European Stars And Stripes (Newspaper) - October 19, 1986, Darmstadt, Hesse Page 10 the stars and stripes sunday october 19,1936 David f. Musto War against drugs is fraught with danger we face a Paradox in the currently popular War against drugs except for the cocaine variety known As crack the popularity of drugs including alcohol and tobacco was already declining before the recent Sharp Rise in Public outcry for their repression As reported by the National Institute on drug abuse. We also face two dangers that we have seen before in american crusades against drugs righteous overkill and false linkage. As for the first the possibilities for abuse of drug testing Are enormous with the second we May find our officials linking drugs Wilh groups they find undesirable such As illegal immigrants. To understand reasons for the dangers we have to understand the Paradox. Ii has happened before. The Harrison narcotic Art of 1914, which made it illegal to obtain narcotics in any significant amount except on the prescription of a physician came years after the Peak in consumption in opiates and cocaine for in stance. That decline was easily calculated by import statistics for medicinal opiates which were not restricted until the act was passed the reason is that the decline in demand for drug docs not represent an indifference to drugs but rather an aggregate of thousands of individual decisions to Stop reduce or avoid drug taking based on an acquired fear of drugs. Learning to hate drugs results not so much from Reading a government brochure As from repealed observation of the damage drugs do to acquaintances and society the kind of education thai lasts a lifetime. Therefore the decline in drug consumption is part of a change in social attitudes. Experience with drugs Breeds resistance which Breeds an Atmo sphere in which intolerance and irrationality can flour ish. After Congress passed the Harrison act it became Law thai gave no Quarter following a series of court decisions restricting the medical prescription of narcotics As Well As non medical availability. In 1919, the supreme court interpreted the act to mean thai Doc tors were allowed to prescribe narcotics for pain but not for Mere addiction a policy which remained in effect until methadone maintenance came an the scene in the 1960s. Excesses in its enforcement included the frequent entrapment of physicians by narcotics agents in the 1920s. Agents would have informants go to doctor complaining say of kidney Stone pain. If the doctor prescribed morphine for the pain without performing tests to determine the existence of kidney stones the doctor would be liable to prosecution under the Harri son act. This provided a precedent echoed by these Verity of the mandatory sentences of the 1950 which imprisoned unimportant Small Fry while failing to net major dealers and Mut Tycar sentences for Possession James Kilpatrick 33mto that of Small amounts of marijuana in the 1960s. As with today there was no significant opposition to the Law. Consider thai Only a few years ago argument were commonly made for solving the drug problem by legalizing drugs. The safely of cocaine or the intrinsic value of consciousness expansion with Ltd had out spoken advocates. All have either retired from the Field or find themselves ignored. There is no question that the institutions of society now stand Side by Side against toleration of drug the presence of an unquestioned evil of great pro portions is any attack unjustified surveying the Ami drug scene today i believe the most Likely candidate for zealous Oyer application i drug testing. Urine testing a liquid lie Detector which promises to search out drug users regardless of appear ances has conveniently materialized for mass screen ing at cheap rates. The naive misunderstanding of urine Lesis transforms a Complex process fraught with the possibility of error and unjust punishment into providential instrument for selecting deviants. Such misplaced although Well meaning Faith in testing procedure poses a grave danger 10 the serious work of reducing the damage caused by drugs. Drug testing appears to be Here to stay but the Faith in drug tests should be constrained by the uncertainties of he process or More damage will be done to individuals than Gams Tor a drug free workplace. The other danger false linkage combines an unquestionably serious drug problem with another social prob Lem alarming the Public. During our first wave of drug us involving morphine and cocaine the Peak occurred around the turn of the Century. After cocaine completed its first transformation Tram being perceived a a harm less tonic to becoming the most feared drug in America around 1900, it was linked Wilh Blacks. A presidential report to Congress in 1910 stated this new vice the cocaine vice the most serious thai has to be dealt with has proved to be a creator of criminals and unusual forms of violence and it hat been a potent incentive in driving the humbler negroes All Over the country to abnormal for Many Whites the misleading linkage made seme and it helped justify disenfranchisement and Lynch Dos then common. The linkage Here combined two danger unquestioned