Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, April 20, 1990 TAG: 9004200712
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-10 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Immediately following his "Summit on Drugs" conference with law-enforcement officials, Gov. Douglas Wilder called for the development of a mandatory drug-education program in the public schools. Though his first statements were short on specifics, the program would probably be patterned on the existing sex-education program, where state and local educators work together, tailoring their message to the needs of individual communities.
This is not the kind of suggestion that elected officials usually make. A measured, reasoned approach lacks the swaggering image of bravery that politicians love to project when they call for the death penalty (or worse!) for any drug-related offense.
Lack of bloodthirstiness notwithstanding, the idea sounds promising. The right cooperative program could be a significant part of a larger, long-term anti-drug effort. It would be aimed at those who are most vulnerable. Compared to drug-interdiction and strict law-enforcement strategies, education would probably be less expensive.
On the other hand, the limits of education are obvious. It's not an immediate solution, and it will take a dedicated effort at all levels of the system to create an effective program. Many of the kids who need accurate drug information won't be in school, and some who are in school won't believe anything they hear there. But that doesn't mean the state shouldn't do all that it can while it has a young captive audience.
The vice chairman of the Virginia Parole Board, Lewis W. Hurst, has another idea for an older captive audience. Hurst, a former Norfolk policeman and narcotics-squad commander, favors mandatory drug treatment for all substance-abusers convicted of crimes. He argues that their addiction causes the crimes, and that curing the addiction is the most effective way of preventing future crimes. The state legislature could enact such a law, Hurst suggests, possibly handling mandatory treatment as commitment hearings are handled. Make it a civil matter rather than a criminal one.
The idea is less than a perfect solution. Drug-treatment programs work best when they're voluntary, and even then their success rates vary. But there is still much to recommend Hurst's approach. It is aimed toward a realistic middle ground between those who call for Draconian punishment and those who call for drug legalization. The emphasis on rehabilitation is constructive. If more serious attention is given to drug-treatment therapies, the success rates of the better ones may improve.
Neither of these plans has been completely thought out yet, and neither pretends to be a complete solution. But at least the anti-drug warriors are choosing the right weapons.
by CNB