| SUBSCRIBER LOGIN |
|---|
| News Briefs | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||
| Polls |
|---|
| Special Offer |
|---|
|
|
| Let's Get the Wagons in a Straight Line |
| Columns - First Person | ||||||||
| Saturday, 30 November 2002 | ||||||||
|
With so many people clamoring for a fundamental shift in America's "war on drugs," why do we waste so much time waging a war against each other's viewpoints? At a time of contentious uncertainty in economic, political, and international affairs in America, this is not the moment for divisiveness in the field of addiction policy. For sure, experts on all sides of the issue make excellent points. Yet all of us must strive to set aside our difference and find a platform for cooperation. * Drug Czar John Walters is right-on when he says there isn't enough treatment available to meet the burgeoning needs of addicted people.* Ethan Nadelmann speaks the truth when he says low-level drug offenders need to go to treatment instead of jail. * Joe Califano nails it by underscoring the high cost of "shoveling up" the wreckage caused by drugs and alcohol. * Former First Lady Betty Ford champions the need to put a face on recovery and end discrimination against alcoholics and addicts. * And Congressman Jim Ramstad won't give up his fight to improve private healthcare insurance coverage for addiction treatment. They are all passionate advocates. I admire their tenacity and skill in publicly raising the issues in a sweeping debate from the halls of Congress to the evening television talk shows to ballot boxes in a growing number of states. In the drive to reform the nation's drug policies, the dialogue and discourse under the "Big Top" includes many critical messages. Yet why is it that this tent can't seem to accommodate all of us in the same place at the same time? Why do we spend so much valuable time, energy and money staking our own ground, instead of finding common ground and forging universal messages? These days, what I hear is a cacophony of sound that is muddling the ultimate theme; the war on drugs has failed and the time for change is now. The federal government spends roughly $20 billion a year in this fight, most of which targets the supply. Prevention, research and treatment deserve at least equal billing with tough law enforcement and interdiction. Dr. Alan Leshner, the former head of the National Institute of Drug Abuse, said it best a few years ago: "I've never seen a field more adept at circling the wagons and shooting inward." Amen. A big part of this problem lies with the complex dynamics of alcoholism and drug dependence. Unlike people with cancer, addicts and alcoholics are rarely called victims. Addiction is misunderstood by people and families who struggle with it - the public that suffers the consequences from it - and policy makers who must respond to it. Even among the professionals who treat addiction, there is no universal approach to what works. No wonder addiction runs the gamut of perceptions and emotions that supercharge the policy debate. Politics tend to polarize the issue too. Republicans think Democrats are addicted. Democrats think Republicans need treatment. Legislation that favors anything other than a "get tough" position on drug abuse risks being seen as soft on crime. The war on terrorism only exacerbates the entire situation. It hasn't helped that the real experts - people in recovery - are ambivalent about their responsibility in this debate. With a few notable exceptions such as the Alliance Project, (now the Faces and Voices of Recovery Campaign) and a dozen or so local advocacy groups that were spawned in the late 1990s with financial support from the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, the recovering community is silent on the issues its members know so well. Of course, confusion about anonymity in the 12-step movement is partly to blame - but the harsh reality is that millions of recovering people just don't care to stand up and speak out. All of this results in a drug policy reform debate fraught with emotion, undermined by public misunderstanding and intolerance, and framed by just a handful of skillful and articulate advocates. And for now, at least, it does not appear they are prepared to share their bully pulpits to find similar ground and forge common messages. Sadly, much of the squabbling these days is over individual positions. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt if John Walters and Ethan Nadelmann have ever sat down together and talked policy. I'm not certain Joe Califano is much interested in defining the solution to drug abuse as he is in continuing to identify the problems. I suspect Mrs. Ford and the Betty Ford Center, among other treatment providers, remain wary of ballot initiatives like Proposition 36. And I don't have much hope my friend Jim Ramstad can get President Bush to convene a national summit on addiction. It is time to rally around the fundamental issue that originally sparked this debate - addiction is an illness that affects all of society. Circling wagons spin their wheels but don't go anywhere. The opportunity exists to get the wagons in line and drive in the same direction towards a common goal - a more rational and responsible national policy on addiction and recovery. William C. Moyers is the vice president of external affairs for the Hazelden Foundation, based in Minnesota. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.26
3.26 Copyright (C) 2008 Compojoom.com / Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."             |
||||||||
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
