is the case because the
cases which they are able to film are easy to film. It's easy to film a drug
bust out on the streets.

Q:    Why is it more dangerous for a kid to be experimenting with drugs now
than when the baby boomers were in high school or college?

A: The major illegal drug they're experimenting with is marijuana. Marijuana
is 40 times more potent today than was the case 10, 15, 20  years ago.

    As a result of that, the medical profession is telling us that the
chronic use of marijuana can bring about psychological as well as emotional
problems. It can have a negative effect on the cognitive factors of young
people such as learning, judgment, things of that nature.

    In addition, it can have a negative impact upon both male and female
reproduction systems. ItÆs five times more damaging to the lungs than tobacco
smoking.

    I don't think young people know that. It's really not getting covered
very well.

    Could you talk a little about the drug courts and how they work?

A:    The drug-court concept is something that started in Dade Coupty when
Attorney General (Janet) Reno was the state's prosecutor there.

    Basically it's rather a simple concept. It brings together both the
criminal justice system and the treatment community. And it gives the judge an
opportunity to offer a nonviolent offender an option. The option is to go into
treatment, complete treatment, and the criminal charges will be dropped.
During the course of treatment, that person is expected to abide by a number
of rules such as drug testing, counsel-
ing, or getting and keeping a job. And that person has to report back to the
court on a regular basis. If they report back with their urine analysis
suggesting that they're using drugs, then they can be sent back to jail.

    That's the benefit of it. One, people can be forced into treatment and
get their lives back on track, and two, it can cut down on jail overcrowding.
We know from research that coercive treatment is just as effective as
voluntary treatment.

    We put $1 billion in the Crime Control Act for drug courts.
Unfortunately, the Congress wants to take that $1 billion back.

    Last time you were here, we talked about inhalants, and you pointed
out that inhalants weren't illegal. In fact, there are hundreds of household
products that can be abused this way. Does the fact that inhalants are not
illegal mean there should be no federal policy about inhalant abuse?

A:    There should be a federal policy because children are damaging
themselves. We treat the inhalant problem just as we would the use of an
illegal substance, or for children using alcohol or smoking.

    And the use of inhalants is going up considerably right now. We do
what we call a "pulse-check." We call around to treatment people, police
officers, drug researchers and do a quarterly report to see  what's going on.

    One of the things we're seeing is inhalant abuse is going up
considerably in different parts of the country. It's a very serious problem.
I've seen kids who are literally brain dead as a result of using inhalants
over a period of time.

    A few years ago, we had a dramatic story here of a man who robbed a
shoe store and went out and sat on the curb and let the police arrest him.
They asked him why he did it and he said, "Because I need drug treatment and I
can't afford it. I was told prison is the place where I could get it." In your
crime bill, is there any way to deal with that aspect - where the states seem
to be pitifully low on drug treatment for impoverished people while building
up drug-treatment programs in state prisons?

A:    All states are not building it up in the state prison system. Texas
has been a leader in doing that, but I understand that's subject to change
too.

    We are requesting a record amount of money from Congress - $14.6
billion for this year. We requested 355 million new dollars for treatment of
the chronic, hard-core drug addict. Congress gave us $57 million. And that's
our problem. We can request the money, but if Congress does not appropriate it
we can't carry out our national drug control strategy.

    We know' there are 1 million people who can benefit from treatment -
who need treatment. We do not have the slots to provide for them. What I want
to do annually is increase the number of slots by 140,000, so that at some
point In time, you literally have treatment on demand. We're not making
progress because of the inability of getting funds from Congress.

    Hopefully Congress will recognize that treatment works. We know
treatment works. California did the most extensive study. It Invested $209
million in treatment In 1992 and evaluated It and found that in one year they
saved the taxpayers of California $1.5 billion. For every dollar invested in
treatment they saved $7 In crime and health care costs.

Q:    How do you feel about mandatory sentencing in drug cases at the
federal level?

A:    I have two concerns with minimum mandatory (sentencing) at a federal
level: One is that low-level drug dealers are now in our federal prisons
taking up space that should be there for violent offenders --people that are a
threat to our society.

    No. 2 is that minorities, particularly African-Americans, are more
likely to use crack cocaine. Whites are more likely to use powder cocaine. If
you're caught with five grams of crack cocaine, you go to prison. If you're
caught with 5 grams of powder cocaine, you get probation. Thus we have an
increasingly large number of African-Americans In our prison system. That's a
disparity.

    This is a matter of great concern to many people, Including the
administration. Congress raised the issue and directed a study on it. The
commission is recommending that the disparity be taken away. I believe that's
it's the wrong thing to do to have that disparity. I don't think Congress
intentionally wanted to create the problems that they created. They're
operating under the assumption that at the time they passed the law,
crack-cocaine users were much more violent than powder cocaine users. But
there's nothing whatsoever to indicate that's the case. So they passed a law
on bad information - bad Information, bad law.

    If we're concerned about violence, let's look at violence as a
separate issue and not the type of drug you're using.

Q:    Do you see a connection between drug trafficking and federal weapons
violations?

A:    In the drug4rafficking business, carrying weapons is kind of like
wearing your clothes.

    When I started out as a cop back in 1960 in San Jose, I worked
undercover narcotics. I never had to worry about my personal safety. I didn't
even carry a gun on most of my operations. Bnt I worry about those cops out
there today because there are so many people who do not hesitate to use guns.

Q:    Drawing on your law enforcement expertise, what can the federal
government and local governments do about "the enemy within"  such as the
Oklahoma City bombing?

A:    Something like that, I think everyone was caught by surprise. If we
knew it was going to happen, we could have prevented it from happening.

    What is the answer? The answer is information, intelligence. The FBI
serves as the lead anti-terrorist agency for our government. A lot of the
information comes from local government. Because of the limitations of the FBI
and the vastness of our country, they have to rely on local police agencies to
provide them with the intelligence information.

    I think we've done a good job in America so far In stopping many
potential terrorist acts. What we have to do now Is understand clearly that
we're not immune from those problems and really redouble our efforts. And
that's why the president is pushing the Congress for new authorities for the
FBI, pushing for more anti-terrorist resources. And I'm very glad to see
things change, where at one time we didn't
have the good cooperation between the federal and local governments.

    That's changing considerably' The attorney general has done a very
good job, because she comes from local government, in pushing for that.

    I think intelligence gathering, information exchange is what we have
to do.

Q:    We had a story recently that, you were testing the political waters in
Houston. Are you looking at the mayor's race?

A:    Right now, I'm singularly focused. I have a real challenge ahead of
me, and that's what I'm putting the focus of my attention on.

    When I finish my service to the president and this country, I will
return to Houston. I'll return probably to Texas Southern University.

    I'm not trying to focus on anything different than what I'm doing.