Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!caip!topaz!ll-xn!mit-amt!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!rochester!ritcv!cci632!rb From: rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) Newsgroups: net.followup Subject: Re: The war on drugs Message-ID: <363@cci632.UUCP> Date: Tue, 16-Sep-86 20:23:39 EDT Article-I.D.: cci632.363 Posted: Tue Sep 16 20:23:39 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 27-Sep-86 17:57:40 EDT References: <5305@decwrl.DEC.COM> <1066@kontron.UUCP> Reply-To: rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) Organization: CCI, Rochester Development, Rochester, NY Lines: 106 Summary: Two views, two solutions In article <1066@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> Has anyone considered the possibility that the war on drugs is being >> staged as a diversion from real government issues like increased >> military spending? Of course, it's an election year, Reagan's coattails don't seem to stretch that far, and both parties have discovered that their pet programs don't have the popularity they used to. Both sides will be taking credit for tax reform, the Democrats can use the old "New Deal" social programs without voters asking about cost, the Republicans can't "build defence" for the same reason. >>The amount of propaganda I've read in the past two >> weeks is enough to flood the conscious stream of the average ignorant >> american. I have yet to see any accurate analysis of the problem. Hey, 1 in 10 people are supposed to have drug or alcohol problems, and only 1 will NOT be affected by an alcoholic or addict at some point in their lives. It's an issue that directly effects everyone, and offends only a small, unpopular minority. Drug and alcohol treatment programs are a booming business. With several good lobbies, and a "treatment oriented" program, it will probably be quite popular. >And you won't see an accurate analysis of the problem. >Trying to rationally >talk to someone who has seen the suffering is just about impossible. Fortunately, an at least somewhat rational approach is being used for now. First, the movement is against both drug and alcohol abuse. This is quite different from, the "drugs only" campaigns of the past. >Most parents don't really want to believe that little Johnny became >a heavy doper because of the parent's bad example in the use of >mind-altering drugs. It's a lot easier to blame it on drug traffickers. Again, so far, the thrust has been on two fronts. Treatment of the addict/alcoholic, AND making life difficult for the traffickers. In case you haven't heard, New York beer retailers have been having their coolers locked for selling to customers who are either under age, or intoxicated. You can bet they are being more careful. >> Most of the problems associated with drugs are due to fact >> that they are illegal. If you mean that because addicts are often sent to jail instead of treatment or rehab centers, they are less willing to come forward when they are ready to quit, I agree. If you mean an "open market" for heroin would solve the drug problem, I can't agree. Having been through the entire start/addiction/recovery route, I can't say that the legality had much affect either way. It is too easy to get "Legal" drugs when the supply of "illegal" drugs got scarce. Addicts are very versitile. >Amazing, isn't it, >how every problem has a solution that involves more government? Ironically, the long term solution in this case does not come from the government. It comes from the various "anonymous" groups which are completely self-supporting. It is these groups which show the greatest success at long term recovery, which has reduced demand significantly. The alcohol industries have already started making alcohol free products because they can't sell the alcohol they can produce. >> Again, I resent that the government sees fit to protect me from >> myself. Their efforts would be better spent documenting the effects >> of drugs *ACCURATELY*. I agree. Part of the problem with current "drug education" programs is that they attempt to ignore the "good times" that occur in the early stages of drug abuse. Another problem is the attempt to "gloss over" the importance of self-esteem. Substance abuse can give someone with a normally low self-esteem the feeling that they are "super-cool" for a while. Those with higher self-esteem are less vulnerable to "peer pressure" than those who already feel they don't belong anywhere else. The effects documented ARE ACCURATE, but NOT COMPLETE. Until just a few years ago, only 1 in 14 addicts/alcholics would be able to go more than one year without returning to their addiction. The other 13 would end up in jails, dead, or under the treatment of psychiatric professionals for extended periods of time. Only 1 in 50 would NOT recieve state or federal aid during some portion of their addiction period, for themselves or their families. >The current lunacy is more the Democrats than President Reagan. The >House (still controlled by the Democrats) just passed a bill that >includes death penalties for second offense drug trafficking, and >repeal of the exclusionary rule *just* for drug cases. >> John Williams >Clayton E. Cramer I missed that one. Did you forget to include some qualifiers there? Like causing the death of a customer? Like selling hot-shots, rat-poison, and cyannide as recreational drugs? Keep in mind, that if he chooses, a dealer can punish an addict with withdrawal or overdose that amounts to slow death by torture. Those most likely to be divided on this issue are the "moral majority" types. They will be confused as to how to deal with the problem, but diffused on other issues. Look at the options. Treatment, at federal expense or free, prevention, through good education, deterrence, through punishment of dealers, and apathy toward starting, through media campaigns. Both sides will continue to be embarassed by the inability to balance the budjet, reduce spending, or reduce taxes. Both sides will probably not be pushing too hard for increases in expensive programs.