I've read with increasing interest about the education versus incarceration
debate, and after Chuck Armsbury's article feel it's time to respond.

As a chemical dependency professional, I work with many people in the grips
of addiction. There seems to be a false belief that the court system and
law enforcement are only interested in "punishing" these poor, addicted
souls. The truth is, any alcohol or drug-related offense requires a
drug/alcohol assessment, and the individual is also required to complete
the treatment recommendations. Yes, they are punished because they broke
the law and potentially put others at risk, but they are not only given the
opportunity, they are required to get help for their addiction. The problem
occurs when the individual refuses to accept the treatment, not the
"system" failing to provide it. You can lead a horse to water...

Armsbury seems to be arguing that since many used amphetamines in the 1960s
and '70s, they should be legal now. Apparently he wasn't paying attention
when the dangers of the drug became known. I would ask him to talk with
professionals at Eastern State Hospital who had to treat the psychosis
caused by amphetamine use. It might change his mind.

I understand the legalization argument, but I've also seen the threat of
legal consequences provide the necessary incentive to finally treat the
disease that has caused an incredible amount of pain to the individual and
his/her loved ones. For that reason alone, I believe the laws should remain.

One more thing, Mr. Armsbury, physicians "dispense" Ritalin, not teachers.

Deb Noble
Spokane, WA