Shifting Strategy In The Drug War |
Posted by FoM on July 07, 2001 at 09:44:23 PT Opinion Source: Chicago Tribune With little noise the Bush administration is shifting the tone and direction of the debate about substance abuse. Some changes proposed by Bush are long overdue, others innovative, still others not aggressive enough. But they hold the promise of a needed re-evaluation of the fight against illicit drugs. That fight ought to be firmly grounded on what works. Let research and results--not rhetoric, moralizing or politics--guide any new federal strategy against substance abuse. When Bush announced the nomination in May of John Walters as the new drug-policy adviser, critics quickly charged that the nominee represented the old lock-'em-up school of fighting drugs. Looking at Walters' record as deputy drug czar under the president's father, there are grounds for such fears. But if you follow the money--and the president's statements--it's hard to miss a significant shift toward treatment of drug addiction as a disease rather than mostly a police problem. "This administration will focus unprecedented attention on the demand side of this problem," said Bush, who pledged to spend an additional $1.5 billion over the next five years on drug-treatment programs. This is a modest commitment but a good start. Since the war on drugs began, funding has been tilted in favor of law enforcement by about a 3-to-1 ratio. The present budget of $19 billion reflects this imbalance, but Bush's words and proposals promise that treatment's share may increase. Encouraging too is Bush's promise to target 5 million hard-core users. The majority of them are poor, and many don't have medical insurance. It's estimated that half of these addicts have no access to treatment. In addition, Bush has ordered a Cabinet review of all federal anti-drug efforts to determine their efficacy. This is all long overdue. Scientists at the Substance Abuse Policy Research Center, a project of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, argue that if street prices and availability of hard drugs are any indication, this country's costly, supply-side war against drugs has been a bust. But on the treatment side, new drugs have become available to tackle some types of addiction, and scientists have made strides in understanding how addiction and drugs affect the brain. Additional funding is needed to more clearly understand the physiological underpinnings of addiction and how this disease can be treated. Bush's controversial effort to open federal funding to faith-based groups that address a wide variety of social needs may prove particularly helpful in fighting substance abuse. The most successful rehabilitation programs traditionally have had a strong spiritual component that, combined with medical interventions, still offer the best hope for helping addicts. In this case, a bias for or against religion ought not be the guiding criterion. Again, the most important factor should be who or what gets results. For decades, the war on drugs has been grinding on--and burning up billions in federal funding--with distressingly meager results. Even if it turns out to be a limited effort, no one should begrudge President Bush for trying to add some new thinking to this enterprise. Source: Chicago Tribune (IL) Robert Wood Johnson Foundation CannabisNews Articles - Treatment Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
Comment #16 posted by Lehder on July 08, 2001 at 07:32:54 PT |
could you put a END ITALICS symbol after "The majority of them are poor...."? Maybe that will fix it. maybe. This site needs a "preview comment" like many others have. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #15 posted by Lehder on July 08, 2001 at 07:25:32 PT |
With little noise the Bush administration is shifting the tone and direction of the debate about substance abuse. Some changes proposed by Bush are long overdue, others innovative, still others not aggressive enough. But they hold the promise of a needed re-evaluation of the fight against illicit drugs. This article displays a slight shift in rhetoric, replacing the word prison with the word treatment, meaning forced treatment under the threat of prison, treatments which will take place - guess where - in prisons: That fight ought to be firmly grounded on what works. Let research and results--not rhetoric, moralizing or politics--guide any new federal strategy against substance abuse. When Bush announced the nomination in May of John Walters as the new drug-policy adviser, critics quickly charged that the nominee represented the old lock-'em-up school But if you follow the money--and the president's statements--it's hard to miss a significant shift toward treatment of drug addiction as a disease rather than mostly a police problem. "This administration will focus unprecedented attention on the demand side of this problem," said Bush, who pledged to spend an additional $1.5 billion over the next five Encouraging too is Bush's promise to target 5 million hard-core users. The majority of them are poor, and many don't have medical insurance. It's estimated that half of these addicts have no access to treatment. The majority of them are poor.... The majority of people who use dope have money to buy it with, honestly earned money. You don't support a $300 Billion industry by stealing hubcaps and VCRs. The majority of Blacks and Hispanics have less education and income than Whites. Color me subversive too. But on the treatment side, new drugs have become available to tackle some types of addiction.... and scientists have made strides in understanding how addiction and drugs affect the brain. Additional funding is needed to more clearly understand the physiological underpinnings of addiction and how this