DON'T FORGET PERMANENT EFFECTS OF DRUGS

'Memory loss': Schools should test students for use,
abuse

During the recent Christmas holiday, I visited with a long-time
friend, a retired physician. He casually mentioned that his early
medical training (at the University of Iowa) had included - even then
in the early 1960s - learning that the steady use of marijuana for an
extended period of one's life results in memory loss.

This "memory loss," he explained, is permanent. Surprising as it might
be to some of us, this straightforward, factual medical knowledge was
routinely transmitted to young doctors-to-be almost 40 years ago.

My friend's casual statement of fact is quite unlike the popular,
hopeful notion that such loss of memory consists only of a temporary
loss of "short term memory."

"No," said my physician friend, "the memory loss is permanent." A
confirmed, steady smoker of pot simply finds it difficult to remember
things in general.

So, marijuana is not only a matter of that wonderful feeling of "peace
and love" after all. It is permanent loss of much of a regular pot
smoker's ability to remember. That is not the only negative effect, of
course. Others are well-known but often airily discounted in favor of
the more impressive (albeit transient) inducement of a chemically
contrived feeling of "peace" and "love."

Indeed. Many illegal drugs share the ability to destroy an
individual's interest in personal responsibility, in learning, in
work, in others' welfare - in fact sometimes in anything except the
next peaceful and loving high, or the next mind-numbing,
world-detaching "fix."

Yet amazingly, some reasonable, well-meaning folks don't get
it.

A relatively recent crackerbarrel meeting sponsored by the League of
Women Voters and others (reported in the TH, Feb. 7) revealed a clear
difference of opinion even between same-party politicians on this
issue of whether we should "let kids do drugs" (out of respect for
their "right to privacy") or "stop the damage that harmful, illegal
drugs do to kids' (out of recognition of society's need to protect its
children and itself from harm).

The Maquoketa School Board, in proposing testing for illegal (harmful)
drug use by students who participate in extracurricular activities,
has courageously and effectively raised this specific issue for the
first time in Iowa (a few in other states already have taken similar
action).

However, those who live by rote mantras like "freedom" and "privacy"
and indiscriminate "respect for individual rights" just never seem to

get it (some of these even allege that it is a "right" to be empowered
to kill oneself).

Such folks, you might ask, "never get what?"

They never get this fact of life straight: that children and youth
need nurturing, including (besides instruction) help, protection and
even assistance in correcting mistakes. The use of mind-bending drugs
for example, is a mistake. Think about this: When a drug is
detrimental to its user, "drug use" is always drug abuse.

State Sen. Tom Flynn, D-Epworth, through some act of grace, has
thought about this and, after reflection,he has "concluded a real need
exists for better prevention and treatment" of drug abuse. His
colleague Sen. Mike Connolly, D-Dubuque, still does not get it.
Connolly is a very nice man; I have known Mike since he was just a pup
- - a rookie teacher at Dubuque Senior.

Still, like others who prefer to let freedom roll, unchecked, Connolly
believes urinating in a cup constitutes an invasion of privacy. He is
quoted as asking, "What are we teaching (students) on the issue of
privacy" when we test for drug abuse?

Really now, Mike. Compare this to the long-ago concerns about "gang
showers." Some folks seriously thought that having a dozen or so
people look at another's naked body was an invasion of privacy. Maybe
so, but is privacy seriously threatened by urinating in a cup to allow
a professional to examine a bodily waste product to determine if a
young person needs help? Consider whether we should instead ask: What
are we teaching students about health when we do not care enough to
test for drug abuse?

The so-called "right" to refuse to provide a urine specimen, when it
is necessary for the protection of the student and his or her friends
and the society of which we are all a part, is a sham right. The
freedom-pushing ACLU also will opt for the pointless refusal and
denounce the test, but that organization does not get it either: in
addition to freedom (civil liberties), kids need protection; they
always have and they always will.

Moreover, no rational, nurturing adult society will fail to protect
its young, nor will responsible adults allow children to destroy
themselves or the society that holds them dear.

This drug-testing issue is not about hallowed, very real principles
like "freedom" and "privacy." It is entirely about protecting our
kids' health and promoting the general welfare of society (another
"principle" that is mentioned in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution
- - one would think that the Bill of Rights was not intended to flout
this other, fundamental principle).

Like Sen. Connolly, some will continue to worry about the so-called
trauma of giving a urine specimen, warning us of some sort of threat
to individuals' privacy rights when someone urinates in a cup like we
all do in routine physical exams.

Protectors of the illegal-drug business even raise the issue of the
cost of the test. OK, let's address the cost issue: how much is the
balance of a child's life worth? That balance, that remainder of a
child's life,clearly can be destroyed by "protecting" the childish
drug user's privacy and therefore permitting that child's continued
abuse of drugs. That is real cost.

How can anyone not get it? Drug abuse threatens our young. A cure
requires a diagnosis. A diagnosis requires a test. Fortunately, this
test is easy, accurate and simple. Put aside the meaningless mantras
and tired slogans that urge us to evade responsible action. Save
children's lives. Protect their future, and with theirs, ours.

Yes. Test for drug use/abuse. Test as often as a child or group of
children might need protection. Write to your legislator and explain
the good in the creation of law that will enable school districts to
protect their kids if, as, and when necessary. The payoff is far
greater than the investment.

Yes. Test; treat; cure. Save lots of kids' futures. Preserve their
health and perhaps their ability to remember and learn from their past.

McClure, a Dubuque writer, is a former high school and college teacher
and speech consultant. Readers may write to him in care of the
Telegraph Herald, P.O. Box 688, Dubuque, Iowa 52004-0688, or via
e-mail: mcclureml@aol.com