|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
Are the Three Congressmen in Iraq Trators or Making Peace?; Is Noelle Bush Getting Special Treatment in Rehab?
Aired September 30, 2002 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Hello everybody. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.
Three U.S. Congressmen are in Baghdad. All of them Democrats and all of them on a mission for peace saying giving inspections a chance. The question is what will the mission accomplish?
Then stay tuned because Christiane Amanpour is joining us from Vienna where Iraq is discussing the details of the weapons inspection with the head of the U.N. inspection team.
California Congressman Mike Thompson, Michigan Representative David Bonior and Washington's Jim McDermott are all counting on those inspections to put an end to war talk. From their Baghdad vantage point they have been critical of the president's plans to remove Saddam Hussein from power. And as you might guess, their remarks have earned them a stern rebuke from Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TRENT LOTT (R-MS), MINORITY LEADER: Congressman McDermott, once again, has shown just how irresponsible he is. For him to be in Baghdad -- center of one of the most dangerous dictators in the world, with all kinds of weapons of mass destruction -- to be questioning the veracity of our own American president is the height of irresponsible. He needs to come home and keep his mouth shut.
REP. JIM MCDERMOTT (D), WASHINGTON: He's talking from absolute ignorance of what's going on on the ground. And I think he ought to be a little more careful about what he says in a country where we value free speech. Dissent is an American right and without it it's not a democracy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: OK, let's start by welcoming our guests. Cliff May is president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. It's a think tank on terrorism.
Also Norman Solomon, a syndicated columnist, author and executive director for the Institute for Public Accuracy -- a group that challenges distortions in the media.
OK, gentlemen, Cliff May I'll start with you. Does McDermott have a point about democracy.
CLIFF MAY, FOUNDATION FOR THE DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES: Oh, Arthel, absolutely he does. The question is not is not his freedom to say anything he wants. He has that right. The question is whether it's appropriate for a member of Congress to go over to Baghdad -- and in Baghdad essentially defend Saddam Hussein and has very, very sharp criticisms of the president. I think he has a right to do that but I think it shows very poor judgment.
NEVILLE: OK, Mr. Solomon, how do you see it.
NORMAN SOLOMON, INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC ACCURACY: Well, it's really preposterous to say Representative McDermott is somehow defending Saddam Hussein -- he did nothing of the kind. What he did do was see for himself -- as member of Congress, as now four members have done in the last few weeks -- what is going on when you sit down with representatives of the Iraqi government.
And I can tell you from sitting in on some of those meetings in Baghdad a few weeks ago from Representative Rahall and former Senator Jim Abourezk and Tariq Aziz and other top Iraqi officials -- that it's possible to have candid discussions to understand more what either position is. And by the way, two days after our meeting, the U.N. announced that the Iraqis his agreed to let in U.N. weapon inspectors.
Now some people don't like that. They just want to go to war, they're hell-bent on war. But for Americans who are not hell-bent on war, I think this kind of dialogue its good. After all, U.S. has had dialogue and continues to have dialogue.
(CROSSTALK)
MAY: Let me continue the dialogue here. The point is not really whether we go to war. The point is not really whether inspectors are there. The point is whether or not Saddam Hussein is going to do as he's obligated to do and that is to disarm.
In 1991 we stopped fighting him because he agreed to give up all his weapons of mass destruction and not produce any more. He's never done that. What they should have asked -- the Congressmen -- while they were there is -- to Saddam Hussein's representatives -- is: Is Saddam Hussein willing to voluntarily totally disarm himself of all weapons of mass destruction?
NEVILLE: Do you think they would have gotten an honest answer.
MAY: I don't think they would actually. I don't think they would.
SOLOMON: As a matter of fact...
MAY: I don't think...
SOLOMON: ... the facts, sir. I was at one of these meetings that you are talking about. And the Congressmen Rahall from West Virginia -- as the three Congressmen did this last weekend -- went out of their way repeatedly to say to the Iraqis you must let in all of the U.N. inspectors with free and unfettered access.
MAY: That's not what I said.
SOLOMON: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) was it wasn't just a one way speech or threat. Iraqis pointed out that -- as "The New York Times" reported on January 7, 1999 -- the ONSCOM U.N. inspectors previously had been doing espionage for Washington. "The Washington Post" and "New York Times" had documented that.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Go ahead, Cliff May.
(CROSSTALK)
MAY: Mr. Solomon a dialogue means we both get to speak you and me both.
SOLOMON: Please go ahead.
MAY: This is not about getting weapons inspectors in because of the weapons inspectors -- look it's not supposed to be a cat and mouse game -- a hide and seek game. What Saddam Hussein is obligated to do is to disclose where all his weapons of mass destruction are, all of the facilities to build them and inspectors are merely supposed to verify that.
