12 Jun 1996 Giving Back Gained Ground: The Clinton Administration and the War on Drugs, by Nate Stewart
“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 29, 1996.
“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 1995. i
“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 drug interdiction.
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 since 1992.
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 Ground
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 of Michigan.
“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:
“Marijuana/hashish-related episodes 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.” xi
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 began.” xix
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. xx
Perceptions of the Most Vulnerable: Our Young
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 Drug Policy
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.” xxviii
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 1980s.
The Clinton Cabinet: Not of One Voice
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 behavior.” xxxvii
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.” xxxviii
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 level. xliii
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 Higher Priorities
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 over 1994).
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 1994).
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: $24 million.
President Clinton’s Campaign Crusade
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.
Nate Stewart is a staff writer at the National Center for Public Policy Research.
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.
iii Ibid., 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 1995).
vii Ibid., Table 1.
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 1995).
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.
xvi Ibid., p. 19.
xvii From Monitoring the Future, Table 1, (December 1995).
xviii Ibid., Table 3.
xix Ibid., p. 9
xx Ibid., Table 2.
xxi Ibid., Table 9.
xxii Ibid., Table 7.
xxiii Ibid., Table 7.
xxiv Ibid., Table 7.
xxv Ibid., Table 9.
xxvi Ibid., Table 9.
xxvii Statement of Sen. Orrin Hatch, press conference to release committee report Losing Ground Against Drugs (December 19, 1995).
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), p. A-65.
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 Desk.
xxxviii The Wall Street Journal (April 6, 1995).
xxxix As quoted in The Weekly Standard (May 13, 1996), p. 9.
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).
xliv Ibid., p. 3.
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.