DRUG PROBLEM SOLVABLE WITH RIGHT ATTITUDE

Self-discipline can defeat lure of drugs.

Editor, Commonwealth:

I certainly appreciate the thought and effort that Matt Ausley Jr., M.D. put
into his reply ("Legalization not answer, but neither is drug war," Aug. 19)
to my letter to the editor Aug. 13 ("Legalizing drugs will only add to
problem").

Dr. Ausley is right when he says that the first priority should be to
restore priority to the public interest. After that we disagree.

Dr. Ausley seems to have missed the point entirely. It will never matter
whom we elect as our public officials. Until we as citizens make a conscious
choice to say no to drugs, thereby saying no to addiction, there will always
be a drug problem. Drug dealers do not profit from the drugs or the
politicians, they profit from the addiction of the addict to the drug.

There has to be a first step, to be sure. That first step should be when a
young person says no to a drug dealer and refuses to indulge in the latest
fad drug. That young person will never do that unless he has parents who are
making sure he understands that drugs are wrong, will always be wrong and he
will be held responsible for his actions if he gets caught using drugs.

There is a drug problem in this country, but there are also a lot of young
people and adults who have said no to drugs. Their refusal to indulge and
become addicted has done more to win the war on drugs that anything else. To
say that the problem cannot be solved does these people a great disservice.
The problem can be solved if there is a conscious effort to say no.

As Paul Harvey is fond of saying, "Self-government without self-discipline
will not work." Let Dr. Ausley and other health professionals make more of
an effort to encourage those who have not indulged in drug use to remain
drug free, and those that have indulged in drug use to stop. That would
certainly be an important first step in winning the war on drugs. Dr. Ausley
and other health professionals like him would be using their credentials to
give validity to the argument they are making.

I want to thank you, Editor, for allowing me to reply to Dr. Ausley's letter
and want to thank Dr. Ausley for his critique of my letter.

Charles T. Chapin
Greenwood