From: mrosing@igc.apc.org (Mike Rosing)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: New Drug Czar, Police perspective
Message-ID: <1484000248@igc.apc.org>
Date: 21 Jun 93 13:06:00 GMT

The following article is from "Law Enforcement News" vol xix, No.
380 (may 15, 1993) page 5:  [copied without permission, all typos
and mispellings are mine]

BURDEN'S BEAT
by Ordway P. Burden

Mr. Brown goes to Washington:

U.S. DRUG POLICY MAY BE IN FOR A NEW LOOK

The appointment of Lee P. Brown as Director of the Office of
National Drug Control Policy soon after the Office's staff and
budget hafve been cut significantly sends mixed signals to law
enforcement.  On the one hand, Lee Brown has a superlative
reputation as a plice executive after heading law enforcement
agencies in Portland, Ore., Atlanta, Houston, and New York.  He
has also served as president of the International Association of
Chiefs of Police, which indicates his standing among his peers.

On the other hand, President Clinton's fiscal 1994 budget slashes
funds for the drug policy office from $17.3 million to $5.8
millin, and cuts the staff from 147 to 25.  Those cuts suggest
that the nation's drug problem is not high on the President's list
of priorities.  But to add a puzzling note, the President has said
he will make his new "drug czar" a member of the Cabinet.

During the Presidential campaign last year, Clinton seemed to lean
toward an increasing emphasis on education and treatment of drug
addicts rather than tougher law enforcement.  However, his budget
left the propoertions of drug-fighting money roughly what they
were under Presidents Reagan and Bush -- roughly two-thirds for
fighting the supply of drugs here and abroad, and one-third for
education and treatment.  So it's not clear where Clinton will
come down on the question of adding or subtracting resources for
law enforcement in the anti-drug effort.

In any event, the nomination of Lee Brown for drug czar seems an
inspired choice.  It was thought that Brown might get the FBI
directorship if William Sessions were to be fired, and conceivably
he could later take that important post.  Meanwhile, he brings new
credibility to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, whose
mission is the somewhat nebulous one of coordinating and leading
the efforts of t Federal agencies that are charged with some piece
of the anti-drug action.

Where Brown will stand on the allocation of resources between
supply-side and demand-side activities remains to be seen.  As one
of the leading lights in the law enforcement field, he might be
expected to favor continuing to give the lin's share to
enforcement.  But Brown is believed to favor enhancing education
and treatment programs.  Many people working in the drug abuse
field -- in law enforcement as well as in education and treatment
-- hailed Browns' nomination.  The Drug Enforcement
Administration's top man in New York, A. Bryden, was quoted in The
New York Times as calling the choice of Brown "a great
selection."

One thing is sure:  Lee Brown will put his stamp on the Federal
Government's drug-fighting efforts.  He has made his mark in every
police job he has held so far, and there is no reason to think he
won't do the same in the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
The guess here is that one of his first challenges will be to
change budget proiorities and perhaps fight for more resources.
He may not get the President's attention, ghough, until the
Administration's economic stimulus programs, the health insurance
plan, and the question of intervention in Bosnia are brought under
control.

Lee Brown is likely to face a growing tide of influential voices
urging a shift away from law enforcement and toward medical and
social solutions to drug abuse.  In March, LEN reported that
former San Jose Police Chief Joseph D. McNamara, Baltimore Mayor
Kurt Schmoke, Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, and
former Secretary of State George Shultz had signed a resolution
saying that society "must recognize drug use and abuse as the
medical and social problems that they are and that they must be
treated with medical and social solutions."

The resolution stopped short of recommending that drug use be
legalized, as Mayor Schmoke and others have previously suggested.
But the resolution did call for changes in drug laws "in order to
reduce the harm our current policies are causing."

Brown will be the third director of the drug-policy office.  The
first was William J. Bennett, who had been Secretary of Education
under President Reagan.  An outspoken conservative, Bennett was a
steadfast supporter of law enforcement in the drug fight while
pointing out that, among other things, enforcement gowes hand in
hand with education.  For one thing, law enforcement can teach a
child that crime does not always pay, he told the National Law
Enforcement Council, which this writer chairs.  And, he added, the
police rose is also important in drug treatment efforts because
"most people in the drug world who need treatment don't wake up
one morning and say 'I want treatment.' They're usually coerced
into treatment, and law enforcement can often be the route
there."

In 1991, Bennett was succeeded as drug czar by former Florida Gov.
Bob Martinez.  Martinez's style was low key by comparison with
Bennett, and Martinez was not very visible in the waning days of
the Bush Administration.  Now comes Lee Brown, a mover and shaker
of the plice status quo who rarely raises his voice.  He will
nonetheless be heard.

_(Ordway P. Burden is president of the Law Enforcement Assistance
Foundation and chairman of the National Law Enforcement Council.
He welcomes correspondence to his office at 24 Wyndham Court,
Nanuet, NY 10954-3845.  Seymour F. Malkin, the executive director
of LEAF, assisted in the preparation of this article)_