WI: Reagan Tackled AIDS earlier?

[Orville_third]

Some AIDS activists are quick to point out the quick response of another mysterious outbreak named for a specific community...Legionnaire's Disease. Far fewer people died, but the response was far quicker. (It should also be noted that it was also around the time of Swine flu...)
As for Ryan White, he met Reagan in 1990, not long before he died. Perhaps if he had met Reagan earlier? Reagan always had a weakness for good stories.

 

[Sachyriel]

If Reagan tackles the issue earlier and finds out the most easy way for them to have an impact is to distribute needles to poor drug users to discourage sharing and condoms with sex education to the young, OH BOY have we got ourselves a big problem for the Right.

If he goes through with these extreme measures, then he'd likely get impeached.

 

[proximefactum]

If Reagan tackles the issue earlier and finds out the most easy way for them to have an impact is to distribute needles to poor drug users to discourage sharing and condoms with sex education to the young, OH BOY have we got ourselves a big problem for the Right.

If he goes through with these extreme measures, then he'd likely get impeached.

I always thought that Nancy's Just Say No program was an early proxy fight for abstinence only education.

I don't know if he would be impeached (he was rather popular across the electorate), but his reputation with the hard Right would have been irrevocably tarnished if he went liberal on sex ed. Besides, any softening on the hardline narc policy would have gone directly against his rationale for intervention in Central America.

 

[Dave Howery]

If Reagan tackles the issue earlier and finds out the most easy way for them to have an impact is to distribute needles to poor drug users to discourage sharing and condoms with sex education to the young, OH BOY have we got ourselves a big problem for the Right.

If he goes through with these extreme measures, then he'd likely get impeached.

there's nothing impeachable there... such measures would be completely within the legal rights of the Federal government to carry out...

 

[Sachyriel]

I always thought that Nancy's Just Say No program was an early proxy fight for abstinence only education.

I don't know if he would be impeached (he was rather popular across the electorate), but his reputation with the hard Right would have been irrevocably tarnished if he went liberal on sex ed. Besides, any softening on the hardline narc policy would have gone directly against his rationale for intervention in Central America.

So, you're saying he can't hand out condoms and needles?

there's nothing impeachable there... such measures would be completely within the legal rights of the Federal government to carry out...

Giving needles to people with drugs isn't in anyway trafficking...legally, anyways.

 

[Dave Howery]

Giving needles to people with drugs isn't in anyway trafficking...legally, anyways.

Um... yeah. Wait... first you said he'd be impeached, I said there's nothing there he could be impeached over, and now you're agreeing with me?

Are you high right now?

 

[mtg999]

Besides, any softening on the hardline narc policy would have gone directly against his rationale for intervention in Central America.

It's not impossible to be both hard on drug trafficking, yet take harm minimisation approaches to drug users themselves.

It is also possible that if Reagan were to take the approach of funding needle exchange programs, he could do so 'quietly'.

Here in Australia, that is what the Howard Liberal (right-wing) government did, during the time period 1996-2007. Howard and his government was known for trumpeting zero tolerances policies and lampooning the harm minimisation approach; yet they quietly continued funneling money into needle exchange programs. This allowed Howard to appear tough on law and order, yet also taking a sensible policy approach.

I would suspect that it is plausible that Reagan does similar; especially given that the programs will themselves likely be delivered at the state and local government levels (yet he would fund them federally).

 

[proximefactum]

It's not impossible to be both hard on drug trafficking, yet take harm minimisation approaches to drug users themselves.

It is also possible that if Reagan were to take the approach of funding needle exchange programs, he could do so 'quietly'.

Here in Australia, that is what the Howard Liberal (right-wing) government did, during the time period 1996-2007. Howard and his government was known for trumpeting zero tolerances policies and lampooning the harm minimisation approach; yet they quietly continued funneling money into needle exchange programs. This allowed Howard to appear tough on law and order, yet also taking a sensible policy approach.

