[3][4] The programs directed by the ONDCP include: The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, which created the Office of National Drug Control Policy, was the product of bi-partisan support.

[8] In 2011, the ONDCP requested funding for 98 full-time employees, 64 (65.31%) of whom would be paid at either GS-15, GS-14, or SES pay grades, or more than $105,211.00 yearly, being adjusted for Washington, D.C. cost of living expenses.

[9] In 2005, the Bush administration proposed transferring the $225 million High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Program from ONDCP to the Department of Justice.

2. has not been approved for use for medical purposes by the Food and Drug Administration;The Government Accountability Office has found that this law authorizes the ONDCP to disseminate information in order to oppose legalization:[12] Finally, apart from considerations of whether any particular law has been violated, you have asked whether the Deputy Director's letter disseminated misleading information in connection with statements relating to the debate over legalization of marijuana.

[17] According to the University of Michigan's annual Monitoring the Future report, the number of young people using drugs in the U.S. declined by 7 percent between 2001 and 2006,[18] though there is no evidence to suggest that government anti-drug programs that were started at the turn of the millennium helped cause this drop.

The WB network's senior vice president for broadcast standards Rick Mater admitted, "The White House did view scripts.

Originally depicted as cool and popular, after input from the drug office, "We showed that they were losers and put them [hidden away to indulge in shamed secrecy] in a utility room.

[20] In 2000, the Federal Communications Commission, in response to a complaint by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, sent inquiries to five major television networks about these practices.

[21] The House Committee on Government Reform's Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources held hearings on the matter on July 11, 2000.

[22] In December of that year, the FCC ruled that the networks should have identified the Office of National Drug Control Policy as the sponsor of the television programs.

Specifically, MPP argued that Nevada campaign finance laws required the Drug Czar to reveal how much taxpayer money he had spent to defeat the initiative.

[25] A February 24, 2005 MPP press release announced that the group had filed similar complaints in Montana, Oregon, and Alaska, accusing the Drug Czar of failing to make legally required campaign expense disclosures:[26] In 2005, the Government Accountability Office found that the ONDCP had violated domestic propaganda and publicity prohibitions by preparing prepackaged news stories that did not disclose to television viewers that the government had produced them, had illegally spent appropriations to develop, produce and distribute the covert propaganda but use of the term "Drug Czar" in the "Video News Releases" had not constituted unlawful self-aggrandizement.

[28] According to Susan A. Poling, managing associate general counsel at the GAO, "What is objectionable about these is the fact the viewer has no idea their tax dollars are being used to write and produce this video segment.".

[28] As early as February 2017, The New York Times had reported that the Trump administration was considering eliminating the office, and other programs responsible for a total of $2.5 billion of domestic spending.