Pubdate: Thu, 26 May 2005
Source: Pipestone Flyer (CN AB)
Section: Vol 9, Issue 21
Copyright: 2005, Pipestone Publishing, Millet, Alberta
Contact:  http://www.pipestoneflyer.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/3736
Author: Ted Okkerse, Clifford Schaffer
Note: Editorial by Okkerse in response to LTE from Clifford Schaffer; both 
included in one article

ONE MORE TIME ABOUT DRUGS

I said at one point that I would stop with the Drug related editorials, 
however that was before the two replies from California by one Clifford 
Schaffer.

Mr Schaffer first emailed me when he read my first editorial on my views on 
the subject, and again after my latest. At that time he correctly surmised 
that I had not read the material he had recommended concerning the U.S. 
experience on drugs. As he pointed out, the full text on the subject can be 
found on the internet at;

(http://druglibrary.net/schaffer/library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm)http://druglibrary.net/schaffer/library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm 
I did read as much of it as I had time for. Much of it is repetitious, but 
as he said, it is of some value.

In his rebuttal to me he stated that while the Bible, which I try to refer 
to as much as I can, is a good book, there is more to learn than just that.

He stated that there are libraries full of books on the subject that I 
should read and that I am obviously ill informed on the subject.

What surprised me about the contents of the pages, was how much I actually 
did know about the subject. What I did learn from reading the material, is 
that Mr. Schaffer seems only to be concerned with trying to fix what is 
already broken, not what can still be saved. Or to be more correct, not Mr 
Schaffer but the material he recommended.

There is a lot of reference to the fact that, historically, the media has 
done more damage than good concerning drugs and their spread. The media as 
a whole does tend to highlight the bad and sometimes in an inaccurate and 
damaging manner. I for one will certainly not disagree with that. The 
material also points out that Methadone as a treatment for heroin addicts 
is very effective,. also something I don't dispute. It also states that 
drug addiction cannot be cured, once you are addicted, you are hooked for 
life. I myself smoked for 20+ years, (2 packs a day). I realize that if I 
were to have a smoke now after 18 years of not smoking, I would once again 
be hooked. When children are being told that if you try drugs and become 
addicted, you can be rehabilitated, is for the best part, a dangerous lie.

However in my humble opinion we are trying to fix the wrong end of the 
problem. It kind of reminds me about the cliche of the guy closing the barn 
door after all the horses had run off. I am not saying that addicts should 
not be treated, after all they are ill. However if you don't work on the 
cause, you will never fix the problem. It's like adding water to a leaky 
radiator, you need to fix the hole first.

The root of the problem is in the home, yes I am blaming bad parenting, we 
are by nature headstrong and tend to choose the path of less resistance. As 
far as I am concerned this is where the Bible comes in. There is very 
powerful evidence that tells us that if children are taught right from 
wrong by loving, caring, parents, that set a good example, chances are that 
for the most part, they will have a better chance of turning out good. The 
Bible is the very best source of lifeskill material ever put between two 
covers. However it must be read from cover to cover and no part of it 
should be taken out of context. It is very much like reading an instruction 
manual for putting together a complicated piece of equipment, if you don't 
read and understand the manual, what ever it is you are trying to put 
together will not work, or be flawed in some way. Think how much more 
important it is to read the Bible, it is the users manual for your life.

It doesn't surprise me that we are in the state we are in today. Our 
decisions are twisted by hidden agendas, greed and our own learned 
responses. Parents for the most part have not been taught basic parenting 
skills by their parents, and therefore have no such skills to pass on to 
their children.

Even this is no guarantee of success, but will only insure that they at 
least have the necessary information.

As we are all given the will to choose right or wrong, how we use that 
information could be the subject of a whole other editorial.

Ted Okkerse

We welcome your letters and comments. Please send them to:  Desk, The Millet Pipestone Flyer, 
Box 402, Millet, AB. T0C 1Z0 We reserve the right to edit for brevity and Libel

We have over the years received Letters to the Editor of all kinds, from 
flowers to barbs. However there have been four times that I can clearly 
remember were I have refused a letter. I will not print a letter sent 
anonymously, although I have on occasion printed letters were I have 
withheld the name, I still need the name for my records, without that no 
letter will be published. I also do not print letters that are just plain 
malicious and I am sure that whoever has written one and not seen it 
published knows exactly what I am speaking of.

Re: Your editorial "Probably the last time I ever mention drugs"

Let me share with you something I have learned about the issue. It's about 
the people involved, more than the issue.

Over the years I have debated and discussed the subject at some length with 
literally thousands of people of all varieties of opinion. Many of the 
people who support prohibition share two distinct characteristics.

The first is that they really don't know anything about the subject. Ask 
them any basic factual question about the subject and they simply won't be 
able to tell you. Like, for instance, ask them when and why the drug laws 
were passed; or ask if they have any real understanding of how these 
problems developed; or how many people are killed by drugs; or what the 
major studies of the subject have said, etc., etc., etc.

The problem is that the only knowledge they have of the subject is what 
they read in the newspapers and, as one historian put it, modern drug 
policy is largely the result of "bad media".

The second characteristic is that they refuse to read anything. Even if you 
put the relevant research right in front of them, in a form that is easy to 
read and highly interesting -- they will often flat refuse to read it. They 
just don't want to know. Perhaps the best example was President Richard M. 
Nixon. He commissioned the largest study of the drug laws ever done and, 
when it came back with conclusions he didn't like, he refused to even read 
his own commission's report.

These two characteristics are at the heart of modern drug policy. Ask 
anyone who supports drug prohibition any simple factual question. They 
won't be able to answer. Ask them to simply read the research and they will 
refuse.

In your case, you 1) believe that under all legal systems, drug addicts 
will still steal to support their habits. You obviously don't know the 
history of the subject in the US and Canada, and you don't know what is 
happening in Europe.

and 2) I sent you a link to one of the most fascinating books ever written 
on the subject. For anyone who is even mildly interested in the subject, it 
is a "must-read". You obviously didn't read it. Instead, you read the 
Bible. Well, the Bible is great stuff, but there is still something to 
learn in other books. That's why we have libraries.

Your reaction, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with our drug policy.

Clifford Schaffer

Director, DRCNet

Online Library of Drug Policy

http://www.druglibrary.net
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth