Search Salon

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Recently in Salon Health & Body

Column
Lighten up, Sandy baby
The recent Supreme Court decision on nude dancing had Justice O'Connor ruling on G-strings and pasties.
By Virginia Vitzthum
[04/04/00]

Urge: Naked World
Blame Canada
Canadians are importing U.S. sperm in record amounts.
By Jack Boulware
[04/04/00]

Urge: Naked World
Nude for better or worse
Kathleen Turner shows all in stage version of "The Graduate."
By Jack Boulware
[04/03/00]

Books
The myths and truths of our muscle of love
An interview with Sherwin B. Nuland, author of "The Mysteries Within: A Surgeon Reflects on Medical Myths."
By David Bowman
[04/03/00]

Extreme Ritalin
The drug should not become the moral equivalent of, or substitute for, better parenting and schools.
By Lawrence H. Diller, M.D.
[03/31/00]

Complete archives for Health & Body

- - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Massing wants us to direct our attention at so-called "hard drugs" rather than marijuana. Here again, his analysis is flawed. Marijuana, the first illegal drug most young people try, is a gateway substance. An article in the March edition of the American Journal of Public Health Studies notes that marijuana use is an important precursor to the use of other drugs. By preventing or delaying youngsters from trying marijuana, we dramatically decrease the likelihood that a child will have a substance-abuse problem later. Preventing marijuana is thus smart public-health policy.

Also Today "Dead I can't do anything" Francisco Santos, a former kidnap victim of drug lord Pablo Escobar, became a symbol of hope for Colombians weary of violence and fear. But when leftist guerrillas ordered him killed, he had to flee to the U.S. By Ana Arana

Moreover, Massing's view that marijuana is somehow "soft" or benign and that "a convincing case can be made for legalizing, or at least decriminalizing, marijuana ..." is out of touch with reality.

• An article in this month's American Journal of Public Health notes that marijuana (and alcohol) "use increases risks for a range of serious adolescent health and behavior problems."
• According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, children who begin smoking "pot" at an early age are less likely to finish school and more apt to engage in acts of theft, violence, vandalism and other high-risk behavior than children who do not smoke marijuana.
• The ONDCP-sponsored report "Marijuana and Medicine," prepared by the Institute of Medicine, indicates that 9 percent of marijuana users became dependent on the drug.
• Legalizing marijuana would give young people greater access to this psychoactive drug. Arguing for a policy that would result in more young people using marijuana is irresponsible since this drug adversely affects children's health.

Massing's pro-marijuana bias colors his views of the administration's drug-prevention efforts. He argues that "at the moment, drug prevention consists mainly of 'This is your brain on drugs'-type messages aired on television or taught in classrooms." America's National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign -- a five-year, $2 billion public-private partnership -- uses the full power of the modern media (television, comic books, curriculum, the Internet, sports marketing, newspaper ads, billboards and grass-roots efforts) to help young people reject drugs. The campaign goes far beyond "just say no." In fact, it gives young people things to which they can say "yes." For example, we are sponsoring youth anti-drug soccer tournaments across the country, an anti-drug bike clinic at the Summer X-Games, online rock concerts with anti-drug themes, and a pilot program funding a New York Rangers anti-drug hockey clinic in the New York metropolitan area. This campaign is unlike anything the federal government ever did previously.

The campaign works precisely because of these cutting-edge efforts. Studies show that not only are our messages getting noticed, but they are already having an impact on behavior. A 1999 study by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America found that:

• In just one year, the number of youth (ages 13-18) who strongly felt that "really cool" teens don't use drugs went up 5 percent (40 percent in 1999 compared to only 35 percent in 1998). Only 8 percent of youth believe marijuana users are popular, down from 13 percent in 1998.
• In one year (1998 to 1999) the number of teens who tried to talk a friend out of drug use increased to 41 percent, up from 38 percent.

With the campaign now reaching 95 percent of its target audience (youth and adults who care about children) roughly seven times per week, it is hard to see how Massing missed the blitz of media messages encouraging healthy lifestyles.

In his zeal to criticize, Massing paints the Nixon era as a drug-policy Utopia, which he holds up as a model. In fact, this analysis is about as useful as comparing the world of communications in the 1970s with the year 2000 without considering the impact of the Internet or cell phones. America during the Nixon administration had yet to experience crack cocaine and the drive-by violence this drug brought to our neighborhoods. Methamphetamine production, perhaps the greatest drug threat to America today, was still small and discrete -- largely confined to biker gangs. The cold-cooking method of meth production, which over the last few years has helped spread this drug across the nation, did not exist until the 1990s.

Massing's analysis of drug budgets under Nixon and Reagan is disingenuous. In 1972, the year he suggests overnight success was achieved due to "hundreds of millions of dollars" for treatment facilities, total spending on demand reduction was $239 million (which includes both prevention and treatment). That figure equals less than $1 billion in 1999 dollars, or less than 20 percent of current spending in this area. Massing's assertion that these programs were "gutted" by the Reagan administration is curious, given the fact that federal spending on demand reduction increased every year during the 1980s (as it did in the 1990s for that matter).

Massing reveals his prejudice when criticizing White House Drug Policy Director Barry McCaffrey simply because of his military service. (Most Americans see honor in McCaffrey's long career of public service, including his heroism in defense of this nation.) Massing ignores McCaffrey's success in fighting drugs during his tenure as "drug czar."

Under director McCaffrey, the nation's counter-drug budget grew from $13.5 billion in 1996 to a projected $19.2 billion in 2001, an increase of 42 percent. During this same time frame, the amount of money dedicated to drug prevention increased by roughly $850 million, or 53 percent. Similarly, funding for drug treatment rose $985 million, or 35 percent.

At the same time, director McCaffrey has spearheaded efforts to increase drug treatment within the criminal justice system, provide insurance parity so addiction would be covered like any other disease and increase access to quality methadone treatment programs for heroin addicts. He also fought to end the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentencing guidelines.

With respect to drug prevention, McCaffrey launched the Youth Media Campaign, created the Drug-Free Communities Program (which funds prevention efforts for local community coalitions), developed the National Middle School Drug and Violence Coordinators Program and protected the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program (America's largest drug-prevention program). Massing ignores this record in favor of building a strawman to tear down.

Rather than creating a fictitious drug-control policy to attack, confining oneself to reality would be far more useful. Our National Drug Control Strategy is a balanced approach to combating the scourge of drugs. It is working. Consider the following facts:

• The National Household Survey released in 1999 found that overall youth drug use is down 13 percent, youth cocaine use dropped 20 percent and youth inhalant use plummeted 45 percent in just one year.
• Drug-related murders have hit the lowest point in over a decade.
• In the last four years, the amount of money Americans waste buying drugs decreased from $66.8 billion to $63.2 billion.
• In Latin America, Bolivia reduced coca cultivation by 55 percent since 1995 while in Peru cultivation declined 66 percent.

These achievements have brightened the future for our children, made our streets safer, and left our hemisphere more stable. On an issue as important as drug policy, we cannot afford to distort reality.

-- Robert Housman
Assistant director, strategic planning
The White House

Next page | Michael Massing responds