AL:   Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We are coming to you, as always, live from the George Washington University in downtown Washington, D.C. Now let's take advantage of our studio audience. A show of hands here from everybody. First, how many of you have seen the government's anti-drug ads? Howie, can we get a shot of this? OK. How many of them now think they're effective? No hands -- a few? OK, how many think they're a waste of money? You may be surprised -- maybe not surprised to learn our drug czar actually agrees with you. John Walters, President Bush's new head of drug policy in the White House. And he claims that the 200 anti-drug advertisements that have been produced over the past five years have cost nearly $1 billion, but in today's "Wall Street Journal," Mr. Walters says that not only are the ads ineffective, that they may have tempted some youngsters to experiment with pot. So Walters is asking Congress for another $180 million for more ads. These, that he says he'll do his way. To help us put this whole mess in perspective and in the crossfire, let's welcome Robert Weiner, former spokesman for the White House Drug Policy Office and Colonel Bob Mcginnis of the Family Research Council. 
CARLSON:   Thanks for joining us. You're intimidating me with your stack of paper there. All I have is a "Wall Street Journal" piece, but I think that's enough, because this has got to be the most perverse and yet not very surprising new story ever, that in fact, according to studies done by the drug czar's office, these spots actually make people want to do drugs. Girls age 12 to 13, who didn't already use drugs, were slightly more likely to want to smoke pot after watching the ads telling them not to. I mean, could they be more ineffective? 
WEINER:   Well, it's an absurd statement. And it is untrue. And I don't know what the drug czar's been smoking when he makes a statement like that. 
CARLSON:   He did a study that showed this. 
WEINER:   He did no study of the ads that you showed. And by the way, how many people in the audience are 12 to 17? Any hands? None. That's who the ads are targeted at. And when you go to church groups or you go to YMCAs, and you ask those kids how many of you have seen the ads, the hands shoot up. My wife, who's in the audience with me here today, found out -- you know, have about six out of eight, about 75 percent of the kids have seen the ads. And they say that that frying pan ad that you showed is very effective. And they say that the ad that the mother who doesn't talk to their kids about anything else, talks to their kids about everything else and doesn't talk to their kids about drugs, very effective parenting ad. The studies actually show that there's a 13 percent less proclivity. That's what the testing shows, which the drug czar said didn't happen. There was testing, extensive testing. A 13 percent less proclivity after watching the kid as smash the dishes. 
AL:   Robert, let me show you Colonel Bob the ad that Robert's talking about. I think there were ads that ran that were very, very effective. And I want to start by showing you one of them. Take a look.    This is your brain. This is heroin. This is what happens to your brain after snorting heroin. It's not over yet. This is what your family goes through. And your friends. And your job and your self-respect and your future. 
WEINER:   The absurd part is they're not using that ad anymore. 
AL:   In fact, let me show you what they are using now. They're using an ad that doesn't work. 
WEINER:   Right. 
AL:   I mean, take a listen to this ad. I don't know if we can put it on the screen. Just listen. I don't think that's technical difficulties. That's the ad that don't work. I mean, isn't that the problem? 
MAGINNIS:   Yes, well, that certainly doesn't -- it confuses me as well. I think it's interesting, Paul, that, you know, the report that's generated that apparently cited in "The Wall Street Journal," you know, was commissioned as a result of all of this great study in self worth. And I was there when they kicked it off. And I thought it was a great idea, but it's coming back. And it's bad news. That doesn't mean, you know, we shouldn't do it in the future, but it means it's broken at this point. And we've got to evaluate. You know, and the data's going to keep coming in. I think what Tucker started with was, you know, a bit preliminary. We need to get the rest of the data to make a final decision. But I don't think that, you know, reaching out to kids with messages that are tailored to them is wrong. We have a serious problem in this country, especially if you go -- I used to talk to some folks up in Seattle. And I know you've been there, Bob, where they've had a dramatic increase in treatment for marijuana, first admissions. Because in part because we have a marijuana today that ain't like it was Woodstock. It has 15 to 20 percent. So we're getting more kids hooked. So we really need to get serious about it.  And some of these ads, frankly, the report says they aren't working. So let's go back. Let's fix it. And that's what Walters is saying. He's been saying since 1997, and consistently, even Bob can tell us during the hearings he had at the Senate, he said there's a problem. And this just confirms that. 
CARLSON:   Now Mr. Weiner, I don't like any of these ads, I have to say. And good for Mr. Walters for attacking them. But hold on. 
WEINER:   They're not aimed at you. 
CARLSON:   But I tell you what, they're better than what you did in the Drug of Office of Policy did under Clinton, which was paying networks, entertainment networks, to sneak anti-drug propaganda into entertainment without the knowledge of the audience. Essentially propaganda and subverting art. I mean, is that -- I mean, aren't you ashamed of that? 
WEINER:   All right, first, I'm not letting the last point go, because there was a 34 percent reduction in youth drug use the last three years of the Clinton administration. And one of the main reasons was that 94 percent of parents and teens saw those ads seven times a week. So this was enormous bang for a tiny little buck of $180 million a year. 
CARLSON:   But what about the ads they didn't know they were seeing, that you paid networks to include in their programming. 
WEINER:   All right, now let's take that -- I actually am not bothered by doing everything legal to save the lives of our children. And that's what the office did. Now there was a huge hue and cry. And so, they changed the policy on that. 
AL:   Let me come back to the content of the newer ads. Again, I am not the target audience. Bob has pointed that out. 
MAGINNIS:   Neither am I. 
AL:   No, but it seems to me though, and I am a father of four kids. And so, I know something about kids. 
MAGINNIS:   You should be concerned. 
AL:   I am very concerned. And when they started this new round of ads that President Bush's drug czar made, linking the anti- drug message to an anti-terrorism message, it was a reach too far. Most teenagers have a hard time even understanding and imagining the damage to their own bodies. And to tell them that somebody 10,000 miles away is going to get kidnapped, which while true, I think was far too attenuating. Wasn't that a mistake? 
MAGINNIS:   Keep in mind, Paul, the study only goes up to December. And John Walters didn't become drug czar until that time. So it didn't really apply. What Bob said is interesting in numbers. Here's the monitoring the future. I know you're very familiar with it, Bob, in terms of eighth and tenth and twelfth graders. The numbers became flat about the time General McCaffrey went into office. And they've remained flat. So a 34 percent reduction, at least according to the government sponsored Monitoring the Future, that's disturbing. We were in the early '90s at about 5 percent for 5.7 percent for... 
WEINER:   You're disturbed by a third less kids using drugs? 
MAGINNIS:   I'm disturbed... 
WEINER:   That's a lot of crime down. That's a lot of drug use down. That's a lot of saved families. 
MAGINNIS:   It's increased over 100 percent since that time, Bob. And we've got to go back down to the lower level, when we were in the '80s. We have to get parents involved. We have to get the president obviously involved. 
WEINER:   It was twice the drug use in the '80s. 
MAGINNIS:   1979, it was 25 million people... 
WEINER:   Oh, you're... 
MAGINNIS:   ...who were using drugs on a regular basis. 
CARLSON:   I'm going to have to cut this off. Very quickly, we're going to take a fast commercial break, and be back to argue about drugs. That's what we're talking about, money for drug ads. We're taking a hit with our guests in a just minute. And you never thought you'd see the day, but a Clinton era record is expected to fall tonight. And we'll explain when we return. We'll be right back.