The question is not "Will you let inspectors in and where they can go?" And by the way, Saddam Hussein will not let them go everywhere -- we know that. That's not the question anyhow. The question is will he disarm? What we're worried about is not having weapons inspectors live in the Holiday Inn and go around in Jeep Cherokees through the deserts in a country the size of France. What we're worried about is that he's building weapons of mass destruction that he will use against us. That he has violated the cease fire accord of 1991.
NEVILLE: OK. Cliff May, hang on for me. Sir, I have a phone call coming in from Iowa where I want to talk to Jean (ph).
Jean, what do you have to say.
CALLER: Yes, I think the Representatives did a good public service for the nation. We get it -- all this war mongering from all the chicken hawks in the Bush administration. What happened to Osama bin Laden? He flew those planes in those buildings -- I want him.
NEVILLE: Thank you very much, Jean, for calling in.
SOLOMON: It's a very good point. I think if we are going to have the American people fully informed, then Congress people -- who are elected and will face the electorate at in November again -- have not only the right but in many ways a responsibility to go to Baghdad, to engage in dialogue, to make the case that Iraqis -- as well as Americans -- should stay out of the way of the U.N. arms inspectors and let them do their jobs. NEVILLE: Go ahead, Cliff.
MAY: This is not meant to be a negotiation that begins now with Saddam Hussein. The negotiations ended at the 1991 ceasefire. That's when Resolution 687 was passed and Saddam Hussein agreed to accept it.
What that resolution calls for is full, final and complete disclosure. It's not up to him now to say, Let me negotiate. I don't really want to do what I said I was going do in order to get the ceasefire. He has not given us -- in 11 years -- full, final and complete disclosure of the weapons of mass destruction he has and those he's building.
We are trying now to prevent the deaths of thousands of Americans. We -- punishing for the last 9/11 is one thing. It's preventing the next 9/11 that's really important.
NEVILLE: Let me jump in there because I want to go ahead and bring up two other points that McDermott made.
First of all, he's saying that the Bush administration is basically setting up a self-fulfilling prophecy in order to wage war against Iraq. I want to know if you think he has a point.
And secondly, guys, McDermott has also suggested that the president would mislead the American people in order to wage war against Iraq. Mr. Solomon, how do you see it?
SOLOMON: Well, on the second point first, the record of the U.S. government going back to the Gulf of Tonkin and before has not been forthright when we get into war. And I think Congress has erred vastly and extremely on the side of just deferring to the White House. And a lot of people in Vietnam and elsewhere -- as well as Americans -- have suffered as a result.
This time we need to be much more careful. This time we need to be interested in facts. And I think it's very important for us to understand that while the Iraqis are obligated to fully abide by the U.N. resolutions that are in place, we as Americans are obligated, if you will, to understand that an attack on Baghdad and other major cities would slaughter vast numbers of civilians. We should be willing -- and our members of Congress should be willing -- to look those Iraqis in the eye and understand...
MAY: Mr. Solomon, you've got to occasionally let someone else into this discussion or it's not a discussion.
Saddam Hussein could solve this whole problem right now today. All he's got to say is, You know what, I no longer have ambitions to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. I'm going to tell where you everything I have stored is. You can come in. You can go anywhere you want to in this country including the presidential sites. Nothing's off limits. Let's get this over with. I have no ambitions other than to create the best country I can.
If he would open up tomorrow -- if he had nothing to hide he wouldn't...
NEVILLE: Sir, I'm going to jump in right now. I've got Pravin (ph) from New York.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hi. The comment I want to make is: Why not arms inspections? If Saddam Hussein has something to hide that's why probably he's not letting U.N. inspections get -- come in.
(CROSSTALK)
SOLOMON: If I could. It's ironic that we are getting objections about his these Congress people going to Baghdad when the message of every single one has been -- to the Iraqis: You must let the U.N. inspectors in with full and unfettered access. That's the message we working to communicate.
MAY: The problem -- and to answer the gentlemen's question -- is unless we have an inspection regime that is very much like an occupation of the country -- in other words, our inspectors can go anywhere on a moment's notice, nothing is off limits. They can come in with -- probably armed as well. Then you're not going to have it -- you're not going to have a real inspection regime. And you're not going to find the weapons of mass destruction, just going to be kidding yourself.
So don't forget Saddam Hussein has had the last four years without inspectors to hide things underground, to make mobile facilities. This is a country the size of France. How are you going to find all that? This idea that he there's retain had his sovereignty...
NEVILLE: Well, they want to be able to go into the palaces as well.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: OK, guys. I'm sorry, Mr. Solomon, I do apologize. I'm going to cut you off because I want to -- I'm going to have to go to a break in a moment.
