COM 0314.048 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

o,_,,,w,,, ; PAMELA G. ucHTY 2216 Aha Niu Place ~ \ ~~_„I Honolulu, Hawaii 968?1 r~ R~ ~ June l6, 1997 ' 37 JUN 16 rail 7 55 TO HA\\'AI`1 COUNTY COL?v'CIL FII~,~,I~'CE COVL~IITTEE00UNTY G~ HAWAII FRO44. P.4D~LA EIGHTY, ASSISTANT CLINICAL PROFESSOR, UH - \4A.\~OA SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH RE: TESTLMONY ON CONTACT RE?~E\V.4L FOR\I.4RIJU.4NA ERADIC.4TI0N PROGRAM Good morning, Chairman Cllun~ and members of the Committee. 1 +vould like to testify today about some concerns I have about the continuation of the marijuana eradication programs on the Big Island I have been researching and orgatilzing conferences on drug policy over the last several yeazs. and most recently taueht a course at UH Manoa on Harm Reduction as Public Health Policy. The marijuana eradication program is an example of old +vays of thinking and throwing money at the drug problems in our state, and I would argue that: 1) It's not working and 2) it may be having counterproductive effects. True, it has suppressed much of the erowing of marijuana, and it has certainly increased its scarcity and price, yet recent surveys have sho+vlt that in both Hawaii and the mainland, the number of youngsters using pot has increased steadily over the past three years. In many other jurisdictions, most notably Northern California, citizens are speaking out against the invasion of privacy, the encroachment on property rights, the noise, and the cost of these eradication programs. Many of those in rural areas moved there explicitly for peace and quiet and the ilttrusion of the helicopters is extremely disturbing and can even cause negative health effects, for example precipitating flashbacks among Vietnam vets Its my undemanding that the County Council is required to review and evaluate programs every four years, but that the eradication program has never received a serious review. I'nl sure it is tempting in these hard economic times to accept the Federal monies for this program. but I believe that it is the Council's responsibility to take its mandate seriousl}• and to really examine whether or not file program is cost-effective- is fulfillins its mission (without unanticipated effects such as driving youngsters to more readil}• available and cheaper drugs such as "ice"), and whether or not the people of the Bi¢ Island support its continuation. Debate is raging now all over this country about the effectiveness of the \b'ar on Drus and whether we should continue down the same path. Marijuana suppression programs such as the one on the Big Island epitomize some of the worse aspects of the War on Drugs approach. This is our opportunity to tell the Federal government that their priorities are wrons and that funding should instead be used for effective dru; education. drug treatment, and the suppression of hard drugs and the violence often associated with them. i arse the Committee to recommend rejection of the Federal grant to send a strong message that marijuana eradication is a wasteful. counterproductive use of taxpayer's dollars which could be used in far more positive and productive ways. Thank you for the opportunity to testif}~ today -a!ecn ones (8C8) 735-8001 Fax: (8G8) 735-2971 a-mail: pglicgty@lav-a.net 3/Ll L/O moa, a , 7-0 F]le 1(a V S G - Rd. 4b1 Prasenfod f-' G D.~ti J11N ] 6~~