disease can be treated. What does 'new drugs to tackle addictions' mean? It means forced, mandatory injections of catalytic antibodies so that the "rush of smoking a large dose of crack might be reduced to the less overwhelming level of snorting a few milligrams of powdered cocaine." It means that addicts forced into treatment will simply require more money to buy much larger doses of black market dope to first overcome the antibodies and then more dope still to get high. Another counter-productive government cure-all conceived to make the real addicts more miserable and to expand and intensify the drug war industry - exactly as promised by John Ashcroft - and all under the threat of prison for users of drugs less harmful than the diarrhea and headache yielding potions pushed on TV every 6 minutes. The most successful rehabilitation programs traditionally have had a strong spiritual component that, combined with medical interventions, still offer the best hope for helping I havn't got time to join the growing numbers of AA bashers today - they're easy to find on the Internet and they have some good points. AA, the original 12-step self-help program, also has much that can be said in its favor. It's voluntary. It works for some people. It has a success rate of about 10%. But a growing number of its attendees carry with them some court paperwork which must be signed at the end of each meeting for periodic presentation to a judge or probation officer. AA is being abused as an arm of the law. Its program requires that the member admit that his life is out of control, that he has a disease and that this "disease" requires life-long "treatment" - by AA. This is not for everybody. Most people who quit booze or dope simply quit all on their own and fairly effortlessly - once they've decided to quit. Others drink or dope all their lives without real imposition on anyone. The government's position , as always, is that all drug use is abuse, is a disease and must be treated. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #14 posted by Gary50 on July 07, 2001 at 22:51:22 PT:
|
I was disturbed to find Scientology WAS behind SOME drug-treatment programs, when I set out to prove otherwise...VERY disturbed. I assure you there is NO connection between Scientology and ANY true A.A. programs..(I.E. Alanon..) Polluted AA cannot work, whether polluted be Scientology, some forms of "Christianity", of by government co-ercion..... I've smoked pot since I was a "hippy" back in 1969, having also tried every other drug that came my way. The only drug that ever gave me any problems was alcohol. There came a point in my life after which I could NOT quit, nor regulate my alcohol use, (which I miraculously DID survive). I've been a Christian since birth, but I credit A.A. for showing me just HOW to relate to MY God. Hey, It WORKS for me, but let me assure you that if, somehow, the legal system were to FORCE me into ANY treatment program, it would not work! Upon my release, my only consideration would be how far I had to walk, to get some booze. That's just the way it IS.. Now, as far as Honesty being a "hallmark of A.A.", that is true, but why would a person HAVE to be honest about his wife's MMJ ? (whatever that IS). You ONLY NEED to be honest about yourself, in AA, and only TO yourself...You don't owe those assholes NOTHIN'!!! I say that only because it is necessary not to put them on a pedestal...especially if it leads to an EXCUSE to quit going to meetings..if you can survive not going to meetings, maybe you never needed them in the first place....As far as Bush trying to use faith based organizations to save budget dollars, well that's par for the government...LEGALISE NOW!!!! [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #13 posted by Rambler on July 07, 2001 at 22:03:04 PT |
It's a pretty spooky thing that scientology is behind narcanon.If one browses thru the net,scientology is exposed as the grotesque thing that it is.It's quite horrifying. They willprobably be involved in many of the new "treatment" programs under prop 36...... http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/dianetics.html http://home.snafu.de/tilman/#cos [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #12 posted by lookinside on July 07, 2001 at 21:45:00 PT:
|
thank you very much...Narconon is definitely not what i assumed...i stand corrected... concerning NA,AA,and ALANON...these are legitimate, non [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #11 posted by Rambler on July 07, 2001 at 21:19:55 PT |
Look at this Lookinside http://www.csj.org/infoserv_groups/grp_scientology/grpindex_scientology.htm [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #10 posted by lookinside on July 07, 2001 at 20:06:00 PT:
|
i made an assumption that i'm not sure about...ALANON is definitely an organization formed to help those whose loved ones are alcoholics...i assumed that NARCONON is to Narcotics Anonymous that ALANON is to AA...in my area, the NA groups are too small to form a support group for family members...at least that i've heard of... if i'm mistaken in my earlier assumption concerning [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #9 posted by Rambler on July 07, 2001 at 19:39:34 PT |
I gladly stand corrected if I am wrong. How sure are you that narcanon has no connection to Scientology?I am quite certain that scientology is behind several major treatment shams,but their affiliation is kept very low key.I could easily be wrong about narcanon..etc.. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #8 posted by lookinside on July 07, 2001 at 19:24:01 PT:
|
Alanon and narconon are part of 2 well known 12 step programs...these organizations are based on MEMBERSHIP funding..they do not and will not take money from churches or the government...they are non profit... their only goals are to help those who WANT help...whether these groups are NOT big business...usually they are i attended AA for years, i've been sober for 8 AA/NA are SPIRITUAL programs, but are NOT affiliated to any Please be careful who you include when you talk about on the other hand, i detest Scientology...i've seen too many [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #7 posted by zion on July 07, 2001 at 18:14:53 PT |
My take on the faith-based initiatives is that the Republicans are trying to jump-start a return to church-funded social programs, which is where it belongs. In the past 40 years, organized religion in America has turned its back on its traditional role to help the needy, the homeless, the orphans, widowed, poverty-stricken and alcoholic/hardcore drug addicted/abused of society. I believe this has occurred because government stepped in and thought it could do a better job. So now not many churches pitch in to lend a helping hand to the community because, well, that's what "welfare" is for, what "FEMA disaster recovery checks" are for, what "insurance claims" are for. So, I think Bush is trying to facilitate a move back in the church-based direction, but he seems totally oblivious to the hypocrisy of using government funding to boost private sector charity programs. Just more examples of how dysfunctional our federal bureacracy has become, and how much the Republican party has gone back on their stated goals of less government. To Cannabis Crusader - there is no formal "separation of Church and State" in the consititution. Merely a prohibition against establishing a national religion, with a guarentee to uphold the free exercise of all religions. -z [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #6 posted by kaptinemo on July 07, 2001 at 17:03:32 PT:
|
Shrubya's only paying lip service to the idiotic Religious Right who, like every time a Republican is up for the Presidency, turns out their troops to beat the drum for the Reps...and then stand with the Presidential urine dripping from their faces as Big Business horns in and gets the goodies. You'd think the Robertsons and the Falwell's would have tumbled to the fact that historically they've been used like toilet paper every time they get involved in politics. In fact, Robertson in one of his books actually pointed fingers and named names of those who were behind the Bush Prime presidency. But they still are eternally hopeful that they can get one of their own into the White House. Bush Too is a puppet, but he's not the RR's puppet. But he has to at least make noises like he is. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #5 posted by Rambler on July 07, 2001 at 16:00:21 PT |
I agree with you CannabisCrusader & FoM.It's just bizzarre to think that this faith based crap is going to work.Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell wil get cut checks for millions of dollars.Scientology,and it's multi-tentacled subsidiaries,(alanon,narcanon,,and on and on)will also get massive amounts of money,with almost zero accountability. It is absolutely preposterous!How the hell is our government getting away with this shit! well come to think of it, it's the same way we got shafted and ended up with the shrubya that answers everything. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #4 posted by FoM on July 07, 2001 at 15:35:24 PT |
My feelings about faith based treatment programs is this. They're wrong. They won't work. I'm not saying that people can't get involved in a Church of their choice and find a way to help themselves with a drug problem, but money corrupts. We are not a Judeo-Christian faith only country and that is the way they are leaning and that's what makes the whole concept wrong in my eyes. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #3 posted by Cannabis Crusader on July 07, 2001 at 15:12:28 PT:
|
The last time I looked, separation of church and state was still part of the constitution. This "faith based" program opens up a whole new can of worms. No matter what Bush claims, this program is foolishly dangerous. No matter what Bush thinks some religious groups will be discriminated against. Will someone with a cannabis "abuse" problem be sent to a Rastafarian program? (I'm mean no disrespect to Rastas at all. I just wanted to illustrate a point that discrimination is inevitable.) Religion is a personal issue and in my opinion has no place in politics, no exceptions. Apparently the founders of this country agreed with me or separation of chuch and state would have never been included in the Constitution. Again, I mean absolutely no disrespect to any person except Bush. I hate to see any group of people being discriminated against. Anything that introduces or promotes discrimination of any group of people shouldn't even be considered for the very reason that the members of the religious groups that will be discriminated against also pay the taxes which would fund the programs. Bush just seems to continue to make himself look like the "village idoit," which really scares the hell out of me. We must respect and protect the rights given to us by the Constitution, and this "faith based" program idea definitely undermines those rights. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #2 posted by JSM on July 07, 2001 at 14:01:59 PT |
Stop the hypocrisy, stop the lies, legalize.... [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #1 posted by meagain on July 07, 2001 at 10:39:51 PT |
What about the rest of us who think marijuana can be responsibly used and want to do so legally are you going to accomodate us or give us a one-way ticket to Amsterdam??? Da plane Da plane Bird Bird the bird is the word.. [ Post Comment ] |
Post Comment | |