Opinion: Our drug problem is both a medical and criminal one

Neal Peirce obviously does not get it when it comes to understanding the dangers of mind-altering and addictive drugs. His statement that "... border fortifications, criminal chases and prosecutions have negligible impact on drug addiction... " demonstrates his ignorance about the issue.

We all know that our world is inundated with illegal drugs that are contributing to the spread of diseases, crime and moral decay. Can you imagine how much worse it would be if we did not take steps to fortify our borders and vigorously prosecute the drug dealers and traffickers? In just one sweep by the Drug Enforcement Administration (Operation Conquistador), 2,331 suspected narcotics traffickers were arrested and their drug rings were disrupted. This resulted in eradication of coca fields, the destruction of 94 cocaine labs and the seizure of 5,000 kilograms of cocaine, 56 kilograms of heroin, 14 kilograms of morphine base, 362 metric tons of marijuana, 73 kilograms of hashish oil and an array of drug-making chemicals.

As a parent and law-abiding citizen, I am happy to know that at least some of these dangerous drugs are not making it into our neighborhoods to addict and kill our children. As a drug-prevention specialist who has been engaged in efforts for close to 20 years to curb drug abuse, I also know that, contrary to the picture Peirce painted, we have not lost "the war on drugs." Since the 1970s we have reduced overall drug use in this country by greater than 50 percent. If we had made this kind of progress in the war against AIDS, cancer, high-school dropouts or teenage pregnancies, no one would consider those efforts failures. So why do we label our efforts against drug abuse as such? Could it be that the mantra "The Drug War is a Failure" is a deliberate lie to confuse the public?

Sen. Orrin Hatch's conviction to "shift more government funds toward treatment and prevention" is a far cry from a call for drug legalization. The last thing in the world successful treatment and prevention needs is the legalization of more drugs. Already, our two legal drugs -- alcohol and nicotine -- are the most difficult from which to abstain. Have you ever wondered why? Imagine being in recovery for alcohol and almost every time you go out to eat in a restaurant (with the exception of breakfast), you are offered an alcoholic drink. Do we want to set up the same temptations of other drugs?

Drugs are a medical and criminal problem. Drugs contribute to irresponsible behavior which frequently results in medical problems such as unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, accidents, overdoses and health problems such as cancer, liver and lung damage and death. Drugs also contribute to criminal behavior such as child and spousal abuse, burglaries, rapes, murders and thefts.

As both a medical and criminal problem, drug abuse must be dealt with accordingly through a comprehensive approach of prevention, treatment, and law enforcement and interdiction.

When Gov. Gary Johnson said he guaranteed "that prison rates will drop" if his proposed drug-permissive bills pass in New Mexico, he wasn't just blowing smoke. If his bills make drugs legal, of course the prison rates will drop, because those who are peddling drugs to our children will no longer fill our prison cells. Of course, if we legalize murder, rape and a few other crimes, we can really empty out those prisons, can't we?
Calvina L. Fay, executive director, Drug Free America Foundation Inc., St. Petersburg

Addiction is a disease

We need to make an example of Darryl Strawberry. An example of what a devastating disease addiction is. We need to make people understand that "offenders" are not purposely ruining their lives and those of their families.

If punishment alone could stop addiction, our country would have been free of this scourge a long time ago. It takes treatment and rehab, as many times as necessary -- for few are able to stay clean after one or maybe even several efforts.

We, as a nation, have to come to grips with the notion that this is a disease and must be treated as such. Relapses and remissions will occur as in any chronic disease. Punishment may make us feel like we are doing something, but without long-term treatment, it is a very expensive "feel-good" exercise in futility and failure.

My heart goes out to Darryl Strawberry and those who love him. Maybe by seeing him and other celebrities battle this terrible disease it will bring in front of us how difficult this is and that there are no easy, quick answers.
Doris Whelan, St. Petersburg

Old-fashioned tough love needed

If those concerned with Darryl Strawberry, from judges on down, had seen him from the start -- not as a baseball star who happened to be in trouble but as a person in trouble who happened to be a baseball star -- he'd be playing ball now.

This man's celebrity has, in a word, done him in. If the powers that be really wanted to rehabilitate him they could have put aside who he was (a major job!), then applied good, old-fashioned tough love. No favoritism, no release on weekends, no special privileges, just those tried-and-true cure methods used over and over again on our street junkies until many of them got clean.

And I'll bet, no matter what it may have taken, Darryl Strawberry, baseball star, would have made the cut.
Fred Nassif, Clearwater

Editorial was irresponsible

Your editorial on the tribal recognitions made by Michael Anderson and me in the closing days of the Clinton administration is fraught with errors. That is no surprise, because you rely on a recent series of stories by a Boston Globe reporter who has only a passing acquaintance with journalistic integrity.

The gist of your editorial is that the decisions Mike and I made should be reversed by the Bush administration because they were of questionable propriety. You should know that all of the decisions we made were and are subject to review by both administrative courts within the Interior Department and ultimately by federal courts.

Your editorial suggests that, unless the Bush administration reverses the decisions by extraordinary administrative action, these decisions automatically become final. That is not true. For political appointees of President Bush to reverse decisions of their predecessors without allowing the ordinary appeal process to run its course would in itself be an abuse of power.

Then there is the suggestion in your editorial that these decisions were "sleazy" and done only at the last minute. It is true that some, though not all, of these decisions were made in the last month of the Clinton administration. However, nothing in your editorial, and of course nothing in the Boston Globe, points out that we had been working on these matters for months, even years, before deciding them. The Chinook case had been on my desk for several months; if I was derelict in my duties, it was because I did not act on the Chinook petition sooner than I did. Similarly, Mike Anderson had been working on the Florida gaming issue for three years before issuing his decision.

You also criticize my decisions as having "departed from tradition" by rejecting the staff recommendations on these matters. It is certainly true that I departed from tradition, but it was not a tradition worth following. When I arrived at Interior, the recognition program was failing to meet deadlines imposed by law, Interior was being sued and losing on a regular basis because the recognition program was being conducted in violation of the law, and Congress was growing increasingly restless with the glacial pace of the program in resolving recognition petitions. Business as usual would have been the worst thing we could have done, and blindly following the recommendations of staff who had run the program into a ditch was not an option.

In all of the clatter that has arisen in the past few weeks, I have noted that the substance of the decisions is neither analyzed nor criticized. Neither you nor the Boston Globe argues that we were wrong on the merits, because, I suspect, you have not bothered to read the decisions. Nor did your editorial writer bother to contact Mike or me to verify what the Boston Globe had reported. Certainly reasonable people can disagree about whether our decisions were right or wrong, but to say that a decision you have never read should be reversed is simply irresponsible.

The tribes that I decided were worthy of federal recognition have long and well-established histories. The Chinook people met Lewis and Clark when they arrived at the Pacific Ocean on their Voyage of Discovery. The Eastern Pequot Tribes have been recognized as Indian tribes by the state of Connecticut since well before Connecticut ratified the Constitution. These people are exactly who they claim to be.

Finally, you express concern that I am able, having returned to my chosen profession of tribal attorney, to represent tribes that I had a hand in recognizing while I was in the government. Again, the Boston Globe was told, but did not report, that Mike and I cannot represent any tribe on any matter in which we played a substantial role while we were in government.

The issue of Washington's "revolving door" is a fair one for public debate. That debate, however, should not be limited to those of us who represent Indian tribes. We did not invent this practice, and we should not be excluded from it unless all former government employees are excluded.

It is unfair for your paper to suggest that my decisions as assistant secretary were questionable simply because I might someday represent tribes for whom I made favorable decisions while I was in government. By that standard, the only way I might have avoided being accused of impropriety would have been to rule against all the tribes, all the time. That would have been scandalous.
Kevin Gover, Washington, D.C.

How can we lose

Let me see if I understand this correctly

We pump tainted water into our drinking-water supply.

The scientists in our Legislature "think" we won't get sick and die as a result.

If we do get sick and die, Rep. Les Miller of Tampa will be the first to apologize to the next of kin.

How can we possibly lose with a deal like that?
Patricia A. Vassar, Clearwater

Not interested in apologies

Re: Aquifer may get tainted water, April 12.

State Sen. Les Miller says that if the water is contaminated, "I'll be the first one to apologize."

The ego of legislators, individually or collectively, has no limit.

Does Sen. Miller seriously believe, if the water is contaminated, that a single person in Florida will be interested in an apology?
William Hodges, Tampa

On Election Day, we will apologize

Re: With such wisdom, who needs guarantees?, by Howard Troxler, April 13.

I would give Mr. Troxler a hearty "right on" if the subject matter weren't so serious. What is it about the word "clean" that makes our legislators duck and hide like vampires fleeing the sun? The residents of the Tampa Bay area would like to tell Sen. Les Miller one thing: When election day comes, if you are not re-elected, we will be the first to apologize.
Chris Howard, St. Petersburg

Share your opinion

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page