Yesterday I was in my anthropology class and we were talking about the effects that the Vietnam War had on the Hmong society. The thing that caught my attention was that the professor said that during the war, the United States had a problem with soldiers getting addicted to heroin, since that region was a major producer of opium which is used to make heroin. I thought it was interesting and decided to make a post about it, to show even the people who enforce the law can also fall the temptation of drugs.
I found that in 1971two senators reported that about 15% of the US soldiers serving in Vietnam were addicted to heroin. In order to cope with the problem the armed forces gave soldiers two options, one was that if a soldier was found with illicit drugs they went to court martial and then they were given dishonorable discharge; the second option was to voluntarily seek help and they were offered amnesty and treatment. The problem was so huge that more than 1000 soldiers were being sent back to the United States each DAY. President Nixon was worried that there were going to be so many drug addicts coming in, that he didn’t know what to do. Dr. Jaffe from the University of Chicago came up with a plan, which Nixon put into effect in less than six weeks. The plan suggested drug tests of the soldiers, and if traces of drug use were found instead of giving them court martial they were to be given treatment.
If this doesn’t surprise you, then I don’t know what will.
On some of my previous posts I said that instead of sentencing people to jail for using drugs, they should be given treatment or sent to rehabilitation centers; well, as you can see a professor from the University of Chicago feels the same way and I am pretty sure many of you believe that treatment is a better way to deal with drug abuse.
I agree, treatment is a much better way to deal with this problem. Do you think this treatment should be used in conjunction with therapy as well? In many cases, drugs are used as an escape method for bigger problems (such as post-traumatic stress in soldiers). If they received no punishment, just therapy and treatment, do you think they would be more apt to go back to the drugs as soon as their "punishment" or treatments were over?
ReplyDeleteI mean you cannot really blame the soldiers for being addicted to a drug that makes them feel happier about the current conditions they are experiencing. War is brutal and can leave many people scared emotionally and mentally with post-traumatic stress. But, I do agree that treatment is better than simply dismissing the soldier. But certainly, one cannot guarantee 100% recovery from the treatment. Actually, most treatment will lead to failure and only few of the soldiers will truly rise above the addiction and live calm and peaceful lives. On the other hand, not having some kind of punishment for using drugs will only serve as an incentive for people to actually want to experience with drugs due to the fact that no serious consequences would be put into action. So in the ideal sense, treatment would be a better solution to the problem. But realistically speaking, people must learn that for every action they take, an equal consequence will follow that can leave you worst than when started.
ReplyDelete@18equalsadult Yes I hadn't thought about it but you are right, it would work better if it was treated with therapy. No I don't think that they would be more apt to going back to drugs, since they had intense therapy and treatment they probably will be less likely to go back.
ReplyDelete@Jonathan I agree with most of the stuff you said, but like you said they are in a brutal environment so they need a distraction. What I don't fully agree with is the punishment, sure you are right they need to be disciplined, but not too severely because it can ruin their lives.