Getting The Lead Out

Lead v. Steel

Banning Lead Fishing Weights

by Ronald Borst

February 22, 2014

Fishing might be the world's most popular sport. From loners to families, jocks to nerds, young and old, everybody seems to go fishing at one time or another.

Terminal tackle, the throw-away kind, dominates the industry. Imagine, all that lead and metal at the bottom of waters. And you know what they say, “All waters run to the sea.”

Tufts University, when commenting about wildlife and tackle, said, “Of some 1500 loons examined, over forty percent tested positive for lead toxicity. All of the ingested lead, found in loon bellies, were fishing weights.”(Tufts, “Loon Health and Mortality”)

Is there a way to limit some of the negative impact of terminal tackle? I believe so. But it is going to take some pride-swallowing and some concession. It's a give and take world, and we just jumped in, feet first of course, as fishermen are prone to do.

The most visible start to a more responsible and ethical fishing practice, is the arena that has the most lead. Weights and sinkers, in fishing terms, are what they seem, weights designed to fish comparatively deep. Fishermen will tell you, “The bottom ain't a sandy flat,” and that means that much gear is lost while targeting that one to two foot zone at the bottom of waters.(Borst interview)
 

The overwhelming majority of sinkers for this bottom fishing, comes in the form of lead. From lead cast bullet weights to spools of “pencil lead,” the dangerous metal is everywhere. In my experience, on Oregon lakes and streams, it is that almost 100 percent of fishing weight is lead. Nobody is fishing with steel sinkers.

More options are available and viable. Tungsten, tin, and brass have been used for years. On Green Tackle's website, 17 different kinds of steel fishing weight is offered.(greentackle.com) Copper and bismuth are also available for fishing use.

States that limit the use of lead fishing weights are Vermont, New York, Maine, and New Hampshire. A measure in Washington state failed in 2010. Many of the arguments against lead bans are about costs. And costs there are, as tungsten is expensive to make and cumbersome to purchase, considering its expensive nature. Lead is just cheaper, has been the most vocal argument.

The health risks associated with above-normal exposures to lead are well documented and somewhat scary. The Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), Field & Stream magazine, sportfishing councils, animal biologists, and fisherman, all agree on the extent of health risks associated with even low-level exposure. But not much has happened in the fishing industry, in regard to curbing the use of lead. Why?

In Montana, when lead bans were first proposed in the hunting regulations, sportsmen balked. Vocal response was overwhelming: Montana voters, most of whom are hunters, did not want any ban on lead.(Merwin, F&S)

The reasons were not only expensive production and costly steel products, but also “poorer performing products." Outdoor sportsman, outfitter, and guide, Jack King said, “It(steel) just doesn't knock 'em down like lead.”(Borst interview)

But fishing applications are different, and so I asked, “Does lead act differently in the water?” The response was mostly no, and some even said that lead and steel sunk similarly, but steel was more “responsive.” Local bass fisherman, Jeremy Landtroop said, “Steel tells me exactly what the structure is. Lead just tells me something is there.”

According to the American Sportfishing Association(ASA), “Insufficient data prevents us from concluding that a lead ban would be at all effective in combating waterfowl exposure to lead.” The ASA went on to state that although “loons have been affected adversely by lead, statistics regarding loon populations is susceptible to extreme fluctuations.” (ASA website)

However, the ASA is correct in saying that waterfowl populations face much more devastating effects from loss of habitat and lack of quality water. Improvements in these areas is needed. But lead is a problem, no matter the “priority.” So where is our middle ground? It may be in the water itself.

Studies involving lead and its effects on waters and wildlife, point to an alarming trend. As science gets better at what it does, more access to ocean floors and river bottoms have come available. And they are telling a similar story to one of loons with high levels of lead poisoning. In studies funded by the National Institutes of Health(NIH), thresholds of lead poisoning in marine animals were found to be lower than thought, while the effects are showing as much worse. Studies also found that smaller creatures were more susceptible to lead poisonings, possibly due to easier access.(NIH, nih.gov)

Fishing with lead weight is not the only use for lead. Construction supplies, paint, pipes, and pencils, have all been made of lead at one time or another. A note in many do-it-yourself websites states, “Do not sand old paint, the lead dust particles are breathable and highly toxic.”(NIH, nih.gov) Lead use in toys, has been at the forefront of the consumer industry for twenty years, and still advocates against lead use.

