Mary O'Grady argues that we will never eradicate drug use. One wonders what other vices Ms. O'Grady proposes we surrender to. Child abuse? Spousal abuse? Rape? We may never eradicate any of these crimes either, but that doesn't mean that we simply give up on them. Not coincidentally, by the way, all of those crimes, and many others, are frequently linked to drug and alcohol abuse. It's a tired old canard that drug abuse is a victimless crime. [continues 86 words]
APPLICANTS TO FBI ARE PLENTIFUL; RULES ON DRUG USE ACCOMMODATING. The FBI's move to lower its standards relating to past drug use is unnecessary and a troubling diversion from its vital mission. The FBI is not suffering from a lack of applicants. On the contrary, thousands of Americans apply each year for a very limited number of FBI positions. Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the applicant pool has only grown. For example, 665,079 people applied to become part of the FBI's team of analysts and support staff from fiscal year 2000 to the present. The total number of those positions at the bureau is only around 18,000. In other words, even if every single position were vacated and filled within those six years, only one in 37 applicants would have been accepted. Of course, the reality is that the ratio is much higher. [continues 257 words]
November 25, 2001 - There are some advantages to similarities between these two wars Our new war on terrorism has much in common with one of our ongoing struggles: the war on drugs. Both are nontraditional wars. Both are against enemies that kill indiscriminately. Both are here, on our own soil. Indeed, so closely are they related that it is the ill- gotten profits from one set of killers that serve as a major source of funding for the other. In an odd way, however, there are advantages to the similarities between these wars. Some of the measures that we can take to fight one may also help us against the other. For example, in the months before the Sept. 11 attack, I began planning a series of field hearings of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, which I chair, to investigate issues along the U.S. borders with Canada and Mexico. I convened the first of those hearings two weeks ago in Vermont and New York. [continues 608 words]
Editor, Times-Union: There is a new drug epidemic sweeping across America. It is not limited to big cities. It is not limited to the coasts. It is in small towns, on farms and in our schools. The drug is methamphetamine. It is easy to think of the latest drug trends as belonging solely to America's largest cities. Meth, however, is right here, in Indiana. It is as addictive as cocaine or heroin, can cause erratic and violent behavior, and more of it is being produced and used every day. [continues 600 words]
An article appearing in Friday's Journal Gazette ("Souder battles medical-marijuana laws") failed to make clear an important point about recent state initiatives that have attempted to decriminalize marijuana for so-called "medical" use. According to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, states cannot pass legislation that is contradictory to existing federal law. Therefore, for all practical purposes, laws to relax state penalties for drug use can have no effect. A bill I have introduced makes clear as a technical matter that the longstanding federal laws against the use of marijuana and narcotic drugs take precedence over efforts to change those laws in the states. In other words, California cannot permit marijuana use because it is illegal under federal law. [continues 126 words]
Is it unreasonable to expect college students who receive taxpayer-funded student aid to refrain from using and selling drugs or risk losing that aid? The fact that some groups apparently think so highlights the very cultural problem the drug-free-student-loan provision of the Higher Education Act was meant to address. Despite the fact that drug use is a violation of federal law and certainly an impediment to learning, American culture treats drug use as an accepted part of the college experience. By temporarily suspending federal financial aid for students convicted of drug crimes, the law sends a clear message: ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES, AND USING OR SELLING DRUGS WILL RUIN YOUR FUTURE. [continues 297 words]
The writer from the National AIDS Fund gave short shrift to studies on needle-exchange programs in Montreal and Vancouver, Can., arguing that "the design of these studies and the behavioral characteristics of the study populations limit generalizing these findings to U.S. populations" ["Needle Exchanges Save Lives," letters, Aug. 5]. The writer wants us to imagine that Canadian drug users are markedly different from their American neighbors. Forty percent of Vancouver research subjects who knew they were HIV positive reported having lent contaminated needles to other drug users in the preceding six months. [continues 261 words]
LAST FALL, Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law the Higher Education Act, a five-year reauthorization of all federal higher education programs, which will expand college affordability and promote academic quality. The part that seems to stick in the craw of some special interest groups is one of the provisions that increases accountability by temporarily suspending federal financial aid for students convicted of drug possession or sales. But these groups are hard-pressed to explain why taxpayers should subsidize the costs of a college education for students who violate the law and impede their own academic success by using and/or selling drugs. [continues 702 words]
