Pubdate: Sun, 23 Jun 2002
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Copyright: 2002 Los Angeles Times
Contact:  http://www.latimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/248
Author: William C. Moyers
Note: William C. Moyers is vice president of external affairs for the 
Hazelden Foundation. His personal experiences were the basis for the 1998 
public television series, "Moyers on Addiction: Close to Home.
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/bush.htm (Bush, George)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/rehab.htm (Treatment)

THE PRESIDENT'S EXPERIENCE SHOULD SHAPE HIS POLICIES

CENTER CITY, Minn. -- If only America's so-called war on drugs could be 
recast in the spirit of my chance meeting with President Bush last year in 
the White House Rose Garden.

"Mr. President, my name is William Moyers, I'm from Minnesota and I am a 
person in recovery," I said.

Without batting an eye, the president grasped my hand and replied, "Sounds 
like we have something in common." I was all but a complete stranger to 
Bush. But in that moment we connected. And because I told him nothing else 
about me, I assume it was from the commonality of our experiences of having 
overcome the desperate condition of drinking too much.

I am a recovering alcoholic and addict. Whether the president labels 
himself the same, I don't know. But on that day at least, Bush knew exactly 
where I was coming from because, by his own account, he once drank too much 
and now he doesn't drink at all.

Ironically, our handshake occurred just after the president had used the 
Rose Garden ceremony to announce his nomination of John P. Walters as the 
nation's drug czar. Critics within the drug policy reform movement 
denounced the appointment, saying Walters' track record showed he was no 
friend of addicted people. What's more, Walters has said he sees addiction 
as a moral or criminal issue, rather than an illness. In policy terms, that 
translates into funds going to law enforcement and supply suppression 
rather than to the kind of treatment programs that helped me and thousands 
of others.

But flush with optimism that finally we had a president who understood the 
power of addiction and the possibility of recovery, I urged restraint in 
opposing the Walters nomination. Maybe now, I argued to my fellow policy 
reform advocates, the president's own experience would allow his 
administration to refocus the war on drugs, promoting effective prevention 
and treatment programs over previous policies that emphasized interdiction 
and tough law enforcement. My position was met with criticism from my 
colleagues in the addiction treatment field, solicited an angry call from a 
U.S. senator and sparked disdain from some of my fellow recovering alcoholics.

Ultimately, the Senate approved Walters' nomination, after both he and the 
president spoke repeatedly about narrowing the treatment gap for the 3.5 
million people that the federal government estimates need treatment but are 
not seeking help. For a while at least, it appeared that the 
administration's approach had been tempered by the reality that America's 
war on drugs required a more balanced approach.

And then Sept. 11 happened, which abruptly rewrote the national agenda. 
Suddenly the war on drugs became an adjunct to the war on terrorism. The 
Office of National Drug Control Policy has run distasteful television ads 
equating teenage drug use with support for terrorists, part of a 
$185-million-a-year media blitz that Walters now admits has been 
ineffective. Proposed funding for prevention and treatment of drug 
addiction did increase in the president's 2003 budget--as did federal 
dollars for interdiction and law enforcement. But the fact remains that 
two-thirds of the $19 billion the Bush administration wants to spend 
fighting drugs merely targets the supply--rather than treating the demand.

I had hope for a more balanced approach. The first family knows all about 
underage drinking and the problems it causes. And earlier this year the 
media reported that a relative of the president was arrested and ended up 
in treatment after forging a prescription for a tranquilizer in Florida. 
Surely these personal experiences would resonate at the White House, 
leading to a saner drug policy for all of us.

Alas, it was not to be. In April, the president spoke out in favor of more 
equitable insurance coverage for people struggling with debilitating mental 
illnesses like depression and bipolar disorder. But he left out any mention 
of the illness that his family and mine know well--alcoholism and drug 
dependence.

The nonprofit foundation I work for extends about $5 million a year in 
financial aid to addicted people and their families seeking treatment. 
Ironically, most of this assistance goes to employed people whose private 
health care insurance won't pay for the professional and comprehensive help 
they need to overcome their illness. In Congress, legislation to fix this 
disparity draws strong opposition from some of Bush's biggest political 
supporters, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the insurance 
industry. When it comes to the politics of addiction, it seems the 
president has more in common with his campaign contributors than he does 
with people like me.

Yet treatment for addiction does work. According to the U.S. Department of 
Health and Human Services, treatment cuts drug use by about 50%, reported 
alcohol and drug-related medical illnesses decline by more than half and 
criminal activity drops by as much as 80%.

And recovery benefits all of society. When people like me stop using and 
abusing, we stop demanding Colombia's cocaine, Afghanistan's heroin and 
Mexico's marijuana. We get back to work, pay taxes, obey the law and vote. 
And once in a rare while, one of us who changed our drug or alcohol habits 
gets a chance to be president of the United States.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Ariel