The use of lead in gasoline has been widely outlawed globally, due to its toxicity.

Common sense tells us that lead is unhealthy in almost any environment. Lead safety manuals are specific in how they describe lead handling, including removal(sanding paint, etc.). Warnings about “washing hands after use,” illustrate how mobile the lead is. Fishing tackle has elements of lead that these warnings are about. All of the lead weight involved in salmon and steelhead fishing where I live, is easily transferred to whatever it touches. The lead will transfer to other tackle, the tackle box insides, the riverbank, and your fingers. So much so, that hands will turn grayish black after handling lead for extended periods. Wash your hands indeed. Other “good” habits when handling lead include not putting your hands in your mouth, and keeping lead in sealed containers.

Many other countries, including England and Canada, have banned small, lead fishing weights. The studies that have linked lead poisoning to waterfowl death have conclusively noted these smaller weights in the bellies of birds. Banning these small weights, would be a great first step in the effort to protect wildland birds and waters that we all use.

The cost of this first step, would be relatively easy, although slightly costlier than our current use of lead. Banning lead split-shot, for example, would not be hard on manufacturers, nor would it be so costly as to be non-profitable. Fishermen will pay a bit more for the steel or tungsten, or even tin split-shot.

Education is another part of the first-step. Documenting and exposing the harmful effects of lead, as well as the merits of steel and copper weights, can relieve some of the panic about changing a part of the fishing industry that has been around for hundreds of years.

Second steps take the initial restrictions further, with any “edible” sized lead weight, banned entirely. This would go for all fishing, whether for sport or for money. In the grand scheme, removing lead weights less than two ounces, will eventually cost less to the fisherman and the waterfowl alike.

Less death along waterways and less dent in the fisherman's wallet, are the keys to success. With so many alternatives to lead, like bismuth, copper, and tin, that are cost efficient, gradually changing practices to stem the long-term effects of lead, is in fact a viable alternative to lead.

The best part of a lead compromise, is that it begins a process that ensures wildlife safety, and encourages responsible fishing habits, while simultaneously being inexpensive to sportfishermen. 

Even if lead is not the number one priority when it comes to wildlife conservation, lead is still enough of a problem, that it warrants our immediate attention. Compromises in the use of lead sinkers, can lead to better discussions and solutions about sportfishing's responsibilities to our wildlands and her critters.

The future is now, and the future has less lead in it.

Works Cited:

American Sportfishing Association, website

The National Rifle Association, nraila.org, NRA-ILA, “NRA Victory in Battle With Environmentalists”

The Straight Dope, straightdope.com, “Do lead fishing sinkers threaten the environment?”

EPA, epa.gov, “Humans and Lead Fishing Sinkers”

Field & Stream, fieldandstream.com, “What's The Big Deal About Lead?” by John Merwin

National Institutes of Health, nih.gov, “Toxic Thresholds of Lead and Cadmium”

Tufts University, “Loon Health and Mortality,” tufts.edu

Interviews & personal experience with fishing guides, fishermen, and tackle retailers.

Photos COPYRIGHT Ronald Borst.

American Drug Epidemic: Guess What, It's Not Meth

American Drug Epidemic: Guess What, It's Not Meth

by Ronald Borst

February 20, 2014

In clandestine woods, deep in the wilds of Canada, a drug epidemic is brewing, and the most affected will be American youth.

Ecstasy is the new darling of the getting-high world, and the money to be made, is attracting a different breed of drug dealer. A January article in The New York Post, “Inside the Lucrative World of Ecstasy Smuggling,” by Madeleine Scinto, details the attraction in alarming detail.

Popular during the 1990s, the party drug has seen a resurgence as of late. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, seizures of ecstasy along the border has increased from 500 pounds in 2006, to 1000 pounds in 2010. Seizures in New york have surpassed 2006 levels, and the articles also states that the biggest increase in users is the 18-25 year-old demographic, with increased use among 12 year old kids as well.