I would suspect that it is plausible that Reagan does similar; especially given that the programs will themselves likely be delivered at the state and local government levels (yet he would fund them federally).

Interesting. No, I don't see Reagan compromising at all on drug policy. If anything, hanging tough on drugs was one of his greatest vote-getters. Yeah, he could've funded harm reduction quietly. Any media whistle-blowing would have severly impacted his administration, especially in the first term. If there's one matter than Americans are still quite reticient about, it's managing the impact of illegal drugs in society. Any movement towards harm reduction, methadone maintenance, public rehab centers, &c. inevitably receives FUD and judgmental attitudes from politicians and the electorate. American politicians on both sides of the aisle still stigmatize harm reduction. An overall pessimism about harm management has likely hurt American society in the long run, but cultural stigmas have proven durable.

It's important to remember the drug/alcohol climate of the early to mid 80's in the USA. Reagan unilaterally pressured states to raise the drinking age to 21 by withholding federal highway funds to noncompliant state legislatures. This was also the high-water mark of MADD/SADD (Mothers/Students Against Drunk Driving) and the genesis of the often mocked student program DARE (Drug Alcohol Resistance Education). Many contend that the 21 drinking age has merely accellerated alcohol use among young adults (undergraduates in particular). Yet, as stated, American indifference to the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of social policy may have stalled more sensible options.

 

[Orville_third]

Interesting. No, I don't see Reagan compromising at all on drug policy. If anything, hanging tough on drugs was one of his greatest vote-getters. Yeah, he could've funded harm reduction quietly. Any media whistle-blowing would have severly impacted his administration, especially in the first term. If there's one matter than Americans are still quite reticient about, it's managing the impact of illegal drugs in society. Any movement towards harm reduction, methadone maintenance, public rehab centers, &c. inevitably receives FUD and judgmental attitudes from politicians and the electorate. American politicians on both sides of the aisle still stigmatize harm reduction. An overall pessimism about harm management has likely hurt American society in the long run, but cultural stigmas have proven durable.

It's important to remember the drug/alcohol climate of the early to mid 80's in the USA. Reagan unilaterally pressured states to raise the drinking age to 21 by withholding federal highway funds to noncompliant state legislatures. This was also the high-water mark of MADD/SADD (Mothers/Students Against Drunk Driving) and the genesis of the often mocked student program DARE (Drug Alcohol Resistance Education). Many contend that the 21 drinking age has merely accellerated alcohol use among young adults (undergraduates in particular). Yet, as stated, American indifference to the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of social policy may have stalled more sensible options.

Further, his advisers from California shared his beliefs. He was tough on drugs even back in California, which helped inspire his famous 1970 opponent. Society seemed to turn against drugs in the late 70's-early 80's, with an overreaction as the result.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Considering its popularity in my poll thread, I thought I'd give this a bump.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Package bump

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Ah, what the heck, I'm vain

 

[DuQuense]

How many AIDS deaths were there before Reagan first "took notice" of AIDS? Was it a very large number?

It was. From an oped at SFGate


By Feb. 1, 1983, 1,025 AIDS cases were reported, and at least 394 had died in the United States... On April 23, 1984, the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention announced 4,177 reported cases in America and 1,807 deaths...Writing in the Washington Post in late 1985, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, stated: "It is surprising that the president could remain silent as 6,000 Americans died..." [By May 31, 1987] 36,058 Americans had been diagnosed with AIDS and 20,849 had died. The disease had spread to 113 countries, with more than 50,000 cases.

I'm Sorry for the Affected, but 30,000 out of 250 Million is not a large number,
By the Early '90's whe already had a Backlash at such a relatively Small Population taking up so much of the Federal Research Budget.

 

[Sam Clemmons]

If he goes through with these extreme measures, then he'd likely get impeached.

On what grounds? You can't just impeach a President "because I don't like him and he pisses me off."

You have to be able to charge him with breaking the law as could be done with Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton(remember Clinton was charged with perjury).

