Speech Delivered by Lamar Alexander
1997 Annual Drug-Free Workplace Week Awards Luncheon
Co-sponsored by Houston's Drug-Free Business Initiative and
Houston Crackdown, Office of the Mayor
October 3, 1997

Sending the Right Message on Drugs

It is both remarkable and disturbing that today, in 1997, we are still talking about America's drug problem.  From the "French Connection" in the early 1970's to the Cali Cartel of the 1980's, the fight against drugs is proving to be our country's longest war.

Some people look at the recent history of our nation's efforts to fight drugs and throw up their hands.  They point to the high cost of enforcement, the crowded prisons, the rise of a third-world cocaine mafia, and the cycle of addiction.  "What is the use,"  they argue,  "of this war on drugs?  Isn't it time we ended prohibition and started to legalize drugs?"

I think these people — some of them well-intentioned — are asking the wrong question. Everyone knows that fighting illegal drugs comes with a very high price.  But the real question is what would be the cost of NOT fighting them.

I think the consequences are fairly easy to predict:

There would be more babies born each year addicted to cocaine.

There would be more students dropping out of high school, numbed by  the  use of drugs.

There would be more road accidents caused by drug-impaired drivers.

There would be injuries at the workplace.

There would be more demand for our already overburdened drug treatment system.

There would be more drug abuse across-the-board:  more medical emergencies at our hospitals; more overdoses in our communities; more drug induced violence; more lives destroyed by addiction in our poorest neighborhoods.

I submit that is too high a price to pay.  I don't believe there is a community in America willing to pay that price.

So to all of you here today, many who have been involved in reducing drug use in Houston for many years, do not get discouraged.  You are on the right side of history.  You are fighting an essential battle — one in which our country must prevail.

I have dealt with the issue as a governor, a university president, and the secretary of education.  But I will not pretend to be a policy expert or attempt to lecture you about the dangers of illegal drug use.  Instead, I would like to touch on just three points: First, what our government can and should do about illegal drug use. Second, what the private sector can and should do about illegal drug use. And finally, what kind of message all of us — inside or outside government — can and must send if we are to make progress against the scourge of drugs.

First, anyone who claims that government should stay out of the war on drugs doesn't understand the complexity of the problem.  To begin with, I view drug use and drug trafficking as a major issue of national security and foreign policy.  They should be at the top of the agenda at the State Department.  Drug trafficking should be the highest diplomatic priority in our relations with Mexico and other Latin American countries.  We should be prepared to work closely with our allies — as we did under President Bush — to fight drug trafficking at the source.

It is also the responsibility of the federal government to protect our border.  We spend an awful lot of time worrying about illegal immigration — a genuine problem.  But it is no less important that we have a border that can be easily penetrated by drug runners.

I have no illusions about this task.  Sealing our border is not something that can be simply ordered from Washington.  But it can become a more urgent national priority.  I know that interdiction efforts at the border will never eliminate drugs from our neighborhoods.  But interdiction can make them much harder to get.  That is a critical achievement when we think about deterring drug use among young, first-time users.  The goal is simple:  make drugs expensive and hard to find.  You cannot do that without a serious effort of stopping drugs from coming in the country in the first place.

Our government plays other obvious roles in enforcing drug laws — whether it is the DEA in Washington or local policing in Texas.  What we have learned over the last number of years is clearly that smart drug strategy makes a difference.

I think we can be just as strategic at the federal level.  It is time our Justice Department got serious with anti‑drug strategy.  They should be treating drug trafficking gangs in the 1990s exactly the way they treated the Mafia in the 1980s.  These are complex criminal organizations with a structure, a hierarchy, and an elaborate business network.  We should not be content at making the occasional spectacular arrest.  Federal law enforcement should aim to take these organizations apart piece by piece.

I don't want to neglect the role that government plays in treatment, prevention, and research.  To my mind these aspects of the war on drugs are as important as enforcement on the border or police in the streets.  We are learning more about addiction and prevention with very promising results.  Unfortunately, our national debate about fighting drugs always seems to get hung up on this conflict between "supply-side" versus "demand side" solutions.

I believe this division is entirely false — and entirely misleading.  Any drug strategy that focused only on arrests and policing would never make a dent in the problem.  But similarly, the efforts of drug treatment clinics and anti-drug education efforts would never work if they didn't have the police and courts to back them up.  It is virtually impossible for a successful drug treatment clinic to succeed when drug dealers are circling like vultures outside the front door.

Remember this:  a person with a serious drug problem usually doesn't just wake up one day and say to himself," I'm going to get myself into a treatment program."  That rarely happens.

The far more realistic scenario is that people seek help when they are forced to confront their problem:

They are arrested.

A judge orders them to seek treatment.

Their spouse tells them to clean up their act.

Their employer tells them to get help or face dismissal.

These scenarios remind us that the 'enforcement' side of the drug problem cannot be separated from the 'prevention' or 'treatment' side.  You have to do both.  And that is why I think we need to talk not only about what government should do , but also about what the private sector must do.

The drug-free work place movement is a quintessentially American solution to one of the most difficult problems.  It is a mix of our ingenuity, our desire to help those in need, and our determination to prevent accidents before they happen.

I'm sorry we don't do more to trumpet our success in this area.  I enjoyed learning more about the drug-use reduction plans that you have been involved in.  But allow me to mention what I think makes a drug-free workplace an integral part of a national drug strategy.

To start with, drug-free workplace policies in the private sector are entirely voluntary.  Businesses make their own decisions based on their priorities and their relationships with employees and customers.

Drug-free workplace plans are flexible — not one-size-fits all like some government programs.

Drug-free workplace plans are responsive — they are intended to respond to someone with a problem and get them help.  The goal is not to punish employees, but to help them and protect others.

Drug-free workplace plans set clear lines: they create rules that employees and employers must abide by.

            And most important, drug-free workplace plans create accountability.  They deter drug use by making individuals responsible for their action.

Voluntary.  Flexible.  Responsive.  Clear Lines.  Accountable.  I wish there were more government programs that could claim those attributes.