In the article, the dealer has a job and even a degree. Making $40 an hour tutoring grad-school math is not enough, and the lure of $1000 days was too much too pass up. Her clientele seems to be mostly affluent college kids, and the network is widespread. Connections are made via school, parties, and “raves.” The raves are the electronic dance music popular with many ecstasy users. Dealers are keen to that, and the branching out is easy in that arena.

MDMA, the bulk of the ecstasy drug, affects the central nervous system and brain, delivering a euphoric “feel good” high, but also has a brutal, withdrawal laden, come-down. Depression and death are common in this stage, mostly due to the effects on the brain and the urge to maintain the high, resulting in overdose.

It gets worse.

In the fight to limit the drug, Canadian authorities have been very successful in combating production of “E” by restricting access to a main compound of the production process, safrole oil. A by-product of the Canadians' success, has been an increase in dangerous “bath salts.”

These are not really bath salts at all, but rather a homemade concoction of synthetics, designed to pass for ecstasy. They resemble epsom salts and provide a cocaine-like buzz that has a horribly toxic “comedown.”

The American Association of Poison Control Centers reports over 6100 bath salt overdoses in 2011, compared to just 300 the year prior. Success in battling the ecstasy will only lead to more of these pseudo drugs trying to mimic ecstasy, and that will lead to an even bigger rise in “bath salt” overdoses. Expect batch salt deaths in the news...and try and spread the word about these dangers.

Most of the globe's ecstasy, is manufactured in these wildland labs in Canada's forests, and almost all of the U.S. Supply is Canadian made. In such close proximity to ecstasy, America has a tough choice ahead. And because it involves a border, it makes the ordeal daunting.

America is leaning away from the zero-tolerance policies of yesteryear, and with rising ecstasy problems, she will be tested on this front. The key here is to understand that extreme measures rarely work. A complete zero-tolerance is unjust, as is open-use. Unjust as in unhealthy as well. But in the case of ecstasy, zero-tolerance may be worth a try.

Why?

Well, for starters, “E” is much more dangerous than marijuana and other "entry level" drugs. Two, the copycat drugs are inherently fatal. Meaning, that death in many cases is certain. In light of THAT, zero-tolerance is a worthwhile approach. Third, by attempting to restrict and limit ecstasy's entry into the U.S., can prepare America for a budding industry here, a drug industry that no doubt will try and copy Canada's money-making schemes, including the fake and very dangerous bath salt concoctions.

In my opinion, a zero-tolerance policy is okay, when it comes to  bath salt "ecstasies." Ecstacy, on the other hand, needs some rehab and community service application. On February 17 of 2014, murder suspect William Parisio died in his cell. He had been in jail for the murder of his girlfriend, and soon after the heinous crime, Parisio's mother told the media that, “he was a bath salts addict.” In another disturbing implication of bath salts, a Florida crime made the news when a man attacked a homeless person, half-eating his face off. Although no positive bath salt tests have come from either one of these cases, debate exists about whether testing is even capable enough. So far, the answer is no.

Ecstasy was used in United States psychotherapy experiments during the 1970s and by the 1990s, U.S. Policy makers were realizing the street use and abuse.(Bahora,Sterk,Elifson) “E” is easily accessible on the street, and even some policy makers are linking this drug, which is a Schedule I in the U.S., to a “normalisation” of limited tolerance. The Inquiry report cited studies that revealed a more “civilized” user of ecstasy. They found that a large number of these ravers and “E”ers were goal and career orientated. Many of the subjects HAD ambition, unlike most other epidemic-like drugs.

In Atlanta, Georgia between 2002 and 2007, studies showed that adult male ecstasy users outnumbered their female counterparts 2 to 1.(male=64%) The results also showed a slight majority of white users.(54%) Their median age was almost legal age, just under 21, and in an alarming and very telling statistic, the study showed a first-use age of 17.

If these stats do not warn America of an impending crisis, nothing will.

An un-named young lady said, “I do a lot of drugs, but I function well. I have healthy relationships, I have a job. I pay my bills.”

This does illustrate some flexibility associated with drug use in general. But when considering the lack of studies or the severe violence in some cases, it is worth looking at intense restrictions.

