"As long as
narcotics are dispensed by criminals in the streets
and schools of our country, we will need to spend
billions on interdiction and crime and pay the price
for drug-related violence. By far, the more preferable
path is to make it possible for addicts to be treated
by doctors in secure settings. In that way, they
can be monitored, weaned away from street drugs,
and removed from the necessity of robbing or killing
in order to feed their habits. For anyone to prefer
that addicts get their drugs from criminals in the
streets or pushers in the schools and that they
be forced into crime or prostitution to support
their habits is ludicrous. The de-criminalization
of addiction through supervised medical treatment
is the only sane way to protect society. For Mr.
English to oppose this concept by spouting the shiboleth
of 'legalized drugs' shows not only his own stupidity,
but the fact that his policies will actually aid
and abet the criminal underworld which counts on
his position to reap their profits. And I need not
point out that the terrorists of the world depend
on the sale of narcotics to fund their terrorism.
So in a very real sense, Mr. English's barbaric
position is actually playing right into their hands.
How insanely stupid!
Now let us consider
my doctrine of prevention. As a teacher and school
administrator of 37 years I was required to take
dozens of workshops on childhood and adolescent
drug use, and many hours of coursework in the field
of child psychology -- far more than my opponent.
In addition, I was involved on a daily basis with
students who were battling the problems of addiction.
I believe I learned a little something about the
problem, and I would like to share what I think
is the most important thing I learned. It is this:
the greatest difference between the student who
becomes addicted and the one who doesn't is the
fact that the kid who does feels little or no sense
of self-worth while the kid who doesn't has a much
better idea of what he or she can produce from within.
To say this using the words of academia, the addict
seeks extrinsic rewards -- that is rewards from
outside him- or herself, while the non-addicted
child can derive rewards from his or her own intrinsic
behavior.
What does that mean?
It means that when we teach our kids that a calculator
will add for them, a computer will spell for them,
a video game will entertain them, we reinforce the
feeling that rewards do not depend upon what the
individual does for him- or herself, but rather
what is done to the individual by an external thing.
And how do we combat that? By giving our kids the
greatest chances to be successful from their own
efforts. When we teach the child to add first, to
spell first before we have the machine aid them,
we build that inner pride and self-worth they need.
When we do not lie to them about the quality of
their work--tell them it is good when it is and
that is needs improvement when it does--we give
them the sense of reality they need. When we engage
them in activities which stimulate the development
of their inner talents, we teach them that the greatest
rewards come from within, not without. That is why
I am so disappointed when after school programs
are cut or when we eliminate music, or art, or drama,
or sports from our schools. When a child wins the
school debate, makes that first down on the football
team, gets the lead in the school musical, he or
she builds an inner strength which is indespensible
to self-worth. And that is the greatest deterent
to seeking that worth in a joint or a bottle or
a fix. The development of the whole child--intellectually,
physically, vocationally, and spiritually--is our
best defense against addiction. And to do that we
have got to divest ourselves of the insanity that
education requires only the three R's..
These principles
have always been important, but they are of particular
importance now because since World War Two, the
economy of the US has made it less and less likely
that children have enough supervision and support
at home. In 1945, 93% of American families were
able to be supported by one spouse (at that time
usually the husband) while one spouse (usually the
wife) was home to care for the kids. Today that
formula applies to only 7% of American families.
Without parental supervision and support, kids are
at far greater risk, and that is why programs such
as the ones above are so critical for our schools
to provide.
Putting a button
on your kid which reads 'just say no' or a sign
on your school wall which reads 'drug-free zone'
is a tragically inadequate way to prevent the nightmares
which so many of our kids face. We are going to
have to understand the psychology of addiction and
the psychology of wellness in order to deal with
this problem, and I am very proud of the fact that
the ideas I have expressed above have been born
out by research and put into reality by my creation
of the Rod Serling School of Fine Arts.
By providing the
chance for thousands of students to find joy and
success in their own artistic development, my school
was able to achieve things in education -- and at
a time when so many other programs saw horrible
declines -- which were amazing. Higher grade-point
averages, lower drop-out rates, higher post-secondary
school acceptance rates, more vocational success,
and far less addicitions were all part of the results
we saw and which continue to this day. It is Mr.
English's ideas which need revision. His blind acceptance
of the status quo is perhaps the greatest obstacle
we face in solving the problems of child-rearing
which plague our nation.
Click
the button below to Help STEVE become YOUR Congressman
in Washington
