The Closing of Clinton's Mind

Bill Clinton supposedly came to Washington on a mission to overturn the "damage" of the Reagan-Bush years. But when it comes to drug legalization, the Clinton administration proves as stubborn and closed-minded as the worst of Republicans.

After a speech last week, Clinton's new Surgeon General, Joycelyn Elders, recommended a radical solution to the grave problem of violence in America. She explained that "we would markedly reduce our crime rate if drugs were legalized." Other countries which have legalized drugs have experienced "a reduction in their crime rate" with "no increase in their drug use rate," she added. Elders made it clear, though, that her solution, while well grounded, would require serious study. "I don't know all the ramifications of this," she admitted.

Apparently, the White House does know. President Clinton bluntly stated that "it's not going to happen." And the White House spokesperson, Dee Dee Myers, added to the administration's closed-minded attitude: "The President is firmly against legalizing drugs, and he is not inclined in this case to even study the issue." Well, at least Clinton is clear on his position. Unfortunately, moral certitude does not constitute a genuine argument.

Although the Surgeon General is not generally noted for her political acumen or intellectual fortitude, the idea that tumbled out of her loud head last week is too important not to be taken seriously. As the Boston Globe sympathetically editorialized, "it would be hard to argue with Elders that shootings in the nation's cities and suburbs would diminish if cocaine were legalized." We all know that most of the violence results from the prohibition on drugs, which generates a lucrative illegal business. Drug dealers kill each other and innocent victims in the relentless pursuit of increased market share.

If drugs were legalized, the enticing profit motive would disappear and so would most of the violent crime. For practical examples of this theory, one can look to America after Prohibition, or to contemporary examples like the Netherlands, which has successfully decriminalized drugs.

In addition, the millions of tax dollars wasted every year on the futile "War on Drugs" could be returned to taxpayers or spent on better drug education or drug treatment programs. The government could even spend the money on revitalizing inner cities, through such programs as enterprise zones.

Of course, the major concern many raise against drug legalization is probably legitimate: increased drug use. If cheaper and safer drugs become available, drug use and drug addiction could markedly increase. As Clinton himself has frequently pointed out, his brother, Roger, might not be alive today if drugs were more widely available. And Clinton's drug czar, Lee Brown, has described drug legalization as the "moral equivalent of genocide."

This concern may be a good argument against legalizing drugs tomorrow. After all, as Elders admits, the full "ramifications" of decriminalizing drugs are not immediately clear.

Yet the argument in favor of drug legalization, supported even by conservatives like William F. Buckley, deserves serious scrutiny. Any public policy change will certainly have some disadvantages. The question becomes whether the advantages outweigh those disadvantages. And the only way to begin to make a reasonable decision it to study the issue thoroughly.

Elders made the point beautifully: "There are a lot of things that are sensitive subjects, and just because they're sensitive subjects does not mean that we should ignore them when they are destroying the very fabric of our country."

The Clinton administration misses a great opportunity to overturn a failed policy of the Reagan-Bush legacy when it stifles fresh approaches to a worsening situation. After last week, Americans should wonder whether President Clinton has adopted the conservative "stay the course" attitude of the Bush years.

The Administration's recent disavowal of change is especially disturbing when one considers the importance of finding real solutions to the crime and violence which have spun out of control across this nation.

The President deals with issues like health care by labeling the problem a "crisis" and then pushing for radical reform. Yet to abate crime, Clinton endorses such feeble measures as the Brady bill, which will require a five day waiting period for the purchase of handguns. These weak legislative gestures to fight crime are simply inadequate in a country where many citizens feel themselves under siege.

Billing himself as a New Democrat, President Clinton owes the American people a commitment to pursuing new ideas to old problems. Drug legalization ostensibly makes sense, promoting both individual freedom and individual responsibility, while reducing crime and violence. President Clinton must offer us more convincing reasons than the possibility of his brother's shortened lifespan.