On the one hand, the policy claims a hard-line approach to the domestic drug problem through a confounding variety of programs oriented toward eliminating drugs at their source, interdicting shipments from produce nations to the United States, rigorous enforcement of the criminal statutes that regulate such use, and convincing the young not to use illicit substances in the future. These diverse efforts are generally discussed within the context of two dominant categories, supply-reduction and demand-reduction strategies. There is another aspect of drug policy that is neither openly discussed nor publicly recognized by most U.S. officials. This involves the use of narcotic operatives stationed in foreign nations in supply-reduction efforts to provide intelligence to the U.S. State Department, the Department of Defense, and the Central Intelligence Agency regarding areas of concern that are not drug-related. Such hidden agendas of drug policy can be used to explain many of the inconsistencies and erratic enforcement practices related to the War on Drugs; on balance, drug policy has consistently been secondary to other foreign-policy concerns, especially the perceived threats posed by communism in this hemisphere and throughout the world. This chapter assesses the relative effectiveness of these policy approaches against the goals that public officials and other supporters have claimed for them. A case study of drug enforcement and U.S. foreign policy initiatives examines their impact on the group of islands that comprises the Bahamas. This example illustrates how the U.S. Government has allowed other foreign policy concerns to take precedence over drug law enforcement. 88 notes