GOVERNMENT'S ANTI-DRUG TV ADS SHOULD DISTINGUISH BETWEEN SOFT AND
HARD DRUGS, SAYS ONE READER

It's sad that drug policy is one of the major victims of the triumph
of politics over science. After over a decade of research I'm
appalled by the false assumptions that prevail.

At the very least there should be a recognition that after 30 years
of widely available drugs, alcohol accounts for over 80 percent of
drug abuse. The obsession with particular drugs diverts attention
from the abuser (few users become abusers) and the mind set that
makes them vulnerable. That a small minority happen to prefer some
other drug to alcohol is almost irrelevant.

Concern for children also ought to reflect concern for the impact of
prohibition as an economic system with negative side effects,
including drugs that are more available to the young, drugs that
become far more dangerous through lack of regulation and funds
misallocated to futile enforcement instead of effective mental health care.

Recovery from addiction is the norm. Failure to employ harm reduction
practices dooms many to the grave from which there is no recovery.
Can we think early intervention or the recovery process are enhanced
by getting a drug from a street dealer rather than a health care specialist?

Few believe it, but the data shows that whether a drug is legal or
illegal has very little to do with its use. (Example: some 90 per
cent of cocaine users and 96 per cent of marijuana users never even
try heroin.)

If past is prologue, look for an ad with so many distortions that
they will be more likely to produce ridicule than enlightenment about
actual dangers among the the young.

Jerry Epstein

Houston, Texas

(The letter-writer is a researcher for the Drug Policy Forum of Texas.)