rd legislation is likely to be adopted" (Weisheit 60). Since heroin and crack cocaine abuse seems to be prevalent in the inner cities and these people do not fit into the upper class scenario, legalization is absurd. The initial drug laws used the minority groups to make them illegal in the first place. On the same token, the upper class citizens who do have problems with illegal drugs are much more accepted by society and viewed as having a mental disorder, with emphasis placed on minority people as being naturally deviant and criminal minded. Drug use of any kind should not be accepted by society as a whole, whether the individual is a upper class person or an inner city dweller. It seems that education and not legalization is the answer or rather an alternative solution to the drug problem. Harvard's Mark A. R. Kleiman, a drug policy advisor to both the Bush and Clinton administrations says, "Americans need to take a realistic look at this society's relationship to intoxicants of all types" (Frolik A-4). It seems that the American public has a love affair with altering their minds with no knowledge of the long term effects of using these substances. The Clinton administration has even put more money into programs that treat and educate addicts instead of just penalizing them for their ignorance (A-4). In like manner, Adele Hardin of the Urban Institute states that "drug use often runs in cycles... after authorities have slacked off on their education efforts. I think you have to re-educate whole generations" (Frolik A-4). Education seems to definitely have the power to diminish the drug crises, unlike legalization which proved to be ineffective. "From 1979 to 1994, the amount of people who used drugs was cut by more than fifty percent, from twenty-four million to around eleven million" (Finley 2). As this author noted, education is working. Perhaps more money should be spent in the media area showing the devastating effect...
