[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 75 (Wednesday, June 4, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1109-E1110]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 STATEMENTS BY TOM DOUTHAT AND KEVIN BELANGER, MONTPELIER HIGH SCHOOL 
                   REGARDING INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS.

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. BERNARD SANDERS

                               of vermont

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 4, 1997

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues I would 
like to have printed in the Record this statement by high school 
students from Montpelier High School in Vermont, who were speaking at 
my recent town meeting on issues facing young people:

       Mr. Douthat. I would like to thank you for coming to our 
     school, Congressman Sanders, and we are going to be talking 
     about some of the U.S. drug policies in South America.
       Clinton proposed to spend $16 billion this year on the War 
     on Drugs. This figure is up from $10 billion spent during the 
     1980s over the entire decade. 70 percent of the money spent 
     on drugs is spent on actual prevention and keeping it out of 
     the country, whether that be through South American programs 
     or Border Patrol and 30 percent is spent on drug 
     rehabilitation.
       During the Bush Administration he proposed a five-year, 
     $2.2 billion program for Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru, 
     and in 1993 he granted $716 million to the South American 
     nations and Mexico as long as they committed themselves to 
     reducing their product production and respect for human 
     rights.
       The U.S. also helped to train local police forces in these 
     countries, to dispute drug trafficking and the destroying of 
     cocoa. Also we sponsored their rates in any of these 
     countries.
       Although this policy has been in effect for a long time it 
     really hasn't worked in curbing the influx of drugs into this 
     country or the use of them once they are in here, and during 
     this period of time spending has ballooned and the amount of 
     drugs hasn't gone down. Basically, the only thing that this 
     has affected now is there are 400,000 Americans in the jail 
     on drug possession charges and trafficking charges.
       Our question is do you think this policy could be used more 
     effectively in the zero tolerance policy or do you think 
     there is a better philosophy in and attacks at curbing drug 
     production and use in the United States if you think that is 
     a significant problem?
       Mr. Belanger. Well we basically got together and when we 
     were talking, actually it was a little bit ago, we were 
     thinking of proposals in which in order to cut the spending 
     that the government could possibly use, so we thought of--we 
     think it might be actually in the process the government 
     is considering this, but we are thinking like what 
     happens, instead of spending like the $16 million--billion 
     I mean, fighting like the so-called War on Drugs and like 
     cutting off the supply from the drugs coming up, maybe the 
     government controlled as in they would--how would you say?
       Mr. Douthat. They would sell--the government would be sort 
     of the handler of drugs, sort like methadone clinics but 
     modified more than that, not quite suppliers but something 
     near to that. And we think that is a good idea because really 
     the only thing that our drug policy has affected in the last 
     ten years, it is really gotten a lot of South American drug 
     dealers and drug producers and drug traffickers in this 
     country quite wealthy.
       Mr. Belanger. What we were thinking is if the government 
     was basically like the pharmacist, like if you had any 
     addiction whatsoever, you would go to them and like the 
     government could actually make--I do not know if they would 
     make money off this, so that is one aspect, but they also 
     would lower the street value so that the drug dealers 
     couldn't make a business.
       Mr. Douthat. It wouldn't be quite like methadone clinics 
     and it wouldn't be completely medical. If they did also 
     supply drugs to non-addicts it would virtually--for one 
     thing, it would take away the AIDS threat from IV drug users 
     and also it would make it--drugs have been in cultures for as 
     long as humanity has existed, so I really do not think it is 
     realistic to completely curb recreational drug use and it has 
     been shown through prohibition of alcohol and marijuana and 
     other drugs that it just doesn't work.

[[Page E1110]]

       So I think that the government sponsoring it would make it 
     clean, would make the drugs safer and it would make people 
     who are occasional users, they wouldn't have to be criminals, 
     they would be living much more normal lives.
       Mr. Belanger. Legalize drugs in the form where the 
     government would be your supplier, so it is in a more 
     controlled area, cleaner drugs.
       Mr. Douthat. And I think some drugs would have to be 
     treated differently and I think cocaine and crack and heroine 
     especially are the ones that are really addictive would have 
     to be treated differently than the drugs like marijuana.
       Mr. Belanger. And maybe as a suggestion to you and the 
     people you work with, treat like the U.K. and I think it is 
     Denmark hashish bars, stuff like that and Holland has 
     basically testers and like as examples like to see how things 
     have gone over there, and if things have worked well.

     

                          ____________________