If we look at the “bath salts,” it may seem that these are the more dangerous. Which would warrant laws to combat fake versions of “E” and provide tools for holding manufacturers accountable. In classic form, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul(R) blocked potential legislation.(Leger)

The two bills that Paul has blocked, would broaden bans on chemical concoctions. Some, including Senator Paul, say that the legislation has “disproportionate” sentencing, and needs to be re-written.(Sullum) Others also have said that the bans would hinder medical research.

Either way, some solution is needed.

Works Cited:

New Jersey Star Ledger, “Murder Suspect Dies In Jail,” by Tom Haydon

The New York Post, “Inside the Lucrative World of Ecstasy Smuggling,” by Madeleine Scinto

Understanding Recreational Ecstasy Use in the U.S.: A Qualitative Inquiry, Bahora, Sterk, & Elifson

'Bath Salt' Poisonings Rise as Legislative Ban Tied Up, Donna Leinwand Leger

Hit & Run Blog, “Rand Paul Blocks Synthetic Drug Ban,” Jacob Sullum

Smoking In The Bathroom: Smoking Tobacco No Longer Cool

Smoking In The Bathroom

by Ronald Borst

An article in the most recent The Commuter, LBCC's student ran newspaper, pointed to a growing awareness about where(and when) smoking is allowed on campus.(The Commuter, 2-5-14)

It seems, the topic was brought about by a campus security guard, who approached a person that was inside a car, smoking. The publicity that ensued, was cradled in a simple question: Where can I smoke?

It seems, not many places, these days.

Even the state is banning smoking, in the form of bans at Oregon state parks. On February 5, the Oregon Parks and Recreation Dept. banned cigarettes at most parks, and is considering extending that ban to include Oregon beaches.(Statesman Journal, 2-7-14)

Awareness is on the move too, in advertising from the Food & Drug Administration. New television ads are targeting teenagers, and focusing on smoking's health effects on teeth and skin. The theory is to hit kids where it hurts, their looks. Studies have shown that teens care about their looks, and although they are a small demographic in the smoker pie, the numbers of teens that try cigarettes is alarming. The ad program, called “The Real Cost,”(Time.com, Health & Family Feb 2014) is also focused on nicotine's addictive qualities, as the idea of quitting tobacco seems easy to most people.

“It's easy to quit smoking, I've done it a hundred times.” - Mark Twain

"When are you ever going to quit?" - Alexandrea Borst



That was five years ago, and come this spring, it will be three years since I quit smoking. I am not the only one who is happy about the healthy change. My friends enjoy the clean air, and my family looks forward to added years.

But it was not easy. Quitting was hard, I admit, and humbling to a man's machismo. Why is tobacco so hard for so many to give up? And is America doing enough to break such a bad habit? Because, make no mistake, America made the cigarette cool.

Now, as we come to our senses regarding cigarettes, it is important to ask, "How can we lower the numbers of young people that try smoking?"

According to the Centers For Disease Control(CDC), almost 20% of American adults smoke. The sheer influence in those numbers, cannot be denied. If 1 in 5 adults are smokers, expect kids to smoke. Period.

The CDC(cdc.gov) stats on teen smoking looks scary, and by the age of 18, the adult percentage is almost established(17.1%). The CDC, in a data report on teen smokers, ages 14-18 showed a regular smoker rate of over five percent. 1 in 20 kids are regular tobacco smokers in the U.S., and one might wonder, where are they buying their habit? Stores? Convenience markets? Cigarette outlets? Parents? Friends?

The list goes on...

The Commuter piece, also quoted LBCC Security as stating that “fires from cigarettes regularly start in garbage cans.” And a decade ago, the college lost a building to a trash can fire, although cigarettes were never blamed. This illustrates the non-health issues of smoking, and is mostly common sense.

The common sense says that taxing smokers is okay. It also says that we may need to hold smokers accountable, in the wake of litter, second hand smoke, and soaring health costs.

But I am more concerned with health, and education. If the FDA recognizes that educating kids about “the real cost” of tobacco, is a worthy approach, then maybe the rest of us can too, realize the virtues of not smoking.

Works Cited:

Centers For Disease Control, cdc.gov, Youth and Tobacco

The Commuter, To Smoke Or Not To Smoke, Allison Lamplugh, 2-5-14

Statesman Journal, State Bans Smoking At State Parks, Zach Urness, Feb 2014

Time Magazine, The FDA's Frightening Anti Smoking Campaign, Alexandra Sifferlin, Feb 2014

Drugs, Jails, Community Service, and Why Measure 11 Is Okay

A Rogerian Argument About Drugs and Jails, by Ronald Borst

Why Drugs Should Be Legal,

Why Community Service Is Mandatory,

and Why Oregon's Measure 11 Is Good For Sentencing Law

I believe that some drugs should be legal. And I believe the solutions to American crime, especially petty crime, lie in the way we “sentence” these “criminal” acts. Legalizing drugs and integrating civic chores into our judicial system will relieve the burden on our jails and our economy.

“De-criminalizing drugs,” may be a better description.
 

Both anti-drug advocates, as well as civil rights champions and rehab folks, have persuasive points about their ideologies, and by bringing the best of both worlds, to the discussion, will only help to create a solution for America's overcrowded jails, while keeping our future safe and robust.

Anti-drug initiatives ranging from law enforcement's D.A.R.E. programs, to Mothers Against Drunk Drivers'(MADD) awareness campaigns, are a good start in the way of social education. Anti-tobacco programs in schools, and in advertising aimed at curbing youth smoking(and chewing), have made a positive impact, even if small.

In America's “War On Drugs,” much has been said about the cost-effectiveness of the assault on drug use. Many say it is working, and the U.S. Department of Justice(DOJ) says that “Both males and females that committed burglary crimes, tested drug positive in high numbers.” This statement is based on data combed from incarceration drug tests and surveys.(NIJ Drug Use Forecast 1991)

The DOJ is partly correct, in linking drugs and crime, but the DOJ oversteps ideology in its pursuit of “justice.” Federal laws that run directly across the grain, in contrast to state voters, as well as harsh sentencing laws(Measure 11 in Oregon) that have more negatives than positives, means the system(s) is failing. Municipal jails are known as money court jails in my home state, and minorish civil rights violations are commonplace. Representation can be suspect, and courts have a “bulldog” attitude towards defendants, making for a roll-of-the-dice gamble, if you are “in the crosshairs.”

This way of thinking has permeated the roots of America's judicial branch, especially at the local levels, County and Municipal governments. Plea bargains are forced, and many cases have sentences that have little positive outcome, outside of revenue for the state.

Measure 11 in Oregon has been both good and bad. “It's doing what it was meant to do,” says Jonathan Crow, Linn County District Attorney, and Crow also cited a Willamette Week article as saying precisely that, “that it is in fact, putting the right people in prison.”

Measure 11 was a politically lauded legislation, and was also easily won in public opinion. Voters welcomed the law as a tool to fight crime and keep Oregon “progressive.” The common misconception was that the new law would lock up problem criminals. It did that, at a price.

“The world would be a better place without Measure 11,” a local defense attorney told me, which tells me that simply, the law has its problems.

Measure 11 restricts judicial flexibility, and leaves little room for rehabilitation or even an incentive for recovery. The law is structured rigidly, leaving no compromise for non-jail sentences. It clearly requires jail, and has no rehabilitation objectives. Retaining the best parts of Measure 11, and integrating more efficient use of the process, such as rehab objective sentencing, will bring Measure 11 up to standards that exist today. Violent, repeat offenders, and high-crime offenders(and reoffenders), also should have access to rehabilitation resources. However, that access should happen within the confines of lock-up.

Similar to Measure 11, crack-cocaine laws of the 1990s show a disparity in arrest, with more black arrests than white, but also a disparity in sentencing, as crack dealers were punished more harshly than powder cocaine dealers. The crack epidemic brought a panicked response from law enforcement, and from lawmakers. It was not uncommon(during this period) for small-time crack dealers to receive longer sentences than large scale cocaine traffickers.

At the lowest levels of the American court system, community service is often part of sentencing. In the wake of an economic catastrophe, high unemployment, and struggling government service sectors, community service is an option for our judicial sentencing like never before. The stimulus packages of the past, should now start to focus on community work, such as cleaning and painting bike-lanes, litter-patrols, kitchen duties at local soup kitchens, painting local businesses, etc.

In Albany, last November's election, a failed emergency services bond, caused a local spat between factions in government and amongst voters. The message is clear, and keeping citizen costs down, when it comes to governing, should be of utmost importance to government officials.

So should those same citizens' safety, be equally important. Laws like Measure 11 were designed to keep violent and repeat offenders, off the streets. And that is good. In Steven Pinker's book, Better Angels Of Our Nature, Pinker refers to government as Leviathan, and leads the reader to government's influence on violence. If it wasn't for government, the book summarizes, violence might be much more an everyday/everywhere occurrence, than it is today.(Pinker,summary) 

Governments have diffused arguments and made violence accountable(jails), while generally and paternally providing rational thinking in regard to violent behavior. It simply isn't moral, nor is it worth going to jail, is the message concerning violent activity.

Or it should be. But jail is easy and angering. Sitting in a cell, reading week-old newspapers, really doesn't punish the offender, and in reality, jail just makes the so-called criminal angry. There is no payoff for citizens either, as this person comes out of jail essentially forced back into drug addiction and petty crime.

Re-assessing sentencing laws would provide opportunity to “fine tune” Measure 11, and incorporate community service into sentencing laws. Even the United Nations(UN) is holding a “special session” in 2016 to analyze global sentencing laws. It is time to take the best of both worlds, prosecuting crime and community service, and mold them into a mechanical model for future ideologies of law enforcement.

There is plenty of opportunity, says Dan Redfeather, owner of Big Dan's Sports Cards in Gladstone, Oregon. “I see all sorts of clean-up jobs out there, from parking lots to river fronts, the work is there.” In Oregon, where unemployment has ran especially high, living wage “jobs” are few and far between. Big Dan's has no employees other than its owner, and could use the occasional volunteer. “I would welcome the help,” he said.

What Redfeather is implying, is that community service is community pride, and a way to show that pride, is to clean up roads and neighborhoods. The “Adopt-A-Road” programs are a good example of this civic-minded agenda. In a 2013 opinion piece about volunteering, that ran in the Chicago Tribune, Bill and Chelsea Clinton wrote, “It will take partners of all kinds to make this commitment a reality.” What they were talking about was volunteerism, and the way America tackles “civic” activities. What I am talking about is a group-sourced effort to cut judicial costs(to taxpayers) while creating civic rehabilitation. Not only would this strategy improve the aesthetics of where we live, it would improve the quality of life as well. Rehabilitated law-breakers may not re-offend, making our neighborhoods safer, and less prone to drugs and violence.

Decriminalizing not only marijuana, but also cocaine, heroin, and others, will lead to lower numbers of “possession” incarcerated crime and at the same time provide civic remedy for trafficking and other crime related to drugs. Theft, selling stolen goods, drug-dealing, etc., should now be sentenced with not only jail terms, but also “community service” sentencing. It is time to go to work, essentially.

The idea of any of these folks not being able to work, is not a true statement, as anybody can pick up the parking lot at say, The Senior Center of Albany. Trash and litter-patrols, business window washing, landscaping, kitchen help at community dinners, are just a few of the opportunities that the government has for civic rehabilitation. Advanced projects would include painting businesses and local homes, mowing yards and business landscaping, and road crew work.

At present, some resources exist for drug addicts, in the form of groups like Al-Anon and Narcotics Anonymous. Rehabilitation services are available locally(Albany, Oregon) at Linn County Mental Health and at community houses like Oxford. But generally, little professional help is available to the poor.

In Norway, where addiction treatment reform started around the year 2000, the progressive country has seen small but steady increases in “beginner” clients, first-time rehabilitation patients. According to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Addiction(EMCDDA), more than 30% of those patients were opiate addicts. Surprisingly, only 1% of Norway's drug rehabilitation efforts have been for cocaine addiction. The U.S.A. May show different stats in that regard. The Norwegian reforms were a change in approaching in addiction, and Norway's motto is that everyone “has access to all treatment options.”(www.emcdda.europe.eu) Treatment is funded largely with public funds.

