To the editor:
An article recently appeared on the front page of The New York Times to which we should all pay heed. “Good People Go Bad In Iowa Town and a Drug Is Blamed.” The article tells the woeful tale of the influx of the drug methamphetamine which has become so pervasive that in the Midwest they are now experiencing more arrests for methamphetamine than for drunken driving.
Tragically the drug is characterized as being “the most malignant, addictive drug known to mankind,” capable of causing symptoms similar to paranoid schizophrenia. Its use has even led to bizarre and grisly murders resulting from psychotic and violent behavior.
Having reached what health officials in Iowa refer to as an epidemic state, fear and anxiety has arisen as to how this drug may be con¬trolled.
In the process of informing the public about the lethal nature of this drug it was deemed paramount that those considered at high risk be made aware of the stark difference between the deadly methamphetamine (crank and ice) and amphetamine (uppers or speed), reputedly the drug of choice for students, athletes and workers seeking more endurance.
It is bedeviling to read statistics reporting the number of kids that have experimented with drugs in our community. Although they claim to have an awareness of the relative risks involved ranging from cigarettes to heroin, confusion over which end of this spectrum to place the drug methamphetamine could be devastating. Our children should be made aware of the pernicious nature of this drug.
The article closed with the admonition, “This drug has not yet impacted the East Coast, but it’s coming.” This should be a wake-up call for all of us. Can we for once mobilize an information alert to fend off this pending plague before we find ourselves awash in a crisis?
Assuming that we buttress our¬selves against this new menace, what further steps might we take against this pernicious disease?
The solution has been so elusive that no proposed resolution should be considered too trivial to entertain. Considering that education, an appeal to morality, and law enforcement by themselves have not brought menace to bay, would it be a weak presumption that withholding dearly, cherished social privilege would provide sufficient motivation to refrain from drug use?
It has been established that for the privilege to compete in an Olympic sport, participants must submit to drug screening.
Likewise, if a drug-free urine lest was to be linked to the attainment and subsequent renewal of a driver’s license, could not the spector of being denied this dearly held privilege not only impose severe consequences to drug use but provide a rational argument for the youngster who finds it difficult to fend; off friends’ inducement to experiment with drugs. With drug traces remaining in the urine for about 30 days staggered testing dates for licensure would virtually demand that the applicant remain drug free indefinitely.
Considering there may be a civil liberties issue at stake with automobile licensure, the same concept might be applied to the attainment of automobile insurance.
Compared t6 the devastating economic consequences drugs have inflicted on the country, the inconvenience and relative cost of the urine test would nothing more than a drop in the bucket.
Albert J. Replccl, D.M.D.
Greenwich