Love It or Lose It

Watching the horrors unfold in Ukraine provokes emotional turbulence. Sadness, fear, and anger swirl with awe and admiration for those who fight against the odds to save their beloved homeland.

I have thought about the Ukrainian woman, and others like her, whose depiction of brutality was met with disbelief by relatives in Russia. With Russian propaganda foisted off as real news, the people have been convinced that Russian troops were deployed on a special assignment to liberate Ukraine and to save its people from the terror wrought by Nazi-influenced Ukrainian soldiers murdering their own people. 

Power-driven without regard for human rights, an authoritarian regime routinely denies access to accurate information and can't fathom a society in which the people have a voice. Accordingly, all sources of information from outside Russia have been shut down with internal messages crafted to hide the truth and obscure the facts, with commands from on high spelling out the chilling consequences for violators.

This grim picture reminds us to be thankful for the tenets of democracy and to be mindful of holding on to its principles.  Fundamental to the system of checks and balances that undergird our democracy is freedom of the press, so much so that it is enshrined in the first amendment of our Constitution. Despite being somewhat of a thorn in the side of our leaders—some more than others!—the role of a free press represents the height of patriotism in that, by informing the public, it ensures accountability. 

I remember important truths that wouldn't have come to light without the dogged pursuit of the press, launched without an agenda other than securing and revealing the facts. Examples include exposing the nation's lies about Vietnam and uncovering the sexual abuse rampant in the Catholic Church. Certainly, opinions could vary, and perspectives on how to handle misdeeds may not have aligned, but facts were not disputable. People had to grapple for themselves but nonetheless were afforded the benefit of doing so with solid information. 

I do not idealize the "good old days"—the days of excused segregation and inequality—but I am worried about how our press has evolved in recent years. The onslaught of Cable TV's twenty-four-hour news cycle bled into that of social media and opened a floodgate of information, not all of which is worthy or even close to reliable. But it seems to me that this reality should prompt the primary news networks to live up to the highest of standards in maintaining the integrity that the people deserve.

I grew up with Eric Sevareid and Walter Cronkite, along with Huntley and Brinkley. Maybe this is why, in my adult life, I have gravitated to Jim Lehrer and more recent PBS broadcasts that have included a delightful interplay between conservative David Brooks and liberal Mark Shields. Over the years, we have gotten to know and learned from opinion writers—from Maureen Dowd to George Will—whose perspectives have been shared openly with political leanings well known. But we seem to have lost our way in terms of the current mainstream daily news.

I don't want the people on MSNBC telling me what to think. Instead, tell me what he did, and how you discovered it, and let me decide if he is a bad husband or a hopeless liar, or a person to emulate. Please don't be sensational in the delivery, and avoid being too quick to jump on a public figure who changed her mind as if it's a foregone conclusion that it's a weakness. The "Aha—got you now!" must stop; it's irritating, especially when you bask in the glory, tipping your hand that another's downfall made your day. And to FOX News I say: stop making stuff up. It is dangerous. There is no dignity in it, and we all deserve better. Just give me the facts. You can titillate your conservative friends by just being a conservative icon, you can even share your perspective on the day's events but don't fabricate. It's killing us. And it is not freedom. 

A recent example pertains to addressing the overdose crisis. Top advisors in the Biden administration—National Drug Control Policy Director, Rahul Gupta, and Secretary of Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra—understand that harm reduction is a pillar of needed reform and that saving lives is largely dependent on expanding its initiatives. They are confident in the research findings that harm reduction does not encourage drug use. Accepting the fact that our nation is not ready for some initiatives that have proven successful elsewhere—such as overdose prevention sites—these expert public servants are eager to implement other vital services such as providing safe supplies. This is progress. We should all welcome it. 

The whole concept of harm reduction requires education to clear up the misunderstandings that have long thwarted its powerful potential. Simply put, harm reduction is based on the fact that many human behaviors cause harm and that health-related services mitigate the risks while also promoting a path to wellness. Based on compassion and respect, the common-sense strategies may take some getting used to since they are the opposite of the shaming and criminalizing that have been our default despite inflicting more harm than the risky behavior they supposedly address. The life-saving capacity of harm reduction programs is not a hunch on the part of Becerra and Gupta any more than it is on the part of the world's leading health organizations. The data is substantial and conclusive. Keeping people alive provides the chance to recover, which most people go on to do. 

Undoubtedly troubled by the past year's surge in overdose fatalities, the Biden administration pledged support for harm reduction to the tune of $30 million for a three-year period. While this announcement was a breakthrough in terms of governmental buy-in for these evidence-based services, it is important to know that this allocation represents less than one percent of the nation's drug control budget—a disappointment for those who advocate for meaningful change. Even so, it represents an important step in providing some funds for resources, to be pre-approved and based on community needs, in dozens of organizations across the country.  

The array of harm reduction initiatives that provide health care and prioritize safety for drug users include drug testing kits, naloxone, and referrals to treatment, as well as those that have reduced the spread of HIV and hepatitis C such as clean syringes and safe smoking kits. Interestingly, even though injecting drugs is riskier than smoking them, it is the latter that caused an unfortunate backlash, a huge over-reaction. Designed to minimize the perils of contaminated paraphernalia, smoking kits usually contain a rubber mouthpiece to prevent cuts and burns, brass screens to filter contaminants, lip balm, and disinfectant wipes. These rarely include an actual pipe, mostly because of the expense. 

Just when experts, whose sole focus is saving lives, were finally breathing a sigh of relief in the long hard battle to win over lawmakers from both parties, conservative media wasted no time in jumping on the current administration with headlines claiming, 

“Biden Admin To Fund Crack Pipe Distribution To Advance 'Racial Equity.'" 

News outlets followed almost immediately, launching accusations such as, 

"The federal government is spending $30 million for smoking cocaine." 

Then—in the blink of an eye—the Twitter storm from members of Congress: 

"Biden crime policy: Crack Pipes for all. What could go wrong?" 

"Government-issued crack pipes being mailed to each American like coronavirus tests." 

If this childish nonsense wasn't so deadly, I would laugh.

When the White House responded that the smoking kits will not include a pipe, they were charged with spreading mistruths and backpedaling, prompting lawmakers such as Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio to introduce legislation to block federal funds for any safe-use drug paraphernalia, threatening the thirty-year fight to assure clean syringe access—something even the Trump administration Surgeon General passionately championed for years, as those in the know do.

There was no debate. No exploration of middle ground. No attempt to educate. In fact, these lawmakers feed the mistruths that keep needed health care out of reach, explaining why the US has yet again led the world in overdose fatalities, something we love to blame on COVID, even though the whole world was in the same boat. 

It's a sad commentary for two reasons: (1) the political games, played at the drop of a hat and at the expense of the truth, take priority over saving lives in the face of another year of more than 100,000 overdose deaths; and (2) the ideology of a society that sees drug use as a moral failure, and clings beyond reason to the damaging policies that underpin barriers to desperately needed life-saving programs. 

We can do better. Playing dumb to score political points isn't cool, and it’s far from brave. 

[photo credit - Aaron Burden]