_________________________________________________________________
VOLUME 5, ISSUE 1 PSYCHNEWS INTERNATIONAL July 2000
-- AN ONLINE PUBLICATION --
_________________________________________________________________
SECTION E: THE FIFTH COLUMN
Note: The Fifth Column is a regular, independent column
written by Jeffrey A. Schaler, Ph.D.
For this issue, Dr. Schaler has invited his colleague,
Professor of Justice, Law and Society Emeritus
Arnold S. Trebach, to contribute to the Psychnews
as a guest columnist.
Opinions and comments are invited. Please send them to
the PsychNews Int'l mailbox: psychnews@psychologie.de
_________________________________________________________________
REFLECTIONS ON GIVING BIRTH AND ALL THAT (1)
Arnold S. Trebach, Ph.D., J.D.
[Note: Every year, the Drug Policy Foundation (DPF) pays
homage to achievement in the field of drug policy reform
through its Annual Achievement Awards. The awards are
presented each year at the Awards Banquet, held at DPF's
International Conference on Drug Policy Reform. Professor
Emeritus Arnold S. Trebach delivered this essay on receiving
the 1999 Richard J. Dennis Award for Outstanding Achievement
in the Field of Drug Policy Reform.] (2,3)
I am honored and grateful that The Drug Policy
Foundation (DPF) has chosen me to receive the Dennis Award
this year. This gives me the opportunity to express my
sincere thanks to all of the fine people who provided so
much encouragement and support during the turbulent decade
when I started this organization and saw it grow into a
major force for positive social change.
I dedicate this award to the people who were vital in
the beginning. Especially, I want to share the honor of
this award with my wonderful wife, Marj Rosner, and with
Kevin Zeese. Believe me, DPF would not have started without
their help and guidance. For some years, Kevin, Marj and I
constituted the entire board of directors and the actual
day-to-day working leadership. We relied heavily on Rich
Dennis, for whom this award is named, for financial support
and for frequent counseling and guidance on all manner of
difficult issues. None of us will ever forget, moreover,
the inspiring encouragement of three giants who are no
longer with us in the flesh but are very much present in
their enduring lessons: Ed Brecher, Wes Pomeroy, and Norm
Zinberg.
As many of you know, I retired from the presidency of
the Foundation and from my professorship at the American
University at the end of 1997. In a sense, the decision to
leave both organizations was rather sudden, although I had
been thinking about such moves for a long time. I felt that
it was simply time to move on to the next phase of my life
and work. I regret that I did not have the time to sit down
and talk to each of you and explain these rather drastic
moves in person.
Even though I planned it and it seemed the right thing
to do at the time, my leaving DPF was painful for me. I
loved the place and still do. It was, and is, one of my
proudest accomplishments. I look upon it and its people--
those still here and those who have moved on to greater
glory--in almost the same way that I look upon my children
and grandchildren, with unqualified warm affection. I never
doubted the over-riding worth of the organization or of its
mission. I still do not.
When I set up the organization, the guiding idea was to
make drug policy reform decent and respectable. This was
because in the Eighties proponents of drug law reform were
seen by many to be simply burnt-out relics of the Sixties,
interested only in securing a steady supply of dope. I saw
a need to counter that image and to build a solid
professional and scholarly institution that would be
respected in every segment of society in this country and
throughout the civilized world.
Because of my interest in things British, I adopted a
phrase from that country to describe the people and forces I
was attempting to rally in the United States and around the
world--the loyal opposition. I wanted to demonstrate that
those who opposed the drug laws and the drug war were a
vital part of the society, just as much as those who
supported that war and drug prohibition. That message was
important for both groups, for both the proponents and the
opponents of current policies. It was especially important
for the latter group, the drug-war dissenters.
All of us have been so brainwashed by the theology of
prohibition that even the most pronounced and convinced
opponents, such as myself, at times need reminding that it
is socially proper and responsible to be an opponent of the
war on people called the war on drugs; we are really not
condemning children to die from freely available chemicals;
we are acceptable dinner guests; and yes you would want your
daughter to marry one of us.
This need for ideological reinforcement within our
society of reformers was why, shortly after starting DPF,
that I came up with the idea of annual awards for excellence
in drug policy reform endeavors. As I was watching the
Academy Awards from Hollywood one night during the late
Eighties, it struck me just how the leaders of the
entertainment business had managed to implant in the minds
of so much of the world's population the notion that the act
of being an actor was truly worthy of great acclaim in the
form of an award from within the society of actors and of
the entertainment business. Moreover, that award carried an
aura of acceptance far beyond the business world of
entertainment.