In a report from Stanford EDU, the three main ways addicts are classified is looked at from a spending perspective. “The Moral view is that drugs are sinful, the Temperance view considers the drug a problem and its access unacceptable, and the final view, Disease, treats the addict medically.”(Stanford, Poverty and Prejudice)

In that same report from Stanford, the billions spent so far on law enforcement's “no tolerance” approach to drugs, is weighed against spending that money on rehabilitation and community improvements. The report states that America “spent almost 8 billion dollars on drug related law enforcement and just 2.5 billion on rehabilitation.”(1993 stats, Poverty and Prejudice)

Law enforcement says it needs arbitrary power. It does not. Addicts need medical attention, not courtrooms. Local businesses say they need help. And they do. Finding some middle ground, will lead to more efficient police and courts, and will also lead to less addiction and more volunteers in our communities. Efficient policing can and will maintain healthy levels of safety in communities, efficient courts can help rehab criminal behavior, and citizens can demand that government also act as efficiently, by writing laws that encourage communities to sustain positive growth.

Jails alone, do not work. Nor does rampant drug use. Attacking both simultaneously will help solve society's problems with minorish drug use and the accompanying crime. In the end, lower numbers of drug addicts and less occupied jail space, should be the goals we strive for.

In early February of 2014, The Guardian reporter Nick Clegg ventured to Columbia, to tour the “drug country” and talk with Columbia's new leader, President Juan Manuel Santos, about reforming the drug-gang social and economic landscape of his country. “We agreed,” Clegg said, “that neither rapid legalization or military crackdown, can solve the drug problem.” (The Guardian, Feb 8, 2014)

Policies and successes worldwide, lend valuable talking points when it comes to discussing American drug solutions. In the Netherlands, where marijuana is completely decriminalized, government focus is directed at prevention and treatment of drug addiction. In Australia, where laws are similar to the U.S., more avenues exist for “care” programs such as needle exchanges. In Britain, drug use is considered non-criminal, but selling drugs is a different matter, and can lead to lengthy prison stays. 

Even Germany, which is considered “strict” when it comes to drug law, has approached drug use as non-criminal.(drugabuse.net, Drug Laws Around the World)

Drug use and drug abuse has been around as long as America has been around. In the 1800s, addiction to amphetamines and cocaine, as well as heroin and morphine, was commonplace. In the 1930s, amphetamines were sold over-the-counter as a product called Benzedrine. In the 1990s, a smokable form of amphetamine, crystal meth, showed up in the drug market. In 1884, Sigmund Freud praised cocaine as a “wonder drug,” capable of enhanced mood and prolonged energy. In the 1950s, after Swiss chemist Albert Hoffman discovered LSD, the American CIA tested it for its “truth” qualities. Today, LSD is generally made in home labs, mostly in California, and is 90% weaker than the LSD of the 1960s.

Marijuana, on the other hand, is up to five times as potent as the weed from yesteryear. Today, marijuana is a hot-topic social debate, as a half-dozen states have legalized the weed.

Heroin has seen a resurgence in America, especially since purer forms arrived in the 1990s, allowing the drug to be smoked and snorted.

Yes, drugs are dangerous. Yes, drugs do lead to crime, but not exclusively. Distinguishing the two activities, drug use and crime, will lead America to a social status that is both sober and alive. Spending the billions spent on jail sentences, on prevention and intervention instead, will help America cosmetically and financially. Spending money on prevention tactics and education, as well as aggressively prosecuting "problem" criminals, can bring America's justice system into the 21st century. All we need are the different sides to come to the discussion.

In much the same way we target tobacco, especially in schools, we can target drug abuse. If both sides want American youth to succeed, then reaching middle ground about drugs and jails, is a positive step in the right direction.

Prioritizing goals, such as getting the worst offenders off city streets and rehabilitating adicts into sustainable sober citizens, is the creed of this article. Civic pride is just a by-product.

Works Cited:

Personal Interviews w/ local business owners, law enforcement, and government officials, 2013-14

Chicago Tribune, Great Americans, Bill and Chelsea Clinton, 2013

PBS Frontline, pbs.org, A Social History of America's Most Popular Drugs, 2013

Stanford EDU, stanford.edu, Poverty and Prejudice

Drug Abuse.net, drugabuse.net, Drug Abuse Around the World, 2014

European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, emcdda.europa.eu, Norway Overview

Better Angels of Our Nature, Steven Pinker, 2012

Willamette Week, The Hard Truth, Nigel Jaquiss, 2012

Personal Opinion