But I want to share an e-mail from an audience member. That would be from Linda in Illinois. She says: I am appalled at the Congressmen that are in Iraq. I am ashamed to say I am Democrat.
Quick response? Cliff May.
MAY: Well I don't want to make this particularly political. I do think Congressmen showed bad judgment. They can go there and say, Now we know what's going on in the ground.
Imagine if I sent you over to France and said, Here's what I want you to do. I want to you find every place in France where there are manufacturing weapons of any kind. How would you do that? I also think it's wrong of them there in Baghdad to be criticizing the president or to be -- or to be talking the way they are. I'd rather they'd just go, talk and come back. NEVILLE: We have to take a break right now. But, Mr. Solomon, I will let you answer this question when we come back.
And that is did these Congressmen cross the line by going to Baghdad? We're going to talk about this a little bit more.
I definitely want to hear from you. I know the phones are lighting up. But I want you to call me as well. 1-800-310-4CNN or of course you can e-mail talkback@cnn.com.
Now stay tuned because CNN'S Christiane Amanpour joins us next with a live update on those inspection talks in Vienna. And you don't want to miss that. TALKBACK LIVE continues after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NEVILLE: Today on TALKBACK LIVE, should drug rehab workers protect patients from the law or turn them in when accused of breaking it?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's to protect the people who are being treated at the facilities, for them to understand and appreciate that their business is going to be remaining in confidence (UNINTELLIGIBLE) rehabilitation process.
NEVILLE: Find out why a case of cocaine and the president's niece on pins and needles when TALKBACK LIVE continues.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Welcome back, everybody. We are talking about the three Congressmen who went to Baghdad to see for themselves what is going on over there to decide whether or not they could sign off on all the stipulations that are on the table. And Shirley (ph) you say what?
AUDIENCE MEMBER: I think that we need to go -- excuse me, I think we need to explore every possible option before we go to war. As far as the Congressmen are concerned, they have the right to be there because we do honor free speech in this country. I think it was an unwise decision to make. I think it's more important that we have a -- present a united front to the rest of the world...
NEVILLE: Unwise, not to -- you said it's OK for them to have gone but you have a problem with them speaking out against the administration while over there.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes. Exactly.
NEVILLE: OK. You know what? Let's go to -- you know what, what I'm going to do first of all. I'm going to go to California right now because I have Massoud (ph) standing by on the phone. And I want to here from him right now. Go ahead, Massoud.
CALLER: Thank you very for taking my call. I am a Republican who voted for Mr. McCain and then who voted for Mr. Bush. But I am totally with Mr. Gore now in the Gettysburg Address that he made in San Francisco. I don't think we finished the war. Mr. Bush said we'll smoke them out and get them. We haven't got them.
And if we go about creating another war, we will just -- you know --ease up our resources and win neither. I'm against Saddam Hussein but I don't think we need to go to war to take him out. We can send a bunch of Navy SEALs -- maybe 100 of those or 50 of those -- and get him picked up.
But the Iraqi people don't need to get bombed and blown away and you know the method that we used in Afghanistan.
NEVILLE: Thank you, Massoud...
CALLER: I am a Republican who is very angry that the president is not taking up the economy which should be the major thing right now because we are going from a recession to a depression. Jobs need to get created.
NEVILLE: Absolute -- you know what? I really appreciate your compassion on this subject. And passion. What I want to talk to is Princeton (ph) because he's agreeing with what you've just said.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes, I am. Because the Iraqis are peoples, too. And I don't think him -- as being a human -- the human family -- we shouldn't go around just starting war on each other.
I agree that if you want Saddam Hussein, as you say you do, why don't you send the Navy SEALs who are trained for special missions such as that and let them...
NEVILLE: Strategically take care of everything.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: You took the words out of my mouth.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Cliff, if you could hold on for me right now. Because this question does linger. And will Iraq allow open inspections office all its facilities -- all its facilities including Saddam Hussein's palace.
U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix is in Vienna, Austria working out those details and CNN's Christiane Amanpour joins us from there and -- Christiane -- a few questions for you, first of all. And that is: What's on the table, when will the inspections happen and what will the inspectors be allowed to see?
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, here at the Vienna talks, this was billed, really, as a first sign of whether Iraq was really going to cooperate with the inspectors. And the entire two days of these talks is being taken up mostly with practical arrangements that the inspectors need in order to be able to operate properly in order for them to be able to operate smoothly inside Iraq.
So today on the agenda was everything from visas, the number of inspectors, their hotel accommodations, their transport. Two things like how to use their satellite communications, access to sites, whether to be able to go to certain areas, take suspect samples, be able to take those samples out, to be able to have the ability to freely question and investigate and interview Iraqi scientists. All those kind of things are on the table. A lot of those we are told were hammered out.
