Pubdate: Thu, 10 Oct 2002
Source: Times Leader (PA)
Copyright: 2002 The Times Leader
Contact:  http://www.leader.net/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/933
Author: Evelyn T. Brady
Note: Evelyn T. Brady is a consultant with the Victims Resource Center
and a member of the Luzerne County Commission for Women. Her Times
Leader column is published every other Thursday.

WE MUST BE WILLING TO CONSIDER DIFFERENT ANSWERS TO DRUG-ABUSE PROBLEM

THIS PAST Sunday was one of those crisp, clear autumn days often heralded 
here in Northeast Pennsylvania, but rather than spend my day outside the 
way I prefer, I joined a crowd of about 50 people at the Barnes and Noble 
Bookstore in Wilkes-Barre Township.

We had come to hear the words of James Gray, an Orange County, Calif., 
Superior Court Judge and former prosecutor, who was in town to speak about 
what he considers our country's failed drug war. He is the author of "Why 
Our Drug Laws Have Failed, And What We Can Do About It," a book critical of 
our nation's drug laws.

A few in the audience were there to debunk Gray's arguments; a few others 
were there by accident, having come in search of a particular book only to 
find their interest peaked by the subject matter, but most of us were there 
because, like Gray, we are searching for an alternative to a drug policy 
that has done nothing to significantly reduce drug use and abuse in our 
country.

Having spent decades in the trenches of the drug war, first as a federal 
prosecutor in Los Angeles and then as a trial judge in Orange County, Gray 
has seen firsthand the waste in terms of dollars and lives. He has seen the 
increase in crime, disease and despair despite tougher laws to combat the 
use of illegal drugs.

According to Gray, the United States has been following basically the same 
Drug Prohibition policy since 1914, but there are more drugs available 
today than ever before.

The number of prisons has greatly expanded, but their cells are 
overflowing. "Our government," argues Gray, "has attempted to combat the 
critical problem of drug use and abuse with a program of massive prisons, 
demonization of drug users and prohibition of debate about our options."

The common rhetoric from those who oppose any type of discussion regarding 
drug policies is that those of us who favor dialogue are liberals looking 
to legalize drugs.

There is, however, a workable middle ground between zero tolerance on the 
one hand and legalization on the other. Like Gray, I don't support the 
complete legalization of drugs, but I do believe that the government needs 
to find a way to regulate them the way it regulates alcohol.

The cold, hard reality is that we have never been a drug-free society and 
we never will be, whether the drug of choice is alcohol, marijuana or 
heroin. We cannot look at drug use and abuse without looking at the social 
foundations that embody our drug culture.

We must acknowledge this fact and look to ways that will most successfully 
reduce the deaths, disease and crime caused by its presence in our communities.

According to Gray, "Every neutral study in the United States in the past 
hundred years has recommended that some form of drug decriminalization be 
adopted because of the dangers of these drugs, and because prison is the 
worst and least effective approach."

Instead of viewing drug use as a criminal justice problem, we should be 
viewing it as a health problem. Incarcerating drug users without providing 
adequate drug treatment only exacerbates the problem.

Whatever we choose to bring to the table with respect to combating drug use 
and abuse in this country, we must include education, prevention and 
treatment, individual responsibility and positive incentives in our 
discussions. Like Gray, those of us who support reform believe that we 
should approach the issue not as moralists, but as managers.

Countries such as Switzerland have forgone the obsession with morality and 
focused instead on coming up with practical solutions to their drug 
problems. Among them are drug-maintenance programs in which addicts take 
their drugs in controlled, safe, hygienic conditions that are regulated by 
the Swiss government. Applicants must be at least 21 years old, 
drug-addicted for at least two years, show demonstrable health or social 
damage as a result of their addiction, and have failed repeated attempts at 
other drug treatment.

Results of these maintenance programs have been very favorable. Stable 
employment among addicted people went up, criminal activities went down and 
the total amount of monies spent on medical and social care decreased 
dramatically. Even more significant, many of those who left the program 
began treatment in another therapy and were able to abstain from drugs 
entirely. The people who make up these maintenance programs are not 
occasional drug users. They are chronically addicted people similar to 
those who are overcrowding our prisons.

No policy we enact will be perfect, but as a society, we should be willing 
to at least look at alternatives to our current failed system, to at least 
ask ourselves the tough questions, and change what is not working. Those in 
attendance on Sunday were looking to do just that. They were teenagers, 
senior citizens, community leaders, homemakers, parents, business men and 
women, and former drug users, who came together as part of a grass-roots 
movement to rethink how we deal with the multifaceted and complex issues 
surrounding illegal drugs.

They came to ask questions, but more importantly, they came to find answers.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart