POSC 182: Politics and Economic Policy

Prevention should be emphasized in effort

against drug abuse by Nick Weller

IN LAST week's Thresher , Jean Claude De Bremaecker called for an open debate to

discuss this nation's drug problem ("Current nation- al policy on drugs deserves campuswide

discussion").

I would like to second that call and offer my own thoughts and ideas about how to

construct a better drug policy.

When Richard Nixon took office, he began what was called the war on drugs. Seventeen

months later it was ended because Nixon claimed he had won the war. Later, however, presidents

Reagan, Bush and Clinton also declared a war on drugs. In spite of all of the money being spent

to fight drugs, there is still no end in sight. Instead of this futile attempt at punishing drug users,

government policy should dictate an approach which seeks to reduce the social harm of drug use.

Current drug policy places a large emphasis on punishing the offenders of drug laws.

Rolling Stone on May 5, 1994, reported that over 330,000 Americans are behind bars for

violating drug laws. Despite the tremendous number of people behind bars, this policy of locking

up the criminals is not reducing drug use or drug-related violence. It is time to look past these

simplistic solutions which only serve to treat the social effects of drug abuse and not the cause.

Policy goals should be twofold. First, reduce the use of drugs by implementing better

prevention programs. Second, implement policies designed to reduce the harms that come along

with drug abuse and sales.

There is a pattern of drug use stemming from the use of "gateway drugs." According to a

story in the November 1994 issue of Alcoholism Report , people who use tobacco or alcohol are

much more likely to use illicit drugs than people who do not use alcohol or tobacco. Cigarette

smokers who start before age 15 are more than twice as likely to become regular cocaine users as

those who start smoking after 18. By the same token, people who start drinking before age 15 are

more than eight times as likely to be regular cocaine users than those who start drinking after 18.

This suggests that reducing the use of tobacco and alcohol would also reduce the use of illicit

drugs. There has been steadily increasing movement toward reducing teenage tobacco use. A

number of legislators have tried to limit tobacco advertising directed at minors. Most

congresspersons, however, have stymied these attempts, choosing to serve the corporate interests

of R.J. Reynolds instead of the citizens they represent.

The other prevention strategies we need to look at would address delinquency, sexual intercourse

and alcohol and drug use. In Public Health Reports of June 1993, it was reported that these three

factors often occur simultaneously; comprehensive solutions must be addressed. Current

programs of punishment and incarceration do not place enough emphasis on the underlying

causes of the problem. We are simply whitewashing a fence which is rotting from the inside out.

In addition to increased emphasis on prevention, there must also be more focus on

alleviating the harms of drug abuse. One of the greatest harms that comes from drug use is the

spread of HIV. A third of all HIV transmissions are spread by IV needle sharing among addicts.

Needle-exchange programs help reduce HIV transmission.

In 1992, Yale University reported that an exchange program in New Haven, Conn., was

able to reduce new incidences of HIV by 33 percent in one year. Needle-exchange programs are

a simple, cost-effective method of reducing the harm that very often accompanies drug use.

All across the political spectrum, from libertarians to conservatives to liberals, people are calling

for drug legalization. This cry is mainly based around the premise that doing so would reduce the

profit motive associated with drug selling and thus would decrease drug-related violence. The

current problems with drugs is reminiscent of the era of prohibition.

As Rolling Stone points out, "All the available evidence indicates that a switch from a

war-on-drugs approach to a harm-reduction strategy would save lives, reduce disease, cut crime

and contribute to safer, healthier, more livable cities." Whether or not drug legalization is the

panacea it is claimed to be, the current policies are not solving the drug problem. Most of the

problems with drug legalization originate in the fact that many of its champions have trumpeted

civil libertarian reasons. There is a faction of Americans who find this persuasive, but most of

America wants concrete evidence that legalization will improve the drug situation. There needs

to be an effort to carry out well-constructed studies to establish the feasibility of legalizing drugs.

In the meantime, steps are needed to ensure that more effective prevention programs are

implemented.

Congress needs to recognize that without wholehearted efforts to address the multitude of

factors which cause drug abuse, the problem will not get better. Also, effective harms-reduction

strategies, such as needle-exchange programs, should be implemented.

Despite the efforts of Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Clinton, there is still a large drug problem

in this country. The drug problems this country faces cannot be solved by simply locking up

prisoners. These simplistic solutions are a waste of money. Instead, society needs to look at more

holistic methods of treating the drug problem.

As one of the nation's pre-eminent universities, we should help lead this charge to find

solutions to the problem of drug abuse. This debate needs to be a rational discussion. It must

encompass more than emotional pleas for and against changing federal drug policies.

Rice University could do itself and the country a great favor by sponsoring an informed,

lucid debate about the current drug problem.