They are still issues to be resolved such as, for instance, the issue of over flight. The weapons inspectors want to be able to use over flights to be able to have aerial reconnaissance of sites that they want to investigate. So all of these issues are being resolved but some of them are taking a little longer than others.
So these practical arrangements, most of what has been on the table today, and at the end of the day we heard from the head of the delegation here -- the U.N. delegation -- saying basically that so far the talks have been business-like. They've been in the positive atmosphere and they believe that the Iraqi delegation has come here with the aim of going away with an agreement. So that all sides are trying to work towards getting these inspectors back.
NEVILLE: Any idea of a time table?
AMANPOUR: Yes. If they get all these issues resolved and if the two days of talks -- which end tomorrow -- are wrapped up successfully, the head of the missions here believe that they he could send a first contingency of weapons inspectors back -- like a preliminary advance guard if you like -- by had mid-October with then the main bulk going back sort of the last week of October. So that's what they say they can do.
And even though these technical talks are going on against that backdrop -- of very highly charged political backdrop -- in the United States and at the United Nations with this so-called new resolution the U.S. is trying to table -- even though that is going on, the implication of any kind of new resolution are not being discussed here. And both Iraqis and the U.n. weapons inspectors are proceeding according to resolutions that are already in place.
NEVILLE: Christiane Amanpour live from Vienna, Austria. Thank you very much for the report.
OK, Mr. Solomon, here's the question. It still remains -- will Saddam Hussein come clean? I mean obviously Christiane just told us that there are lots of details to be hammered out, but that's the one major question that is still up in the air.
SOLOMON: It is a key question really and it remains to be seen. I think the news we just heard from Christiane Amanpour is very encouraging. And it's crucial for us to understand that the U.N. has a process under way. And there are some folks in the United States -- including those running U.S. foreign policy out of the White House -- who don't want the U.N. inspections to take place. They want to put in poison pill proposals to the U.N. Security Council and twist arms with carrots and sticks and so forth to get their way to put in -- absolutely raise the bar so high that they can't accept the proposals.
NEVILLE: Cliff May, I have to take a break so please jump in there quickly.
MAY: Right, what I want to say is that if we want to avoid a conflict -- an escalation of the conflict with Saddam Hussein -- he must be convinced that he has no choice but to disarm. If he thinks he can get away with an inspection regime that means nothing allows him to hide weapons, he'll do it. If he thinks he has to disarm, maybe we can avoid a conflict.
NEVILLE: OK, thank you very much for that succinct answer.
It's time for a break right now.
Up next, a prominent New Jersey senator could be resigning. We're going to try to find out what's going on in a campaign being described today as chaotic.
TALKBACK LIVE continues after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville. New Jersey Senator Robert Torricelli is expected to come out late to clear up a whirlwind of what he calls "misleading rumors." Now, he's scheduled a news conference for 5:00 Eastern. And, of course, CNN will bring it to you live.
Now, some sources inside the Democratic party are saying Torricelli will drop his re-election bid and others say he could resign. CNN Congressional correspondent Jonathan Karl joins us with what he's hearing on the hill.
JONATHAN KARL, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It's been a crazy day up here regarding this Torricelli story, Arthel. What's happening right now is the latest we've been told by sources in the Torricelli operation that at 5:00 today that he will, in fact, announce that he is not going to be running for re-election.
This after a whole whirlwind of rumors and reports back and forth., several planned press conferences later to be canceled. But the bottom line is we are told, in fact, he is not going to run again. This happens as the Newark Star Ledger in New Jersey has published a poll that showed Senator Torricelli was trailing by 13 points to a virtually unknown Republican opponent, Doug Forester, unknown until now that is.
This all as a result, largely, of his ethics problems. Torricelli was severely admonished by his own colleagues here in the U.S. Senate for his relationship with a former donor and now he's looking at a situation where he is simply losing ground very, very quickly in New Jersey and as a result not going to run.
Now, Arthel what this means is a massive scramble to see who the Democrats could get to replace Torricelli on the ballot in New Jersey. As you well know, the control of the U.S. Senate is up for grabs. The Democrats only control the Senate by a single seat. This could severely impact the ability of the Democrats to maintain control of the Senate. One person they are talking to, or at least trying to talk to to convince to run, is Bill Bradley, the former senator from New Jersey and a former presidential campaign.
No word on how Bradley is responding to those offers. But there are several other names up here, several other Congressmen, but the scramble is on.
NEVILLE: Indeed it is, Jonathan. Thank you very much for that -- that amazing information. Of course we are going to stay tuned and stay glued to see what is going to happen at 5:00 Eastern. Absolutely.
OK, listen. Cliff May, Normon Solomon, quickly put on your forecasters' hats if you will. Do you think the Democrats can come up with viable candidates, Norman?
MAY: Very quickly...
SOLOMON: I suspect that the Democrats will be thrilled to see the back of Torricelli as he leaves Capitol Hill. A deeper problem beyond New Jersey, I think for the Democrats, whether they can find a viable candidate or not, is that there's a lot more loyalty than opposition towards the White House at this point.
It's one thing to be the loyal opposition, but unless the Democrats present a firm, strong program as an alternative to the corporate policies of the White House, I don't think their prospects are too good in November.
MAY: Yes.
NEVILLE: Cliff May?
MAY: Yes. I know Senator Torricelli a bit, and he's a very smart guy and he's a very tough guy, and if he's thinking of getting out, it's because his political instincts tell him this is a lost cause.
There is, as Jonathan Karl mentioned, Bill Bradley, who continues to live in New Jersey and who's got quite a following. Senator Frank Laudenberg also continues to live in New Jersey, and he's somebody else I've heard mentioned. Neither of these guys are way over to the left or on the way anti-war part of the party I believe Mr. Solomon talks about. But that sort of candidate probably would lose resoundingly in New Jersey, which is a fairly moderate state.
NEVILLE: Boy, this is a big one. Cliff May, Normon Solomon, thank you very much for joining us here on TALKBACK LIVE this afternoon. SOLOMON: Thank you.
MAY: Thank you, Arthel.
NEVILLE: OK. More to come after this break. Don't go anywhere.
TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.
How far should rehab centers go to protect their clients from the law? The issue came up after Noelle Bush, daughter of Florida Governor Jeb Bush, was accused of possessing crack cocaine while in rehab. Now prosecutors want clinic workers to testify against her. But just today a Florida judge turned them down, saying forced testimony will only make rehab centers meaningless.
Here to talk about it is Maia Szalavitz, author of "Recovery Options: The Complete Guide." She herself is a recovered heroine and cocaine addict. And Tom Fitton, President of Judicial Watch. Want to welcome both of you to the show.
TOM FITTON, PRESIDENT, JUDICIAL WATCH: Hi.
MAIA SZALAVITZ, AUTHOR, "RECOVERY OPTIONS: Thank you.
NEVILLE: OK. Maia, I'm going to start with you. Did the judge make the right decision?
SZALAVITZ: Absolutely. How can you trust a therapist if they are going to act as a police officer? If you are in treatment, you are there to get help and you need to reveal some very deep inner scary stuff that you don't want everybody to hear. And you can't develop a level of trust with a counselor if they are going to start reporting everything you do.
FITTON: Well, you know, they are there -- Noelle Bush was there in lieu of being in jail. And if she's doing crack there, where she could have been in jail, she ought to be turned in by these therapists. I think without having that law enforcement behind them, in terms of the therapists saying, hey, either you straighten up or you are going to jail, these centers will be made meaningless.
In fact, it was interesting. It was one of Noelle's own friends or one of her fellow folks in the treatment program there who were tired of the way she was being treated and they called the police. And the therapist in this situation tore up a police statement that they were going to give, making it very difficult.
SZALAVITZ: She's actually getting treated worse than most people do, because...
FITTON: Well, in fact, they said that the folks in there thought, hey, this is not fair. She is repeatedly violating the rules. She's using illegal drugs. She had already been arrested on a felony charge. And no one else -- everyone else would be kicked out, or if they are there pursuant to...
SZALAVITZ: If we are going to have treatment, what is the point of using prison? If treatment is effective, if we are treating a disease, what role does prison have?
We don't put people in jail for having depression when it relapses. We don't think that we need coercion in order to put -- to deal with that. So I don't see the conflict (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
FITTON: It's the carrot and the stick, Maia. It's the carrot and the stick.
SZALAVITZ: You don't need the stick.
FITTON: And the laws are being violated.
SZALAVITZ There's no evidence that there needs to be a stick. Most of the treatment...
FITTON: Well, I think...
SZALAVITZ: Sorry, go ahead.
FITTON: Go ahead, Maia. Well I think with Miss Bush she did need the stick. Because she was given.
SZALAVITZ: Well it's obviously not been very effective since she didn't work.
FITTON: Well, actually, she wasn't put in jail and she was put in a treatment program. And rather than taking advantage of the treatment program, she flouted the court's rules. And now it seems to me these folks in there that allowed her to use drugs knowingly were aiding and abetting her crime.
And therapists are going to be seen as a refuge for drug addicts who violate the law. Then we have got a real probable. That's what the therapy community needs to worry about.
SZALAVITZ: They have to be seen as a refuge, because otherwise they are not going to get better. Jail isn't working, which is why we turn to treatment. If we believe that treatment is treating a disease, we don't use punishment.
NEVILLE: On that note, let me get in here and let Princeton speak out.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: I think that if she's doing all that while she's in rehab, she doesn't need any special treatment, because it's not doing her any justice. If everyone else would get arrested, whatever would happen to anyone else under those circumstances should absolutely happen to her, because it's not doing had her any good. And she has to do any jail time behind it, maybe jail time would be an incentive for her to straighten up. NEVILLE: I mean I understand your last point, but Maia, you can speak to this. It's not that simple putting someone in jail or forcing someone into treatment to get them off drugs.
SZALAVITZ: If jail worked we wouldn't need treatment. If you were -- if the problem was simply that punishment was needed to stop people from using drugs, then people would stop using drugs during their addiction. Because during their addiction they tend to lose their families, lose the relationships, lose everything that is important to them. And addiction is defined as use despite negative consequences.
If negative consequence worked to stop that, you wouldn't need treatment. You could just put them in jail and the problem would be solved. But that isn't what happened.
NEVILLE: Go ahead.
FITTON: Negative consequences stop a lot of things. And the idea that jail has nothing to do with keeping people off drugs, putting them in jail -- and hopefully the jails are run efficiently -- is a good way to keep people off drugs. And I'm not against treatment.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: But, Tom, you know what? There have people who have gone to jail because they've used drugs and they come out using drugs still.
FITTON: Well that may be true, but because the law breaking continues doesn't mean the law shouldn't be enforced. And Noelle was put in there in lieu of jail and she continued to violate the law. And now we have no help from the therapist in order to enforce the law that we all benefit from by keeping people like Noelle Bush off the streets.
SZALAVITZ: We don't benefit from this law. Who is Noelle Bush harming? She's harming herself.
FITTON: She's harming herself, she's harming her family. She's stealing prescription drugs.
SZALAVITZ: She should not get special treatment, but the whole system is hugely hypocritical because Jeb Bush goes around advocating put everybody in jail. And then when it comes to his own daughter, he wants treatment. He opposed an initiative to use treatment instead of punishment.
NEVILLE: Let me jump in with Karen (ph) from Oklahoma.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes. I think you need to provide treatment as opposed to putting people in jail for this. Because not only will treatment help, they get counseling, some medications that help deter this.
NEVILLE: And sort of wean them off the addiction.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: It is. And they are not repeat offenders in this way. And learn new skills in order to be employable.
NEVILLE: Thank you very much, Karen.
FITTON: You know I'm not against treatment. There has got to be a balance. The fact is the Bush people down in Florida spend nearly $250 million a year on these treatment programs.
SZALAVITZ: He cut treatment just before this happened.
FITTON: There has to be treatment and jail. No one wants to put everyone in jail. Treatment is a part of our drug policy laws. And when it's flouted like Noelle Bush has done it, then jail is appropriate.
NEVILLE: OK. Would decriminalizing drugs reduce abuse or make it worse? We're going to talk about that when we come back. TALKBACK LIVE continues after this break. Don't go anywhere.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
We are talking about whether clinic workers should report or testify against patients who violate drug laws while in rehab. And, Maia, I want to start with you on this.
Now you know some folks would argue, listen, if you possess cocaine, whether if you are inside a rehab facility or you're on a street corner, it's a crime. So why shouldn't it be treated that way?
SZALAVITZ: Well, because if we continue to treat this as a criminal matter we are never going to solve it. People get better when they see hope. People get better when they realize that without drugs they can have a decent and comfortable life. And the only way you can teach them that is with compassion and kindness.
Current treatment tends to be coercive. It is linked with the law enforcement system. It does not encourage trust. And therefore it doesn't work very well.
We know what works, but we are not practicing it in the field. And there has been this whole big challenge to get the research tested treatments out of the lab and into the clinic.
NEVILLE: Maia...
SZALAVITZ: Sorry.
NEVILLE: How commonplace is relapse?
SZALAVITZ: Relapse is extremely commonplace. About 90 percent of people will relapse at least once.
NEVILLE: You know I have an interesting guest here in the audience. Alice (ph), share your story with us.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: I have been in jail. And as far as getting drugs, they are very readily in jail. They are all over the place. So I can understand the Bush family not wanting her to go to jail. But I do, on the other hand -- if she had drugs in her possession wherever she was, it is a crime and she should be had helped or treated or whatever.
NEVILLE: Thank you -- Tom Fitton.
FITTON: Well she was given the opportunity for treatment and she was facing five years in prison. A bunch of money in terms of a fine, and she was given the opportunity to go into this treatment program. And the fact is that the treatment programs and the drug laws are very lenient in that regard.
The people having listening to Maia. They have been incorporating these treatment programs into the criminal justice system so that people don't necessarily have to go to jail first right off the bat. And when there is this repeated flouting of the law here, where repeatedly -- this is not one instance of them finding crack cocaine. People were complaining about Noelle Bush repeatedly engaging in illegal behavior while in a probation-type of situation.
She's got to go back, and it's a shame the therapy community is going to say, no, we shouldn't have to cooperate with law enforcement in this specific criminal matter.
NEVILLE: And, by the way, Tom, as we already reported earlier here on the show, that is the judge decided that those rehab facility workers do not have to testify against Noelle Bush.
FITTON: Right.
NEVILLE: I'm going to let you know that the prosecutors are going to appeal that decision. In the meantime, I want to speak to Jeannie (ph) here from Kentucky.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hi. Actually, I have two things. First, concerning the therapist, can't they report -- isn't it their obligation to report something that is going on in a drug facility, even a rehabilitation program, without violating the patient if they are still using? That's the point of the program.
And second, Maia said earlier that if you have treatment and it works you don't need jail. I don't agree with that at all, because if you are in treatment, as in this case, it's not working. So you need something to back that up.
(APPLAUSE)
NEVILLE: Maia.
SZALAVITZ: No, because backing that up is the problem. The connection between the treatment community and the prison community is part of the problem. That connection allows treatment providers to give horrible service because if they fail the patient gets punished. They don't get punished and they get a new person put in there.
So they have no incentive to approve what they provide. We know better ways of treatment but we don't use them.
NEVILLE: OK. I'm going to go to the phones right now. I have got an interesting call coming in from Florida, where Mary (ph) is standing by. Mary (ph), go ahead.
CALLER: Yes, hi. I'm a citizen of the state of Florida. I have a son that's had problems with drugs. And he was in treatment and he got kicked out for not even a fraction of using drug. It was a scuffle between another resident, a minor thing, and he got violated for his probation, kicked out of the Salvation Army, and has gone to prison now for 18 months.
And I think Noelle, if she's using and her treatment is not working, then I think she needs to spend some jail time as well.
NEVILLE: OK. Thank you very much for calling in.
CALLER: Thank you.
NEVILLE: And I have Erin (ph) here. Erin, how do you see all of this?
AUDIENCE MEMBER: You know I think we are forgetting the real -- where this is all really is coming from. And it's just all -- it's all Bush -- Bush, Bush, Bush.
Noelle Bush is having all these drug problems. All of the children are just absolutely conflicted, going against this whole fame thing. And it really is disturbing that we have -- we're politicizing everything and we are going, oh, well...
NEVILLE: You think that we are politicizing this? I mean who -- unfortunately, Noelle Bush has a problem. She has a disease; she's addicted to drugs, the poor -- and I mean I think it is a disease.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: I do agree with you on that, but I think that also -- I don't even know the statistics, but I'm sure that tens of thousands of people are in the same place that Noelle Bush is.
NEVILLE: So she should not get preferential treatment is what you're saying?
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Exactly. That is exactly what I'm saying.
SZALAVITZ: Well everybody else can get better treatment. Everybody deserves the type of treatment that Noelle gets. Everybody deserves a number of chances, because we know the best correlative recovery is employment.
And what does jail do and convictions do but reduce your chance of decent employment.
FITTON: You know every other health care professional that has become aware that one of their patients or clients is involved in child abuse or some other illegal behavior, they are told to turn them in.
SZALAVITZ: Child abuse is the only reportable offense.
FITTON: And it should be the same for illicit drug use. It's not only damaging to the individual, but it's also damaging to the individuals around that person and the society at large. There's a positive obligation on the part of therapists to turn these folks in. And if they are not doing it then they ought to be shut down.
SZALAVITZ: Drug therapy would be impossible if that were done.
NEVILLE: OK. I have Mr. Ed here. Before I let you speak, Mr. Ed, I want to say that, yes, I did say that I believe that it is a disease. But I also want to go on record saying that it's a poor decision to do drugs in the first place.
OK, Mr. Ed.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: I agree that it's very harmful to do drugs. And the people that are doing the drugs need help, and I think that they should get rehabilitation. But the ones that should be in jail are the ones that are pushing it. The ones that are selling the drugs are the ones that are really at fault, and most of the effort should go to them, not the poor people that are stuck on it.
NEVILLE: Thank you very much, sir, for standing up.
Listen, Maia Szalavitz and Tom Fitton, thank you very much for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE.
FITTON: You're welcome.
NEVILLE: And up next, we're going to switch gears. What teens are doing, where they're doing it, and why you better keep your eyes open when it comes to teens and sex. I'll have the details after this break. Don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: All right. Welcome back, everybody.