by the vast majority of americans cocaine and a feared minority and there was no rebuttal because neither the drug nor the group had any effective defend Ere. A contemporary political example is attorney Gener Al Mccase s linkage of drug smuggling with the influx of illegal aliens across the southwestern Border. Linkages also have a political use if an unquestioned Evit like cocaine can be associated Wilh whatever cite officials want to stigmatize. Assertions by expert be fore Congress of cocaine s similarity with marijuana in 1937 helped doom the latter to severe restrictions. America stands United against drug us once again but we should keep in mind the dangers if we fail to use common sense and resist the urge to gratify pent up frustration. By ecu to Ito Washington Posl fool vhf Mulla u prom tar it pack Ilant Una Row Hairrol mutant it Tow Resfa school of Meta Cine ind Tut fax a the a incan piss a " d Htwe tit surrogate parenthood raises Legal questions suppose you looked in today paper and came across a classified and under the heading of professional serv ices and the and read this Way womb for rent healthy woman,34. Scotch Irish descent Mother of two healthy children will serve As surrogate Mother by artificial insemination. Fee negotiable. Call this number after 6p.m." a newspaper and along those lines Las year caught the attention of William and Elizabeth Stem of new Jersey. Both are40 years old. He is a biochemist she a paediatrician. For whatever reason she i physically unable to conceive a child and the stems earnestly wanted a read an and offering the services of the infertility Center of new York. One thing led to another. The Sterns entered into a 16-Page contract Wilmary Beth while head 30, who had two children of her own and wanted no contract guaranteed payment of si0,000 10 White had plus j 15.000 for medical expenses and the Crater s was duly inseminated with Stern s sperm. On March 27 she gave birth to a female child. The contract according to the nation Al Law journal contained this provision in the Best interests of the child White head will not form or attempt to form Parent child relationship with any child. She May conceive. And shall freely surrender custody to William Stem Nat ural father immediately upon birth of the child and terminate All parental rights to said child pursuant to this As it turned out the surrogate Mother we shed. She refused to turn Over the baby Girt. The stems sued for breach of contract and specific performance an gained custody of the infant under temporary court order. The Case is set for trial in Hackensack nov. 3. So much for the facts. The Case raise perplexing questions of contract Law family Taw constitutional Law and even tax Law. Is a surrogate s womb � depreciable asset if the Issue is decided on the literal Tern of the contract one body flaw applies. If the Case comes Down on the flexible precedents of family Law Thebes interests of the child become Par amount As for constitutional Law the ninth and Mia amendments May Gua Rantee both the father and the surrogate Mother a right to procreation. Law Stu dents could argue this one All night and into the morning. What of Public policy con tracts in Patent violation of Public Law or Public policy cannot be enforced. The reappears to be Little or no statutory Law on the subject of surrogate mothers. Half dozen Stales the Law journal reports Are thinking of legislation but they Are thinking gingerly about in. California Senate killed an elaborate Bill to regulate the practice. The question often is asked if Surro Gate motherhood which Dales Only to1976, is in any Way different from Surro Gate fatherhood. For Many years sperm has been implanted anonymously i women whose husbands Are infertile. If it is immoral unethical or illegal for a woman to put her reproductive organs out for hire is it equally immoral unethical or illegal for a Man to do the something Ubai about surrogate Carrieri t sup pose a woman Sells her eggs to a medical Laboratory where the eggs Are fertilized by donated sperm and an egg is trans planted to a contract Carrier who will ear the resulting child in such a Case the Carrier has no genetic connection to her baby. Do such agreement violate a Laws of every state against baby buy ing apparently they would Viola Lew pc Laws but the Laws against baby bunt were adopted to prohibit entirely differ ent transactions. A key element in surrogate cases is la element of compensation. In i Michie Wacase a husband and his infertile wife contracted with his Secretary to Bear Tua child by artificial insemination with fee of $5.000 for her services. The we held the arrangement lawful but the it unlawful. F in the matter of the Sterns and while head the resulting baby Wai healthy and Normal. In a current Michigan Csc child born to a surrogate Mother reportedly wat mentally defective. She 4mn. Want the infant but neither did the contractual parents. What then you will recall those of Yew who recently hive read Genet i i that Abraham s wife Sara could be him no children. She arranged for atm Ham to father a child by her her Jbf Hasar the egyptian. He did. And Hel and out of their Union came the n . A
