Al Gore lll doesn’t have a drug problem. Huh?
“Al Gore lll may not have a drug problem…If Gore lll does not have a drug problem, he should not be forced into treatment.”
So said Tony Newman, communications director at the Drug Policy Alliance, in a piece entitled “Lessons learned from Al Gore lll” in which he thanked California’s Proposition 36 for allowing treatment rather than imposing jail time for the first two nonviolent drug offenses.
Sorry Mr. Newman, but the odds that Gore lll does not have the disease of addiction are remote. He was caught driving at about 100 mph at 2:15 a.m. without a prescription for drugs found in his possession. Marijuana possession, for which he was arrested in 2003, and Adderall, which is used for attention deficit disorder (but also a form of speed which can be used addictively) may not be overriding indicators. However, possession of Vicodin (a legal equivalent of heroin), along with Valium and Xanax (heavy-duty central nervous system depressants) are not just compelling–they are tell-tale signs of addiction. Since Gore lll drove recklessly, 35 miles per hour over the speed limit while in possession of drugs for which he had no prescription, society has a right to assume that addiction is the root cause of his misbehaviors. Society should proscribe use for anyone who exhibits behaviors proving he or she can’t use safely. The problem with Proposition 36 is that it requires attendance at meetings without proof of being clean and sober. In a way, then, Newman is right–Gore lll should not be forced into treatment. Instead, he should be required to test clean and sober for at least a couple of years. If he wishes to attend meetings to support his sobriety, Gore lll should be welcomed and encouraged to do so.”