QUESTION 8 ADDRESSES ROOT CAUSES OF DRUG ABUSE Vote yes for Question 8 -- if you really want to help fight chemical addiction, if you believe addiction is an illness that can be treated, or if you are simply willing to try something besides well-funded law enforcement that doesn't work and underfunded treatment programs that can't work. Quite simply, although the threat of incarceration may pull some weight with young drug abusers, incarceration does not stop drug use. Prisoners do not get the physical, mental and emotional treatment needed to physically detox them from drugs, nor to treat the root of their emotional problems, problems of which drug abuse is merely a symptom. Most drugs are pain killers, abused by addicts to kill emotional pain. And time has proven that unless the cause of that pain is unearthed and treated in a professional, therapeutic environment, addiction can rarely be beaten. Question 8 reads: A yes vote would give all proceeds seized in drug arrests to treatment programs, instead of law enforcement. It would also allow judges to place first- and second-time drug offenders into treatment programs as an alternative to criminal convictions and jail time. It would tighten the criteria used for asset forfeitures in drug cases. It says we will put money into treatment and we will give our judges the ability to determine if a human being is worthy of a shot at treatment, prior to making the decision to send them to prison, where the odds are they will continue to use drugs, as well as get a criminal education that will allow them to evade the law more successfully when they are freed. Furthermore, and quite importantly, a yes vote on Question 8 will also open the door to a new dialogue about treatment. And, based on years of conversations with the experts, who are the addicts, there is a plan that could be acceptable to the addicts, the therapists and the police. It's called a two-year, lock-up treatment facility. In a very real sense, this is a plan that goes against the grain. Forced treatment doesn't work, most professionals will tell you. But, nearly every addict I've ever spoken with has come to a different conclusion. This may surprise some, but most addicts are not stupid; most addicts do not want to be addicts; most addicts agree they need to be locked up, but in a treatment facility; and most addicts see two years of forced treatment as what they really need to finally kick their habits. And a yes on Question 8 just might open the door to what the experts say they need to get straight. Think about that. The addicts would be getting what they want, which is help; the therapists would be getting what they want, which is to give that help; and the police would be getting what they want, the ability to make arrests and get the addicts off of the streets. It's also a safe guess that it would cost less than prison and free up space for the violent criminals who belong there. As for the loss of revenue for law enforcement? I'm not unsympathetic to the police. Their job is to enforce the law and I'm glad they do. But a yes vote on Question 8 would encourage them to begin a new dialogue, too, about how to best proceed, beginning with, I would hope, defining what a drug dealer is. And it's not an addict busted with 20, 30 or 40 bags of heroin. An average drug addict uses four to eight bags a day, or however much he or she has on hand on any given day. That's what an addict does. You do the math and tell me if he or she is using it and dealing it, too. Fighting drug addiction does take a multi-faceted approach, which includes treatment and law enforcement. But we need to be open to facing the fact that what we have been doing for 30 years has not worked. A yes vote on Question 8 gives Massachusetts the opportunity to redeem its lost status as an innovative state with the courage to lead the nation in reducing the demand side of drug use. It's an approach that is worth trying. In last week's "Our Town" column, we had a discussion about which presidential candidate could best lead in times of crisis. The terrorist attack on the USS Cole and the current Mideast unrest were used as examples. When I decided to ask Gloucester resident Greg Gibson, who lost a son to random violence, what he thought, there was some discussion at the Times' as to whether Gibson, whose story is well-known, should be allowed anonymous status, which in most cases is a trademark of "Our Town." The decision was that he had to use his name, as opposed to "a local businessman," due to his new-found celebrity status. Gibson didn't mind. But in the time it took for me to track him down and get permission to use his name, the column went to press without his input. In an attempt to rectify that glitch, and to honor Gibson's thoughts on violence, his response and my note that preceded that response follows: (Note: The questions and the answers were received prior to debate three. The first respondent brings the question back to home territory. He's waiting to see how the candidates will propose to deal with violence at home, first. As you read what he has to say, his reasoning is obvious, and perhaps more relevant than my use of the Mideast as an example of the violence to be dealt with. All politics are local and I'd forgotten that.) "In 1992, my son was murdered at the door of his college library, the random target of a disturbed fellow student who'd gone on a shooting rampage. "So I had a certain sense of anticipation when I tuned in last Tuesday's debate. After all, both candidates had promised to improve education in America, and certainly this would mean addressing the terribly complex problems of violence -- gun and otherwise -- that plague our schools. I was eager to hear, at long last, how the candidates propose to do this. "Somehow, though, all I got was code. "Thanks to the explanation by moderator Jim Lehrer, I learned what code was, and how efficiently it could be used in a debate. "Liberal, activist justices ..." Gov. Bush would intone. "Clarence Thomas ..." Vice President Gore would reply. "When it came to education, 'Safe Schools' was the code used by both candidates in their laundry lists of proposed educational improvements. The two words took just an instant to be said. If you hadn't been listening carefully, you wouldn't have heard them. At best you might have gained some subliminal assurance. 'Safe' and 'Schools' is a satisfying combination. "What disheartened me most about 'Safe Schools' was that buried within it was a deeper code: a tacit agreement by both candidates not to touch the troubling and divisive issues surrounding gun violence. Neither man acknowledged that our domestic gun industry has continued to produce 2,000 guns an hour and to market them aggressively into a society where there are already more guns than citizens. 'One percent of the richest Americans' and 'fuzzy math' appeared several times, but neither candidate mentioned that our children are five times more likely to be killed by firearms than children in any other industrialized nation. "I can imagine the political reasons for this. In a tight race, neither candidate wants to lose votes to an issue that promises only angry stances and no easy answers. There's no upside for Gore or Bush. But I believe the 10,000 or 20,000 American children who will be killed by firearms next year deserve better than this. "I hope the moderator at the next debate will ask each candidate how he proposes to improve education without addressing the problems of gun violence. I hope he flat out asks each man where he stands on gun control. I will listen carefully, not to see who comes up on the 'right' side of the question, but to learn if either candidate acknowledges there is a problem that badly needs fixing. We've got a lot of work ahead of us on this issue, and I want to know which of these men is most ready to tackle the job." Gail Mountain writes a weekly column. Her e-mail address is gmountain@ecnnews.com.
No member comments available...
|