In the 12/12/03 Valley Review, The Brothers Boucher performed a theatrical event called, "Let's Muddy the Meth Waters," denigrating the high risks posed by methamphetamines by suggesting a "common sense" solution: Stop its use by attacking its root cause -- insufficient parental love and attention -- rather than addressing the problem head-on. And while we agree with Dusty that the prime and initial responsibility lies with Parents (the first "P" in our PCP theory) to ensure that their children don't drive down that long, twisted road of drug use, by the time Meth use is discovered -- either by a sharp-eyed teacher, community volunteer, community member or police officer, or through drug testing -- the malignant result has reached its second stage, Correction (the "C" PCP). At this point children are in the gravest danger, and require strong intervention and guidance from parents, support and help groups, and therapists. If that intervention fails, then the third "P" rears its ugly head: Punishment. And that is where law enforcement takes over, and is the basis for the Meth debate we initially began.

We aren't too surprised that a teacher who adamantly opposed to random drug testing of students (see our footnote) would wiggle away from Sultan's present need to actively confront this situation now -- before the city opens its floodgates to additional residential development. The question is not what parental action brought us to this point; it's how do we effectively deal with Meth in its current epidemic reality as a societal problem?

Meth, like weed or cocaine, is illegal and rampant in this country. But the prime reason why Meth is so lethal to a community is the relative ease with which it can be manufactured and distributed, making it almost as easy for young people to obtain as liquor. Easier, perhaps, since no pesky age ID is required, and it's available 24x7. Meth impairs judgment and takes away a person's humanity; it first endangers lives, then destroys them. When a person has traveled to, or past, the Correction stage, they then become a part of a now-rampant community menace that, left unchecked, will continue to strain, and then drain, Sultan's resources. Minimizing the risk to a small community such as Sultan is unwise. Grabbing the reins and seizing control of the problem -- by first educating the community and then engaging through interaction with a well-equipped, well-trained police force -- is essential.

On December 17th, The Brothers Boucher's dad, Ed Boucher, Wendall Smith and other influential Sultan business owners, visited the Sultan council to ask that the council resolve the negative effects the increased presence of vagrants and panhandlers is having on their businesses. (It was at the very council meeting when Chief Walser requested reinstatement of funds for the police records clerk position, which was denied. The lack of that position requires that an on-duty police officer handle that task, watering down an already-decimated force.) One wonders how these business owners will feel when drug use here becomes pandemic, and drug dealers -- along with the ever-so-much-fun freaks, nuts and ne'er do wells that follow them -- populate and do deals in their parking lots or in front of their stores? And after their businesses close down for the night, will those same owners be angered, asking the council to "fix it!" (and blaming the police), when the brain-burned customers of said dealers burgle their businesses so they can fund and feed a habit the size of Saddam Hussein's ego and terror?

Not Sultan's #1 issue? Perhaps not the council's. But it should be at the top of the list for the police and citizens. The penny wise, pound foolish councilmembers sitting on the council -- and we know who they are, despite their "I don't want you to think I'm picking on the police, but…" pre-statement qualifiers -- think the cost of police protection is high now, just wait until Sultan becomes known as a mecca for dealers. A few years back, because of the frenzied, quick-buck development taking place in Sultan (Date St., Eagle Ridge, Willow Run), we advocated placing an entrance sign at the Red Apple intersection that read: "Sultan for Sale." Well, if Meth dealers/manufacturers sink their fangs into Sultan in a big way (as they once did in Granite Falls), I would suggest that a more appropriate sign would be: "Sultan Sells."

What's needed now is for Sultan's citizens to become, and stay, actively involved in this Meth problem (as did the residents of Granite Falls). They can begin by urging their council members to lead, rather than playing literacy patty-cake to deflect the urgency.

Footnote:
In a July 7, 2003 letter to the Herald editor, Dusty agreed with the ACLU's position that drug testing of students is unconstitutional. In that letter, he hawkishly screeched: "Random drug testing of my students without evidence of wrongdoing? Just try it." Dusty's championing of students' Constitutional rights, which was elicited by a June 27, 2003 U. S. Supreme Court decision (Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls, 01-332), seems incongruous and contradictory when one considers the flagrant, epidemic civil rights violations related to the public process that have occurred here in Sultan, some of which have been initiated by his own family members and which, to my knowledge, he has never decried, denied or vilified.

The Court's decision dealt with random drug testing of students only when they participate in extracurricular activities, the prime criteria being "…that by voluntarily representing the school, those students had a lower expectation of privacy than did students at large." What Dusty failed to mention (and possibly consider) is the possible dilution of the Court's decision on Washington State schools because of a pending case filed by the Wahkiakum School District in Washington. The plaintiffs in the Wahkiakum case, the ACLU, are using a 1985 state supreme court case that ruled that the Renton School District couldn't search a student's luggage before a band trip without a suspicion that the student was breaking a law or school rule. A finding for ACLU's position will significantly effect the impacts of the U. S. Court's decision.

In Dusty's defense, this is a tough issue, the subject of which could be an extensive editorial all by itself. And with the increased need for greater security, combined with increasingly strong and heightened arguments to hold the line the constitutional line on the right of the individual, the question of what, and how many, controls are needed for the "greater good" versus controls that step over and onto the rights of an individual, will continue to increase in complexity. But to turn to the trite side here for a moment and quote Star Trek, at what point does the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one"? I have no ready answers to that. But it's something we all need to consider more closely as our confusion deepens and parallels with the growth of our global community.
(back to G.R.I.T. home)