Topic: War on Drugs
A Tale of Two Cities Two cities, two different approaches to the problem of drug addiction.by RS Davis
(libertarian)
Thursday, October 30, 2008
For drug control methods in two cities, it was the best of times, it was the worst of times. In Washington DC, where they tried more of the same, they got one result, while in Vancouver, where they tried something new, they had an entirely different result.
If you define success as throwing away good money on an effort that has absolutely no positive benefits and actually reinforces the behavior you are trying to discourage, then the ONDCP's National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign has been an amazing success.
They've spent nearly a billion dollars on this program between 1999 and 2004, churning out increasingly absurd ads - from one claiming that buying a dime bag to supplement your Grand Theft Auto addiction would lead to planes crashing into skyscrapers to one claiming children were in mortal danger from stoners on munchie runs at the drive thru - aimed at reducing teen drug use.
The problem is, according to a study commissioned by the very same government that produced the ads, which will be published in the December issue of the American Journal of Public Health, "The evidence does not support a claim that the campaign produced anti-marijuana effects...Despite extensive funding, governmental agency support, the employment of professional advertising and public relations firms, and consultation with subject-matter experts, the evidence from the evaluation suggests that the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign had no favorable effects on youths' behavior..."
What's more - and here's the kicker - "it may even have had an unintended and undesirable effect on drug cognitions and use."
What the researchers meant by that was that kids who otherwise weren't even thinking about the devil's weed, upon seeing the commercials, were of the opinion that their friends were all getting stoned. "Youths who saw the campaign ads took from them the message that their peers were using marijuana. In turn, those who came to believe that their peers were using marijuana were more likely to initiate use themselves."
And these kids saw these ads, on average, three times a week.
Meanwhile, in Vancouver, rather than pumping more time and resources into the same tired and failed methods, they decided to try something new in the battle against drug addiction. The three year, government-funded experiment, called NAOMI, the North American Opiate Medication Initiative, administered in a clinic controlled doses of heroin to users who had tried unsuccessfully to kick the drug multiple times.
According to Dr. Martin Schechter, NAOMI's principal investigator, the results of the program "show it to be very effective."
How effective?
Illicit heroin use dropped 70%
The number of days spent in ancillary illegal activity dropped 50%
The amount spent on drugs dropped 50%
88% of those in treatment stayed at least a year
These are the important points, because they strike at the root of why we have a drug war in the first place. In many ways, we have lost focus, concentrating so much on the evil drugs that instantly addict people, rob them of their free will, and force them to things they wouldn't otherwise do. This is what Jacob Sullum calls "voodoo pharmacology."
But what are the actual goals of drug policy? Protecting the users from bad doses that threaten their lives, stopping the crime around the drug trade, and making potential addicts productive members of society. This study answers all those questions, as the legal version of the drug was controlled and safe. Without the huge black market prices, people could afford to cop, and didn't commit other crimes to support their addiction. They were able to regain some semblance of a normal life again.
Rob Vincent, one of the program participants, was finally able to hold down a job and start rebuilding. He has high praise for the program, saying, "I was actually able to live a normal life."
And in the end, isn't that exactly what we are trying to accomplish? Drugs will be with us always, and addiction will always be a fact of life for a certain percentage of the population - whether it is drugs, alcohol, sex, or shopping. Rather than demonize the drugs themselves and wage an unwinnable war, perhaps a more effective approach is to help people manage their addictions and mitigate the negative consequences.
It worked for Vancouver, and it could work in America.
"I think that once the citizens realize how much crime is going down, how much the load on our health services is going down, how much cheaper it is for everyone, that there's going to be a demand for this kind of program," said Sullivan.
One can only hope.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 8 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of RS Davis only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. RS Davis is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
In the first place, you try to compare two different drugs in two different situations. This is not only like comparing apples and oranges, but comparing one in a hospital (or drug treatment center of some kind) and the other out on the streets. Marijuana and heroin are about as different as ... well, RS Davis and Barack Obama! One is purely recreational with hardly any very long-lasting effects, while the other is a MONSTER that will ruin your life as quickly as Richard Pryor can set fire to himself!
To further impugn these studies, we have no INDEPENDENT verification of the data for the Vancouver group. Instead, you repeat (like the vacuous media we hear so much about) what is spoonfed to you by the group's principal benefactor. If the program gains praise or money, guess who's going to benefit?
Additionally, we have no confirmation of whether these statistical decreases just mean that people no longer show up at the treatment center and, instead, go back on the streets somewhere, or whether they're truly ~ and confirmed by some independent source ~ "cured".
I think you're just a little too willing to accept ~ without even any questions or suspicions ~ this so-called "study" that someone has written so that he can get even more funding.
Pretty poor research, Mr. Davis. Maybe you should try both drugs and see if you think they're comparable.
For anyone who has no background on my dealings with Master C - it is not that I don't have good responses to his criticisms - I do. It is just that he cannot debate respectfully, and I finally had to tell him that I was no longer going to respond to his comments on my articles.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
