When President Bill Clinton took office back in 1992, there was one idea he had in particular that I support.

That was his drug plan.

He proposed cutting the amount of money spent on drug interdiction and enforcement. The purpose of those programs was to keep drugs out of the United States.

Clinton said the money would be better spent on education programs for our young people. Telling them that drugs are bad.

I agreed with that. It sounded good.

Why spend money on stopping drugs coming into the country? Just eliminate the demand from within.

But now, almost four years later, drug use by teens has more than doubled nationally. The annual survey by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services shows that more than 2.4 million youths between 12 and 17 admitted using an illicit drug at least once during the prior month.

It figures.

One of the few times I agree with a program of Clinton's and it turns out to be a dismal failure.

But you know, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Because as is the case a lot of times with President Clinton, what he says he will do and what he does are vastly different things.

The original plan was to divert funds from enforcement to education. What happened was very different.

The funds weren't diverted at all. They were cut. Early in his administration, Clinton cut the budget for the war on drugs by nearly 80 percent.

And things aren't much different now. From 1996 to 1997, for example, the proposed line item for drug abuse resistance in the Department of Health and Human Services budget goes from $461 million to $315 million.

But at the same time, Clinton, in light of the recent bad news about teen drug use, has named a "drug czar." And he's talking tough about teens and drugs as he campaigns. Well, if you want to be tough on drugs, why cut the funds for fighting drug abuse?

Doesn't make much sense, does it?

I have spent some time perusing the 1997 national budget on the Internet. You have to take my word for this because I am not going to be specific. But believe me, there are literally mountains of appropriations that are overtly less important than fighting drugs. Let's cut those first, OK?

Another reason I suppose the rise in teen drug use during the Clinton administration shouldn't surprise me is the casual attitude Clinton himself has taken toward drug use.

Yes, I know, he didn't inhale.

But then again, he surrounded himself with staffers who admit they were "former" casual drug users. And there have been rumors of drug use in the White House among staffers.

No one is saying that Clinton employs a bunch of brain dead dope freaks. But the attitude seems to be that a little pot buzz now and then never hurt anybody.

The Democratic Party Platform says, " ...every adult must take responsibility to set a good example, and to teach children that drugs are wrong, they are illegal and they are deadly."

Clinton is the top adult example-setter in the country. He needs to set the good example. He needs to say what he means and mean what he says. [[In-content Ad]]