Opinions

Same old blinkered vision won't solve drug problem for Alaska or US

Politicians, pundits and everybody else spend a lot of time trying to solve problems. Two sides argue their points, usually ad nauseam, and generally very little change actually happens. We blame this on gridlock and pat ourselves on our backs knowing that if we could unilaterally institute change, things would be better.

Quite often, that is probably the case. Gridlock is frequently the problem of progress. If only we could institute this new idea, we could fix a particular problem. Sometimes however, there is a different culprit.

The problem is that our leaders get stuck into perfectly constructed boxes, and it is hard for them to see any way but the way that something has been done before. That is how we get funding formulas and mandatory minimum sentences. Legislation takes away the ability for people in power to think dynamically and make decisions in a timely manner that could make a real difference.

On the show "Lockup" on MSNBC, a young African-American man who was serving a 90-day shock incarceration period was asked by one of the correctional officers "are you nervous?" He answered "No, not really." The officer, confused, said "Why not, you're in with murderers, gang members and hardcore thugs." The kid looked at him and said, "That's on the streets too man, that's my everyday life."

That interaction illustrates the issues that so many at various levels of power lack the ability to see through various perspectives. They get caught up in believing that everybody else sees the world through the same lens, or perhaps more accurately that there is only one lens through which to see the world.

It's the same manner in which our leaders look at drug abuse. Can anyone of us stand up and with a straight face declare that the war on drugs has worked? Can anyone stand there and tell us that the current stance we take on drugs is the correct one?

Those in power in this country view drug addicts as criminals. Mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses are constantly on the rise. We make felons out of addicts under the assumption that it will prevent future addicts, but this approach has never worked. Drug treatment is difficult to find and when available, it is generally very costly.

ADVERTISEMENT

When these felons -- even those whose crimes amount to nothing more than possession for personal use -- finally do try to clean up it becomes difficult for them to become employed or find a place to call their own because of their criminal history. This leads them either to the welfare and unemployment rolls or crawling back to the addiction that they tried to conquer -- despite the lack of help from society.

The nation of Portugal decided to think differently. Rather than prosecuting drug users Portugal decriminalized all drugs. Ten years later, according to an article on Forbes.com, drug abuse was down by half.

Forbes contributor Erik Kain reported, "Currently 40,000 people in Portugal are being treated for drug abuse. This is a far cheaper, far more humane way to tackle the problem. Rather than locking up 100,000 criminals, the Portuguese are working to cure 40,000 patients and fine-tuning a whole new canon of drug treatment knowledge at the same time."

The problem is not just in these issues, it's the way we go about thinking: Drugs are bad, so drug users must be bad people. Gang members and hardcore thugs scare me, so they should scare a kid from those same streets.

It's time for a fundamental change in the way we think. Many people say, "Think outside the box." That phrase has become so cliche I don't even know what it means anymore. We don't need to think outside the box, we need to eliminate the box altogether.

The advent of the two-party system and two-sided debate have limited the scope by which we are able to debate. The concept of debate itself is partly to blame. Why should we debate ideas and concepts when we can discuss them? Why have debates rather than forums where stakeholders from a wide variety of perspectives can add their views to the dialogue.

Would Portugal's drug policy work in the United States? There is no way to know because we haven't tried it. It's worked in Portugal. People who desire treatment are now being treated, and it costs less than incarcerating them. What will work best in the U.S.? It depends. Clearly treatment is an important component, but for the specific plan -- maybe we should invite to the table the most important stakeholders in this issue -- the addicts, both those currently suffering and those who have conquered their addictions.

The next revolution in our society won't be fought with tanks and guns; it won't be fought over territory and there won't be astronomical death tolls. Our next revolution will be the insurgency of ideas.

Mike Dingman is a fifth-generation Alaskan born and raised in Anchorage. He is a former UAA student body president and has worked, studied and volunteered in Alaska politics since the late '90s. Contact him at michaeldingman@gmail.com.

The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, e-mail commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com

Mike Dingman

Mike Dingman is a fifth-generation Alaskan born and raised in Anchorage. He is a former UAA student body president and has worked, studied and volunteered in Alaska politics since the late '90s.

ADVERTISEMENT