To the Editor: The dramatic increase in drug overdose deaths is not new to drug treatment. For several years treatment providers have been racing to save the lives of young Americans addicted to opioids as what started as a surge in prescription drug abuse morphed into a full-blown opioid epidemic. It is also not news that intensive residential and outpatient treatment services are in short supply, and what resources are available in many parts of the country are often prohibitively expensive for the vulnerable populations who need them the most. [continues 119 words]
To the Editor: Bill Keller suggests that legalization of marijuana is a foregone conclusion. The voters in Washington State and Colorado have proposed that one way out of an intransigent public health problem, costly law enforcement, spiraling prison costs and reduced tax revenues is to legalize a known addictive substance. It is wishful thinking, however, to believe that a government-regulated marijuana marketplace will raise enough money to offset the harm that today's highly potent drug inflicts on communities across America. The only chance we have to get ahead of the coming epidemic is by adequately financing treatment programs so the infrastructure of marijuana production, distribution and retail is matched by broad-based community services. President and Chief Executive Odyssey House [end]
USA TODAY's article "States consider drug testing welfare recipients" prompts the question: Why stop at poor people who receive public benefits? For example, why not test all students in state-funded schools and mothers who give birth in publicly funded hospitals? In Arizona and Missouri, an individual is tested if there is reason to believe he or she is a substance abuser. The legislation proposed in Colorado would test all applicants for the state's Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. This stigmatizes poor families and is ultimately a losing battle. Money should be dedicated to more prevention, education, treatment, and broad public-relations campaigns that extol the benefits of a wellness lifestyle and drug-free life. Testing might seem like an easy and convenient solution. But it is often counterproductive, expensive and a poor substitute for sound public policy. Peter Provet, president & CEO; Odyssey House; New York City Odyssey House is a non-profit social services organization. [end]
To the Editor: As a treatment provider, I support the Food and Drug Administration's dismissal of medical benefit from marijuana. Regardless of the heated political debate that swirls around this issue, the fact remains that despite the Institute of Medicine's claim to the contrary, for people vulnerable to addictive disease, marijuana is a gateway drug that leads to the use of more dangerous drugs like cocaine and heroin. When residents in treatment at Odyssey House (more than 1,000 every day) are asked about their drug history, most adults say it began with marijuana, and virtually all teenagers report marijuana as their primary drug of abuse. [continues 51 words]
To the Editor: John Tierney ("Debunking the Drug War," column, Aug. 9) is right that "America has a serious drug problem." The problem is so serious, however, that the danger of overdramatizing the potential of a methamphetamine epidemic is worth risking a loss in credibility and an accusation of crying wolf. It's not easy to spot the tipping point when drugs like methamphetamine, crack cocaine or heroin spread from a small minority of users to a larger population. But what we do know from studying the 1980's crack epidemic is that once a drug is desirable, accessible and profitable, market forces of supply and demand take hold. [continues 81 words]
To the Editor: "As Drug Use Drops in Big Cities, Small Towns Confront Upsurge" (front page, Feb. 11) clearly tells America that drug abuse is a great equalizer. It does not segregate by class, race or geography. Cities, small towns and rural areas face similar challenges of keeping youngsters engaged in education and healthy pursuits and away from drug dealers. One important difference is that urban communities have greater access to treatment. While we can sympathize with the hard-pressed, rural police departments trying to control illegal drug activity, arrests cannot be the only strategy. In many cities, including New York, treatment providers and law enforcement agencies have created partnerships so drug abusers arrested for nonviolent offenses are offered treatment instead of jail. President, Odyssey House New York, Feb. 12, 2002 [end]
To the Editor: Monitoring prescriptions of OxyContin sounds like a good place to start to prevent increased abuse ("Few States Track Prescriptions as Way to Prevent Overdoses," front page, Dec. 21). But we must also increase drug treatment programs and sponsor broader prevention and education campaigns. As a treatment provider in New York City, Odyssey House is not yet admitting abusers of OxyContin in anywhere near the numbers of abusers of illegal drugs like crack cocaine and heroin. But if this drug is not sufficiently controlled, that could change fast. It is up to drug treatment and prevention specialists, doctors, law enforcement and pharmaceutical companies to work together to ensure that powerful addictive substances like OxyContin are safely used, not abused. PETER PROVET President, Odyssey House New York, Dec. 22, 2001 [end]
To the Editor: Re "Adjusting Drug Policy" (editorial, Feb. 27): For years, drug treatment experts have argued for more money to be spent on demand reduction over interdiction and enforcement, and for years, study after study has supported their argument that treatment is the most cost-effective approach to reducing drug use. Perhaps President Bush can reassure nervous supporters wary of looking soft on crime that treatment is far from the easy option for addicts. In particular, long-term residential treatment is a rigorous, demanding and life-changing experience. In addition to abstinence, family integration, job readiness and social values are fundamental outcomes. Has this ever been a claim for most prison systems? [continues 485 words]
To the Editor: It is absolutely essential that voters in Alaska and elsewhere make a clear distinction between legalizing marijuana and allowing doctors to prescribe marijuana for medical purposes. Dr. Herbert D. Kleber stated this succinctly in "What Is the Matter With Mary Jane?" (Week in Review, Oct. 15), when he said that the former is political, the latter scientific, and that each should be judged accordingly. My main concern as a treatment provider is that whatever laws adults choose to pass, they do not do so to the detriment of those who cannot vote - our children. [continues 58 words]
To the Editor: "Distilling the Truth in the Ecstasy Buzz" (news article, Aug. 6): In our rush to protect our youth from the dangerous drug Ecstasy, let's not forget the far more pervasive and destructive drug of choice of millions of school-age children: marijuana. Your article includes the stunning statistic that marijuana use has reached as high as 40 to 50 percent among high school students. Marijuana may be achieving the status of a prescribed medicine in some communities, but in the hands of impressionable teenagers it is still a dangerous drug that wreaks havoc on their lives. The vast majority of youths in residential drug treatment are there because of marijuana abuse, and while their struggles rarely make headlines, their lives are nevertheless precarious. Peter Provet President, Odyssey House New York, Aug. 7, 2000 [end]
Re "Family in Texas Challenges Mandatory School Drug Test" (front page, April 17): Many of us who work in drug treatment are concerned that the enactment of mandatory drug testing of high school students by the Lockney school board in Texas will not be of benefit to local families unless it is carried out as part of a drug prevention and counseling program. Whether or not a student is found to have abused drugs, repetition of antidrug messages is one of the most powerful deterrents against future drug use. [continues 51 words]
