Pubdate: Sat, 10 Feb 2001
Source: St. Petersburg Times (FL)
Copyright: 2001 St. Petersburg Times
Contact:  490 First Ave. S, St. Petersburg, FL 33701
Website: http://www.sptimes.com/
Forum: http://www.sptimes.com/Forums/ubb/cgi-bin/Ultimate.cgi
Section: Opinion page 12A
Author: Mike Males
Note: Mike Males is a Justice Policy Institute senior researcher and 
sociology instructor at the University of California, Santa Cruz.
Note: Reprinted from the Los Angeles Times.
Also: Please note that this OPED was originally posted in error as being 
from the Tampa Tribune. The error has been corrected in the MAP archives. 
We regret any confusion this has caused.
See: the DrugSense Weekly's editorial response at:
http://www.drugsense.org/dsw/2001/ds01.n186.html#sec3

TEENS ARE NOT THE ISSUE IN DRUG WAR

Remarks by retiring drug czar Barry McCaffrey and accolades for the Steven
Soderbergh film Traffic by drug-policy reform groups frame a vigorous
drug-war debate - circa 1970. Thirty years ago, McCaffrey's goal to save
our children from their own drug use might have been relevant. So, too,
Traffic's scenes of the daughter of the film's drug czar sampling heroin in
response to the hypocrisies of liquor-swilling and pill-popping grownups.

But these vintage baby-boom notions have little to do with today's drug
realities. On one side, the rhetorical distortions and misdirected policies
of the Office of National Drug Control Policy squandered billions of
dollars and locked up millions of drug users - and the United States is
enduring the worst drug-abuse crisis in its history. As McCaffrey leaves
office, the federal, Drug Abuse Warning Network reports that drug abuse
soared to record peaks in 1999: An estimated 555,000 Americans were treated
in hospitals for drug-related visits; at least 11,600 died from overdoses.

On the other side, reformers seeking to decriminalize marijuana and relax
drug policies perpetrate so many drug-war myths that they reinforce
hardline attitudes even as they win minor improvements.

The chief drug-war myth is the "demographic scapegoat." Wars against drugs
(including Prohibition) always seek to link feared drugs to feared
populations: the Chinese and opium; Mexicans and marijuana; black musicians
and cocaine; and Catholic immigrants and alcohol.Today's war on drugs
sustains itself by depicting white suburban teenagers menaced by inner-city
youths' habits.

No matter who peddles it, this image is unreal.

In truth, the drug- abuse crisis chiefly concerns aging baby boomers,
mostly whites.

A high schooler is five times more likely to have heroin-, cocaine-or
methamphetamine-addicted parents than the other way around; far more senior
citizens than teenagers die from illegal drugs.

Accordingly, a "war on drugs" that truly cared about protecting children
would make treating parents' addictions its top priority.

The "teenage heroin resurgence" repeatedly trumpeted in headlines and
drug-war alarms is fabricated; it shows up nowhere in death, hospital
treatment or survey records.

The Drug Abuse Warning Network's most recent hospital survey reports 84,500
treatments for heroin abuse nationwide in 1999; just 700 of these were for
adolescents. Of 4,800 Americans who died from heroin abuse, only 33 were
under 18 years old. Media panics over supposed teenage heroin outbreaks in
Portland and Seattle last summer collapsed when the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention reported the average overdoser was 40 years old.

Teenage "heroin epidemics" breathlessly clarioned in some California cities
are refuted by hospital records that show just nine of San Francisco's 3100
emergency treatments for heroin overdoses in 1999 were teenagers, as were
17 of San Diego's 1100 and two of los Angeles's 2950. Why aren't there more
teen heroin casualties? Few use it. The National, Household Survey on Drug
Abuse, released in September 2000, showed that .2 percent of 12- to
17-year-olds had used heroin at any time in the previous year. Nor are the
few heroin initiators getting younger (most remain over 21).

There are preppie kids who smoke heroin, as Traffic depicts,. but their
numbers pale beside the tens of thousands of baby boomers whose addictions
are rooted in the Vietnam era. Four-fifths of California's heroin decedents
are over the age of 30, and three-fourths of them are white, a
quintessentially mainstream demographic neither drug warrior nor drug
reformer wishes to target.

Thus, policy debate and cinematic representations promote a comfortable
myth: Baby-boom drug days are behind us.

Similarly, drug-reform publications such as Drug-Sense Weekly allege an
"increase in heroin use among our youth" to indict the drug war. Mike Gray,
author of Drug Crazy, and other reformers claim decriminalizing and
regulating marijuana for adults would make it harder for teenagers to get.
Ridiculous. The 1999 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse reports 12- to
17-year-olds use legal, adult-regulated cigarettes and alcohol 100 times
more than they use heroin; two to three times more teens drink or smoke
than use the most popular illicit, marijuana. Teenagers can get alcohol and
drugs whenever they want them, yet suffer very low casualties. Drug
reformers' own research gospel, the Lindesmith Center's exhaustive
"Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts," finds no scientific reason why
teenagers should be banned from using marijuana that would not also apply
to adults.

In short, teenagers are not the issue.

Drug policy will change only when compelling new information is introduced.
That means discarding first-wave baby-boomer drug images and moving toward
second-generation realities.

Throughout the Western world, young people are reacting against their
parents' hard-drug abuse by patronizing softer drugs, such as beer and
marijuana.

It's understandable that baby boomers would indulge moral panic over any
drug use by kids while denying their own middle-aged drug woes, but these
illusions should not govern 2000-era drug policy.

The Netherlands' 1976 Dutch Opium Act reforms recognized that modern
soft-drug use by young people is separate from the midlife hard-drug
crisis. Dutch studies showed that marijuana and hashish use was unrelated
to hard-drug abuse, except among a small fraction already inclined to
addiction.

These conclusions were confirmed by the National Household Survey on Drug
Abuse analysts and long-term studies by University of California
researchers. True, most drug abusers first tried drugs in their youth, as
did most non-abusers. But 90 percent of the 160-million American adults who
used marijuana or alcohol during adolescence did not find them "gateways"
to later addiction.

The Netherlands' reforms stressing public-health strategies to contain
hard-drug abuse, coupled with tolerance for marijuana use by adults and
teenagers, has produced a spectacular benefit: a 65 percent decline in
heroin deaths since 1980 (while U.S. heroin death rates doubled). Whether
or not Dutch-style reforms are feasible here, the United States will not
reduce its worst-ever drug-abuse crisis until politicians radically revamp
the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the facile demographic
scapegoating of young people.

Yet, because drug reformers, copying drug-war hard-liners, increasingly
promote their agendas by exploiting youth as fear-invoking symbols in
today's anachronistic "debate", genuine reform seems remote.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake