< PREVIOUS ] [ 1998 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
Often a curious logic infects our Republic. The argument appears to be that if a government does not outlaw a certain activity, then the government is obliged to support it.
The users of this logic run all across the political spectrum. From the Fundamentalist Right, we hear that since it is legal to pray, then taxpayers must provide facilities -- public school classrooms -- for prayers. From the Avant Garde Left, we hear that since it is legal to rent a hall and display whatever images might attract an audience, then the National Endowment for the Arts should subsidize such exhibitions.
The latest such arguments have emerged concerning needle exchanges.
Some people inject unprescribed drugs, and become physically addicted. They're not real particular about sanitation, and often share needles. This is an excellent way to transmit disease, since spiking a vein by-passes many of the body's normal defense mechanisms.
In an ideal world, perhaps, such self-medication would be unknown. But in the world we live in, these dirty needles spread disease. Thanks to various laws that are supposed to protect us, it's rather difficult to walk into a pharmacy and purchase clean needles.
To protect the public health, some big-city governments have proposed needle exchanges. Bring in a dirty one, come out with a clean one, and at least one potential source of infection has been eliminated, at a minimal cost.
The argument against this, as I understand it, is that if the federal government condones the distribution of clean needles, then it is sending an improper message to impressionable children -- somehow implying that it's okay to be a junkie, and thereby increasing the usage of forbidden substances.
(It is curious that this argument does not get extended -- for instance, by spending money on national defense, the government is implying that it's okay to set up your own militia unit, or that by operating various intelligence agencies, the government is condoning voyeurism.)
A few days ago, Donna Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services, said that extensive studies had shown that needle exchanges do not increase drug use but do improve the overall public health. But the federal government wasn't going to fund them.
This seems reasonable. If a city believes it can save money and improve public welfare by operating a needle-exchange program, then let that city do it. I can't think of a single reason why people in North Dakota should finance needle exchanges in Oakland, Calif.
Naturally, this sensible posture came under immediate attack from both ends of our political spectrum. From the right, we heard that allowing needle exchanges would encourage drug usage, send the wrong message, etc. From the left, we heard that if needle exchanges provide a social benefit, then they should be funded from the national treasury.
Meanwhile, there's another drug-related public-health issue that seems to have escaped public discussion.
We and our children are often told to avoid illegal drugs because they're dangerous and potentially lethal, while we should trust the legal substances prescribed by knowledgeable physicians.
On April 15, the Journal of the American Medical Association published the results of an extensive study concerning prescription medications taken in proper doses.
The study found that more than 2 million Americans become seriously ill every year from toxic reactions to these drugs, and 106,000 Americans die from those causes.
Well, if legal drugs are that dangerous, the illegal ones must be much worse, right?
Perhaps so, but the most recent statistics at hand do not bear this out. In 1993, 13,275 Americans died from using illegal drugs. This means that for every American who dies from abusing uncontrollable substances, eight Americans die from drugs prescribed by a physician and taken in an approved dosage.
So, I'm waiting for some conservative candidate to take
this up during the 1998 campaign, with a speech along the
lines of Look at these numbers. Now, tell me who knows
more about what you should put into your body -- you, or
some pointy-headed bureaucrat in Washington. I tell you,
it's time to trust the people, not the government, and when
I'm elected ...
However, I suspect I'll be waiting for a long time to hear that speech.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 1998 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >