61 CHRONICLESnDay care and illegal drugs are hotnpolitical issues. Yet there has been littlenpublic discussion of the relationshipnbetween changing family patterns andnthe use of illegal drugs. Considerablendata suggests a close connection betweennthe two. Indeed, the decline ofnthe traditional family seems to parallelnthe increase in the use of illegal drugs.nAs legislators consider more federalnsubsidies for day care, they ought tonponder this neglected bond.nIt was not until the 1950’s thatnillegal drug use among children andnyouth became a source of considerablenworry. In 1949, Commissioner of NarcoticsnHarry J. Anslinger estimated thatnthere were 65,000 heroin addicts in thencountry, half of them concentrated innNew York. Most of the newer addictsnwere primarily young minority males,nwho reportedly stole to finance theirnhabit and totally rejected mainstreamnsociety. A 1951 article in Science Digest,nthough, noted that “hard pressednto create a market, peddlers have leftnthe slums and invaded middle-classnschools and neighborhoods.” ThenBoggs Act of 1951 and the NarcoticsnControl Act of 1956 strengthenedndrug law enforcement by setting mandatorynsentences for drug traffickers,nincluding the death penalty in somencases.nThe 1960’s became a decade almostndefined by the explosive increase inndrug use among teenagers and youngnadults. The proportion of those arrestednwho were under age 18 increasednfrom 6 percent in 1963 to 25 percentnin 1969. The most startling aspects ofnthis new incidence of youthful drugnuse were its concentration among thenwhite middle class and the array ofnsubstances being used. At the samentime, the number of divorces climbednfrom 393,000 in 1960 to 1,213,000 inn1981; the divorce rate rose 140 percent.nThe rate of first marriage (newnbrides per 1,000 single women) declinedn30 percent; among women agesn20-24, the fall was a dramatic 59nCULTURAL REVOLUTIONSnpercent. Some researchers began tonsuspect that there might be a connectionnbetween these developments.nDuring the 1950-69 period, sociologistsnand psychologists who looked atnthe family-drug equation moved towardna common conclusion: familynlife, properly structured, could and didninsulate children from drug experimentationnand use; and the more traditionalnthe family, the greater the degreenof protection. Eva Rosenfeld,nIsodor Chein, and others reported thatnthe families of addicts were characterizednby parental death, divorce, orndesertion. Father absence had a particularlynstrong effect on boys.nRichard Blum and associates, innHoratio Alger’s Children, offered thenmost complete early assessment of thenrelationship of family life to drug use.nDrawing his sample from San Mateo,nCalifornia, in the late 1960’s, Blumnsought to identify those family-orientednfactors that correlated with “low risknand high risk” of teenage drug use,nwithin a period of growing generalnsubstance abuse. Among white middleclassnfamilies, Blum found that certainnfamily patterns were significantly relatednto “low risk” of drug use. Thesenwere families that were intact, wherenthe fathers led; mothers gave their firstnpriority to home-centered activities;nreligion was an active and vital force;nand there were numerous siblings andnmeaningful linkages to other relatives.nConverselyi children and adolescentsnfrequently used drugs in families characterizednby divorce, cohabitation, andnout-of-wedlock births, and where mennand women gave highest priority tonactivities and interests outside thenhome.nThese implied linkages even helpnexplain the apparent stabilization, orndecline, in youthful drug use that hasnbeen seen in this decade. After thenstartling changes in family structurenand life seen in the 1960-80 period,nseveral key indicators (including thendivorce and birthrates) have since stabi­nnnlized or turned in healthier directions.nMany congressmen are currentlynsupporting federal legislation for morenchild-care centers and tax incentives tonkeep both spouses employed outsidenthe home — actions that, according tonthe research, will increase drug usenamong teens. At the same time, thesenlegislators claim to be “waging war” onndrugs. If they are serious about thatncampaign, they would do better tonoffer tax incentives to families wherenmen and women take the time to rearntheir own children, at home.n—Allan CarlsonnThe Atlanta air is clear and sultry, yetnthere’s a different air in the DemocraticnConvention’s Women’s Caucus innthe Hyatt Regency — an air of conspiratorialnillusions which stifle zealotrynwith their cold, hard calculations, butnpromise victory and the triumph ofntotal human rights.nIn the hallway adjacent to the meetingnroom I’m the recipient of a lecturenon the need and right for long-termncare legislation. I’m assured that thisnissue will come to dominate the politicalnarena, and that no less than ClaudenPepper supports it. What’s the pricentag? I inquire. Twenty billion dollars —nwithout batting an eye, yet spoken in anslightly subdued fashion. Can’t thenprivate sector answer this need? Unthinkable.nCan this cost be squarednwith Dukakis’s goal of deficit reduction?nIn time, yes. Regardless, the neednis surpassing. There it is: the Democraticneconomic illusion — spend morenon social programs, and watch thendeficit contract. Of course, the worldndoesn’t work that way, which is whynDukakis never speculates on how tonbalance the budget. Call it the economicnveil.nMoving into the actual caucus, wonderingnwhat luminaries might be involved,nI spy Geraldine Ferraro on thenpodium. Congresswoman LouisenSlaughter, representing New York butnsporting a Southern accent, hails thisn