Then and there the seeds were planted for the annual
awards and the annual Awards Banquets of The Drug Policy
Foundation. The first took place in 1988, at the Second
International Conference on Drug Policy reform. This of
course is the eleventh such awards event. I have presided
over the first ten. I never dreamed I would appear as the
recipient of an award, certainly not the primary one.
I saw the foundation as a standard and a symbol around
which all decent people and all decent organizations and
institutions could rally. That included drug consumers and
their organizations, such as NORML, but my hopes for DPF
were that it would be seen as much broader. I saw it as an
umbrella organization or a big tent that would provide
comfortable space for the widest range of reformers--to cite
a few examples, those who wanted full legalization, those
who wanted decriminalization only of soft drugs like
marijuana, those who wanted harm reduction or medicalization
of hard drugs like heroin and cocaine, and those who did not
know what they wanted but knew only that they did not want
current policy. I sought to enlist the support and active
involvement of a large number of Establishment people and
institutions. I also sought to encourage others to form
similar organizations and then to enlist still others.
As I look back on it all, I am amazed and delighted at
the growth of the drug policy reform movement and at the
number of new organizations that have grown up in this and
other countries modeled at least in part on The Drug Policy
Foundation. It is interesting to see how many of them have
adopted the very name or something close to it. Some
potential organization founders came to DPF conferences for
some solace and comfort--and happened there to meet funders
and supporters who helped them change history. I am also
encouraged by the extent to which reform ideas, especially
harm reduction, are spreading throughout the civilized
world.
However, real reform is difficult and replete with
obstacles. Look at the obstacles that have been put in the
path of implementation of the successful medical marijuana
propositions of recent years.
The job of saving America's soul from the ravages of
prohibition and the drug war is not done. There is a long
road yet to travel.
I have decided that my job is not done yet, either. I
note that Tony Bennett, for one, is about my age and that he
keeps singing his old songs, and a few new ones. I intend
to keep singing mine also.
In fact, I never stopped. When I left the foundation
and the university in 1997, I discovered that I was almost
as busy as before. As the saying goes, I found that I had
not really retired but had simply changed jobs.
One of the most important is my involvement in a case
in the United Kingdom where I have been serving as an
advisor to the lawyers and as an expert witness. The
central figure in the case is a doctor who was erased from
the medical register by the General Medical Council in large
part because he prescribed narcotic drugs to an addict who
later used them to commit suicide. In other words, the
doctor lost his license to practice medicine due to the fact
that he prescribed drugs to an addicted patient. Supposedly
such practices are a well-accepted part of British medicine
and have spread from that island nation to much of the
civilized world under the rubric of harm reduction.
However, as this case shows, in any nation questions
continually arise as to the proper role of doctors in
prescribing powerful drugs--whether to patients in
organically based pain or to patients who are suffering from
addiction, sometimes of course, one and the same human
being.
The doctor in this case is a man of principle. He has
hired lawyers and is fighting to secure justice on a number
of fronts. I have joined in this cause. If the right of
doctors to be protected in the rational use of their
prescribing powers is not secure in the United Kingdom, it
is secure nowhere.
The need to protect those powers and to protect the
doctor-patient relationship in all societies is a vital one.
That principle has become an important part of two new
organizations that I have recently founded.
The first is The Trebach Institute, a 501(c)(3)
charitable foundation, and the second, Arnold S. Trebach &
Associates, LLC, a tax-paying professional consulting firm.
Both are meant to continue to serve the needs of drug policy
reform in areas that I believe need urgent attention now.
As was the case with the launch of DPF, both will be
initially funded by my wife, Marjorie Rosner, and me. And
as in the past, we will seek outside funding in a variety of
forms to expand the activities of these groups. And, also
as in the past with DPF, we shall seek to cooperate with all
of the existing reform organizations, big and small, new and
comparatively old, on a basis of friendship and
colleagueship. That includes DPF for the wheel has now gone
full circle. I am just starting up again and you, old
friends, are well-established. We cannot do it alone, none
of us; the task is too big and the opposition too well-
entrenched and too well-funded.
Here are some of the principal elements of the missions
of these groups.
First, as I have indicated, is the protection of the
doctor-patient relationship. That phrase is meant to
encompass a broad arena, one which was among my initial
interests when I started DPF. My particular interest now is
to enlist lawyers in the defense of doctors and patients
accused of violating the drug laws or medical ethics and
standards. Even within existing law in any country, there
are times when doctors and patients are accused of violating
those laws or medical ethics, often because their medical
practices oppose prohibition ideology. There is a great
need for good lawyers to get involved in such cases in an
effective manner. And there is also a need for training for
those lawyers in the best strategies and techniques in order
to prevail.
A second and closely related element is the enhancement
of the welfare and legal rights of substance abusers, those
who are addicted to any chemical, legal or illegal. The
emphasis, however, will be on abusers of illegal drugs,
especially opiates. This will involve working with patient
advocacy groups and with some individual addicts. The
initial purpose is to raise the consciousness of addicts so
that they think of themselves as potentially decent and
productive citizens and not as sub-human savages whose very
existence presents a threat to society. The latter is the
image many addicts have of themselves, brought about in part
by the fact that this image is created and promulgated by
opinion leaders, including some so-called addiction experts.
My major inspiration for working compassionately with
addicts is found in the lives and works of two wonderful
Britons, Bing Spear and Terry Tanner, both of whom, sadly,
have gone on to their heavenly rewards. Even though Bing
was a senior Home Office drugs official, with some
enforcement powers, he was good friends with many long-time
injecting heroin addicts. He felt an obligation to look out
for their welfare. Addicts understood this sense of
compassion. When I was about to deliver a eulogy in his
honor several years ago in St. Botolph's Church in London, a
lady (a wonderful, brilliant soul with a long history of
drug abuse and prostitution) rushed up and advised me with
some passion, "Don't forget to say what he did for us
junkies!" I didn't.
Terence Tanner was a Catholic priest who ran a hostel
or set of apartments for addicts in London. Many of those
addicts were using vast quantities of prescribed drugs. He
sought to help all of them to lead normal and responsible
lives, regardless of the issue of drug use. Father Tanner
once observed: "The French have a proverb, 'By doing the
work of a blacksmith you become a blacksmith.' We would
adapt it to our work, 'By living a normal life, you become
normal.'" This perceptive and passionate advocate for the
hated thus sought to counteract this hurtful reality:
"addicts are the scapegoats of our age." You will not be
surprised if my work in this arena is under the rubric of
The Scapegoat Project.
A third element in my future efforts will be aimed at
creating changes in laws and medical standards so as to
provide better medical care. I have long fought for changes
of this nature, such as for making marijuana available in
medicine. Others have made giant strides here and I will
not expend much effort on, say, medical marijuana. It is in
good hands. At the same time there is a need for change
regarding other drugs, especially the opiates. In this
connection, I intend to return to my early interest in
making heroin available in American medicine for the
treatment of organically based pain, especially for terminal
cancer patients, and also for addicts. There is no reason,
save unreasoning fear, for banning this fine medicine from
the American medicine chest.
A fourth component of my new work will be to emphasize
the fundamental truth that many of our social and criminal
justice problems stem from the stranglehold of prohibition
and the accompanying phobia about legalization. This phobia
permeates the reform movement as well as most of the
society. It poisons too many good minds and organizations.
Even some libertarian organizations, which supposedly would
oppose such governmental intervention into the most personal
aspects of the lives of a free people, do not really support
legalization for fear of alienating their generally
conservative supporters.
My position is that the new mantra of all of the
reformers ought to be this: Legalization Is Not A Four-
Letter Word. It must again become a vital part of our
broader reform discussion and part of the agenda of every
major reform organization. I am glad to see that it is
still part of the agenda of The Drug Policy Foundation,
although I am not clear how strong a part.
By legalization, I mean the total repeal of drug
prohibition. A major effort ought therefore to be expended
by reformers on how to design the world after repeal or
after the disintegration of the drug-war machine. There is
no doubt in my mind that prohibition as we have known it is
doomed. We, all of us in the reform camp, are writing its
funereal music. Yet, something will replace it. We
reformers have a responsibility to come up with new
practical methods as to how these new models might be
implemented.
Many concepts now appear in reform literature that
ought out to be reexamined and perhaps retooled. For
example, I have long advocated the following approach for
the US, which might well apply, in some respects, to other
countries. By a national law repeal the current dominant
federal drug control laws and return the power to control
drugs to the states, as was done with alcohol prohibition in
1933. Then I would recommend that each state set up its own
unique system of new drug control and treatment laws.