Some teens are having sex, but not your teen, right? Well, a somewhat shocking survey put out by "Child Trends" (ph) claims 34 percent of teens have already had sex by the time they get to ninth grade. And 56 percent of them had their first experience in their own homes or their partner's home.
There's a lot more to this study. But before we go any further we are going to meet our guest, Dr. Drew Pinsky, an internist and addiction specialist. He is the medical director for the Department of Chemical Dependency Services at Las Encinas (ph) Hospital.
DR. DREW PINSKY, FORMER HOST, MTV'S "LOVELINE": That's a mouthful. You got it. NEVILLE: This is a long intro, Dr. Drew. Anyway, let me finish, because he's also known -- best known as the former host of MTV's "Loveline." Did I give you enough props there, sir?
PINSKY: There you go. Thank you, Arthel. I appreciate that.
NEVILLE: Listen, this is definitely a serious topic here. Great to see you, by the way. These numbers, they are a little bit shocking. Are they shocking to you at all?
PINSKY: You know, I wasn't aware that this was going on until this study was published. And then I realized we have had an extraordinary number of calls on our radio program, which is very much what you saw on MTV a couple years ago. It's the same program now that operates on radio.
That young people are calling in and talking about these kinds of experiences. Particularly, we get a number of calls from young males who are sort of flipped out that their female partner encouraged them to engage in activity in their parents' home and somebody walked in, and now what do we do? And that's really been happening for the last year or so. So this study was a surprise but not a shock to me.
NEVILLE: Wow. I mean and this part, that most of the teens had their first encounter with sex in their parents' home late at night -- are talking between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. -- I mean why is this happening? Where are the parents?
PINSKY: Well, the parents are probably right there. Again, if our calls are any example or representation of what is going on, the parents are there, believe it or not. That's the really surprising thing about it.
NEVILLE: But Dr. Drew, how is this happening if the parents are upstairs and the kids are in the basement? I don't understand this.
PINSKY: I think the way it happens -- and I think this is an important thing to understand, and you brought it up in your opening comments, which is, not my kid. Parents cannot operate from the assumption that their kids are not doing these things. The statistics show something quite contrary.
The statistics show that 60 percent of kids are having sex by the time they are a senior in high school. Eighty percent are smoking pot at one time or another. So the assumption should be my kids are doing these things. If it's important for me to contain those behaviors, how do I monitor them? How do I communicate to them what I need from their behavior in order to contain all this?
NEVILLE: That's right. Because half of the mothers, according to this survey, don't realize that their kids are sexually active. And that's again the question: What needs to be done to change this? Is it dialogue between parents and students -- or teens or children?
PINSKY: Absolutely. Dialogue is the number one thing. But I would say first, even before dialogue, is surveillance. Understand you have to operate from the assumption that trust must be earned. That this is not something that you can expect your kids not to do. The data shows something quite contrary.
But the dialoguing is very important. And there is clear scientific evidence that between the ages of eight and 12 there's an opportunity to establish dialogue with kids. And if you establish the dialogue during that window, it turns out you carry it all the way through adolescence.
There's also data that show that young women that are close to their mothers...
NEVILLE: Are more likely to stay virgins, exactly.
PINSKY: Yes. And to assimilate the values that their mother wants them to assimilate.
NEVILLE: That's right. Dr. Drew, hang on for me. I have to take a break right now. And I know, Lili (ph), you're standing by in Pennsylvania. I will speak to you after the break as well.
TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment. Don't go anywhere.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. We are talking about teen sex with Dr. Drew Pinsky. But before we go to Dr. Drew, I'm going to go to Pennsylvania now, where Lili is standing by on the phone. Go ahead, Lili.
CALLER: Hi. I work three to 11 shift, and I really entrusted my son. And we had talked about sex and precautions and things like that. But at the age of 17 my son was an honor roll student with straight A's. Went out, had sex, didn't know right away the girl was pregnant. A year later she contacted him.
They took a blood test, 99.9 that it's his child. Now he hasn't been able to go to college, paying child support, and has the responsibility of this child, which we all do. We've all been effected by this.
NEVILLE: Lili, thank you very much for calling. Dr. Drew, five seconds. That is the point, though, right?
PINSKY: Well, that is the point. But be careful about using fear to try to shape their behavior. I think since 9/11 I've seen an opportunity to talk to young people about the consequences emotionally of the choices they make. The impact they have on one another. Try taking that task.
NEVILLE: Dr. Drew Pinsky, thank you so much for being here. I'm Arthel Neville. I'll see you again tomorrow at 3:00 Eastern.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Peace?; Is Noelle Bush Getting Special Treatment in Rehab?>
|