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

I'm Sorry for the Affected, but 30,000 out of 250 Million is not a large number...

Well, by comparison, the swine flu was causing panic with casualties at 4,000 and 10,000 and the like. Roughly comparable to AIDS at the time in numbers, but with a lot more attention. (Of course, granted, there's also a few decades of media evolution thrown in, but still...)

By the Early '90's whe already had a Backlash at such a relatively Small Population taking up so much of the Federal Research Budget

Of which the Moral Majority played a very large role -- getting back to some of the basic debates on this thread.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Well, by comparison, the swine flu was causing panic with casualties at 4,000 and 10,000 and the like. Roughly comparable to AIDS at the time in numbers, but with a lot more attention. (Of course, granted, there's also a few decades of media evolution thrown in, but still...)

There's also the possibility that the swine flu could have turned into a death-fest like the 1918 Spanish Flu did.

(I covered a Kiwanis meeting where they had a guy with a chart showing the age distribution of those who died and the swine flu had a W-curve like the Spanish flu did, indicating it killed the young and healthy as well as babies and old people.)

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

There's also the possibility that the swine flu could have turned into a death-fest like the 1918 Spanish Flu did.

Well, that would be bad; Spanish Flu killed about 50 million 1918-20.

Then again, AIDS killed over 2 million in 2007 alone, so it's no picnic either. But then that's exactly the problem -- during Reagan's presidency, because the bulk of deaths were people considered abnormal, people assumed it would be.

All it took was a simple realization that gay people have the same biology as the rest of us to realize that what was happening was potential pandemic; a little bit of coolness toward the rampant bigotry might have allowed some sanity in responding.

Getting people to that point was the problem -- and, as I see it, the one person who could have done it, and might have had some inclination to do it, was Ronald Reagan.

PS Sorry if this comes off as moralizing; I just wanted to keep this going, and the above is what came to mind

 

[Sachyriel]

On what grounds? You can't just impeach a President "because I don't like him and he pisses me off."

You have to be able to charge him with breaking the law as could be done with Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton(remember Clinton was charged with perjury).

Breaking the law huh? Honestly I'm not too familiar with American Impeachment, I just thought they needed to do something bad.

However, I still want to point out that if Reagan takes the actions required to stem AIDS at the point where it spread like wildfire, among the poor, he'd not be a great Republican. You know, using tax money to support the poor.

How likely would he have been to support allowing Gays to marry (increased single-partner sex reduces infection rates when they don't cheat), allow drug users to have clean needles, provide sexual education/safe sex equipment to young people, even take on the fact that blood transfusions will need MORE REGULATION!

I don't see him doing it.

If he did, I'm sure he would be seen as a hero in historical books, someone whos actions prevented a lot of needless deaths, but politicians don't think of their legacy, they tend to think of their current polling.

 

[RogueBeaver]

Reagan would do none of those things- many Democrats oppose them as well. Reagan was a social conservative, pure and simple, even if he wasn't terribly religious himself. Among other things, like Bush Sr. before he became POTUS, Reagan wavered on abortion during his first term as governor, which the religious right selectively forgot later on.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

How likely would he have been to support allowing Gays to marry (increased single-partner sex reduces infection rates when they don't cheat), allow drug users to have clean needles, provide sexual education/safe sex equipment to young people, even take on the fact that blood transfusions will need MORE REGULATION!

On the first topic, I'll admit it's ASB, but he might be a little more honest about his relationships with homosexual friends, which will anger the MM and bring America forward quicker.

Same for clean needles and safe sex equipment, but he might be more supportive of more comprehensive (read: not abstinence only) sex education.

And, if liberal democrats see see an opening and offer legislation on things like regulating blood transfusions and drug treatment (as opposed to pure prison), he may well keep his administration from opposing them.

What I'm saying is that, Reagan would only need to speak frankly about the problem and threat of AIDS earlier, without seismic shifts in his policies, to significantly shift the dialogue in a better direction.