My preferred model for the states would have two
options. The first would be the medical option. Under this
option medical patients and adult recreational users would
have to go to doctors and obtain prescriptions for the drugs
they desired. It would be up to individual doctors to
prescribe or not. However, the doctors would have much
broader protection if they chose to do so. The second
option would be the non-medical option under which adults
would be able to purchase modest amounts of virtually any
drug from non-medical drug stores. These establishments
would be carefully regulated by well-designed sets of new
laws not unlike those now controlling the sale of alcoholic
beverages in the various states. As in the case of those
liquor laws and regulations, the new drug laws should be
under constant study and re-evaluation.
More recently, I have been impressed by the great value
of the Dutch coffee shops. Here we have the best example of
de facto legalization in the world. The coffee-shop model
involves careful planning, national and local regulations,
and regular police supervision. It is under constant re-
evaluation and adjustment by the responsible Dutch
authorities. It should be in the forefront of the next wave
of reform because it provides for the near-legal use of
marijuana and hashish by adults for recreation, not for
medical treatment. The mayor of Amsterdam recently granted
me a license to operate a coffee shop; it is real, not
simply honorific. I am tempted to put it to use before it
expires, but that would involve a song that I have not yet
sung. Still, it is an intriguing melody . . . .
I have described some of these models in previous
writings, but know that they need rethinking. I hope that
others will be encouraged to come forward with many other
ideas in the study of rational models of legalization, and
of how they might be implemented.
A danger here is that, like in the Soviet Union, when
the old order collapses, there will be chaos. Those best in
a position to move in and take over will be the old
apparatchiks. We in the reform movement must train our own
administrative cadres lest the new machinery of legalization
be run by the likes of Bill Bennett, Barry McCaffrey, and
even Gabriel Nahas.
Moving on to the fifth area of great interest for these
new organizations, we want to be very active in the
educational arena. This is an arena wherein Jeffrey
Schaler, my colleague in these new organizations, and I can
talk from personal experience. We have both seen how
difficult it is to bring drug policy reform ideas into the
mainstream of American education. And we have also seen how
students and some teachers are deeply hurt by current drug
laws and enforcement practices as they apply within
educational institutions. The story of teacher Sherry
Hearn, who was fired for objecting to searches of innocent
students, has been well-reported in DPF publications. There
are many stories like hers.
Our plan is to present special seminars that will
attract the best university students from this country and
others in part because we will provide scholarships for them
to attend. They will be given an intensive primer on the
realities of the drug laws and of drug policy reform, and
they will be asked to go back to their schools to spread the
word about these ideas and the need for them in the
curricula of those schools. We shall also seek to design
new curriculum materials and books for high schools and
colleges. Finally, we will develop plans to protect
students and teachers in their rights to dissent from school
policies that infringe on their freedoms as citizens in the
guise of protecting them from drugs.
There is more to report but that will give you some
idea of what I am doing in my roaming about the pastures of
retirement. As in the past I am having a great deal of fun
in these endeavors. Again, my thanks to The Drug Policy
Foundation for this award and for all of its fine work--and
to all of you for your help.
We have a great deal of work to do. In this connection
it might be worthwhile to recall the words of F. S. Perls,
the founder of Gestalt therapy, "To die and be reborn is not
easy."
We, all of us, have more uneasy miracles to create
together, more births that will continue to make us gasp at
the wonder of it all.
Thank you so much for your kindness and compassion.
NOTES.
(1) Essay on the occasion of receiving the Richard J. Dennis
Drugpeace Award, Awards Ceremony, 12th International
Conference on Drug Policy Reform, The Drug Policy
Foundation, Decatur House, Washington, D.C., May 15, 1999.
(2) See http://www.dpf.org and
http://www.dpf.org/html/awardees.html#drug
(3) The Dennis Award was presented to Professor Trebach by
Jeffrey A. Schaler, on behalf of the Drug Policy Foundation.
To read his presentation speech see
http://www.enabling.org/ia/szasz/schaler/other.html
Arnold S. Trebach, Ph.D., J.D., Professor of Justice, Law
and Society Emeritus, School of Public Affairs, American
University, is the Founder and Past President of the Drug
Policy Foundation. He is currently Chairman of The Trebach
Institute, Washington, D.C.
Email: arnoldtrebach@compuserve.com
_________________________________________________________________