- - - - - - - - - - - -

Search Salon

- - - - - - - - - - - -

News

Miami's vice
Crack cocaine is almost dead in many cities, but immigrants, suburbanites and teenagers have kept it alive in South Florida.
By Art Levine
[05/11/99]

Cracked up
How did a drug whose addictive properties were once compared to potato chips become the scourge of America?
By Maia Szalavitz
[05/11/99]

Beijing journal
An American student watches the not-so-spontaneous uprising against NATO and the U.S.
By S.H.
[05/10/99]

Milosz: Peaceful coexistence is still possible in the Balkans
The Nobel Prize-winning poet, whose own country was devoured by its powerful neighbors, supports the NATO attacks -- and holds out hope for the future.
By Tamara Straus
[05/10/99]

Stop this war
Clinton and his leftist buddies in NATO are squandering our money and our military credibility in the Balkans.
By David Horowitz
[05/10/99]

Complete archives for News

- - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

In his new book, "The Fix," journalist Michael Massing argues that Nixon, more than any other recent president, accepted that treatment for hard-core drug users was far more effective -- and practical -- than incarceration.

Salon News spoke to Massing about the poor public image of methadone, the limitations of "Just Say No" and why only a Republican can usher in a new age of drug policy.

Miami's vice Crack cocaine is almost dead in many cities, but immigrants, suburbanites and teenagers have kept it alive in South Florida. By Art Levine Cracked up How did a drug whose addictive properties were once compared to potato chips become the scourge of America? By Maia Szalavitz

Were Nixon's drug policies notably different from those of his successors?

When I began to look into the history of the war on drugs, I really did not expect to find anything of great interest, anything different from the standard policy of using law enforcement to fight drugs. But as I began doing the research, several people in the field, whom I interviewed, said, "Well, if you're looking at this history, you have to look at the Nixon era because he really had the most innovative program of any president and it stressed treatment." I was somewhat disbelieving at first, but the more I began to research it, and when I found Nixon's first drug czar, Dr. Jerome Jaffe, and began to talk to him about his experience, I just became completely fascinated by the Nixon experience. While Nixon did launch the war on drugs, he also made treatment its major weapon.

What would have happened to a hard-core heroin user who was arrested in New York City during Nixon's term, as opposed to what would happen to that same user today?

Under Nixon, it was less likely that that person would be arrested. Today, arrest is the primary way that we deal with hard-core drug users. You get arrested, you are prosecuted, usually you'll plea-bargain and if you have any prior offense, generally -- at least in New York, and in most other states -- you'll go to prison for one or more years, depending on your record.

In the Nixon period, arrests were much less frequent. Instead, the cities and the government took a public-health approach to drug use ... the idea was that treatment would be available to any addict who wanted it. That was Jaffe's guiding principle and the one that the Nixon administration supported. They gave him hundreds of millions of dollars to set up treatment facilities, and basically anybody who got into trouble could show up at one of these and get help.

What was the role of law enforcement under Nixon?

The Nixon administration did use law enforcement, but the key was, addicts knew they could get help. Today, if a hard-core drug user is worried about arrest, if he's got medical problems, if his wife or husband is threatening to throw him out because of his drug use, it's often very hard to find appropriate care. There is not enough of it, and what is available often is not that good.

How has the political climate changed since the war on drugs began, and what other changes do you foresee?

I feel that the political climate is going to change and make drug reform more possible. Look at the medical marijuana initiatives around the country. Despite intense lobbying by the federal government, they are carrying in state after state. That to me is a sign that people are getting frustrated with the war on drugs. People are getting more upset over the explosion in the prison population, and how that is beginning to take money away from things like education. I think the Democrats are too afraid of being labeled soft on drugs. I think what we need is a moderate Republican, with good law-and-order credentials, to lead a reform effort.

Who?

The two people whom I look to as potential reformers are George W. Bush of Texas and George Pataki of New York. Both of them are moderate Republicans who have in fact made clear that they are tough on crime, and thus could make the big political effort. I basically feel -- and I hate to say this -- that we need a Nixon-type figure to undertake what would be extremely controversial.

So, what happened to all the treatment centers that were set up under Nixon?

During the 1970s, the network that Nixon and Jaffe set up remained largely intact, and most addicts who wanted help could get it. But in the late '70s this extraordinary political movement developed called the Parents' Movement. These were parents in places like Atlanta, Florida and Texas, who were terrified at the growing use of marijuana among young people. For young people to drink a beer was no big deal, but marijuana was something that they had no experience with. So they put together this extremely powerful political movement. Most of them had no political experience, but many of them were housewives who were extremely talented and energetic, and they found this outlet. They created this potent political movement which mushroomed all over the country and hundreds of these parent groups popped up. Then Nancy Reagan latched on to the anti-drug thing, and the parents became her foot soldiers in the "Just Say No" campaign.

Was Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign successful?

In my book I give the Parents' Movement credit for the fact that, largely because of them, we have pretty good data on drug use from the late '70s to the present. The peak year of marijuana use in this country was 1978-79. It began dropping even before Nancy Reagan got active, but then it dropped particularly sharply. I do think that her campaign had an effect on marijuana. The problem is that at the same time that they were bringing the marijuana problem under control, or bringing marijuana rates down, hard-core drug use shot way up.

Like crack?

Cocaine, but particularly crack, arrived in the mid-'80s, and the Reagan administration did nothing about it. Where I fault Nancy Reagan the most is that she went around the country preaching "Don't use drugs," while her husband was cutting all the funding for drug treatment programs. The people who really wanted to stop using did not have the opportunity to do so. Of course there were cultural changes taking place during that period, too. We became more conservative as a nation, so marijuana fell out of favor. I still hear a lot of people, more conservative people, say, "Oh, if only Nancy Reagan were back. She had commitment [to the issue]." Well, the government's doing Nancy Reagan's job now. The current drug czar, Barry McCaffrey, has a big media advertising campaign against drugs, pot in particular. But the ads don't make a crucial distinction between marijuana and other drugs. Other drugs can be very devastating. I try to be very clear about that.

Next page | Reagan turns a deaf ear