100 YEARS AGO
The Suppression of the Drug Vice Considered From the Demand Side
[I]n dealing with the habit-forming drug vice . . . there are . . . two factors, the supply factors and the demand factors. Have we not been paying too much attention . . . to the supply factors? . . . State laws are almost exclusively concerned with restricting the supply within the state. We have been trying to suppress the vice by restricting the supply. . . . What then can be done to minimize the demand? . . . [In] the judgment of several hundred physicians throughout the United States . . . [one of] the causes which have led to the contraction of the habit by drug victims . . . [is] careless prescribing by physicians. . . . [I]f we aim to influence the demand for drugs we must find a means of removing the causes.
From AJPH, August 1916
50 YEARS AGO
“Dearth of Drug Use Epidemiology”
Timothy D. Baker, review of Narcotics, edited by Daniel M. Wilner and Gene G. Kassebaum. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1965.
Possibly the weakest segment of the whole book is the first chapter on the epidemiology of narcotics use. One might ascribe this weakness to the fact that the author is not an epidemiologist. However, more fundamental than this, is the fact that there are really very few good epidemiologic studies on the problems of narcotics use. Throughout the book, the reader is impressed with the lack of hard scientific data on the patterns of narcotics addictions, “cure” rates, and relapse rates. . . . One of the benefits of this book may be the initiation of better controlled studies to furnish information for more logical control programs.
From AJPH, April 1966
Since the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage, some people have opposed the “rights” of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals to becoming part of the American cultural landscape. “Religious Freedom” laws allow public officials and business owners to refuse service to people who, they say, violate their religious beliefs. Other pushbacks have targeted the most vulnerable of the population, the T in LGBT—transgender people along with non–gender-conforming lesbians and straight women.
We see this heightened awareness of gender nonconformity in the news. A lesbian in a Las Vegas, Nevada, hotel bathroom was forcibly removed by male security guards. A straight woman wearing a baseball cap while using a Walmart bathroom in Danbury, Connecticut, was yelled at by (presumably) another woman, “You’re disgusting!”
Much attention has been given to women’s bathrooms and—less so—men’s. Some men defend the “bathroom laws” by saying “We are protecting OUR women and OUR girls.” This misogynistic claim denotes the same “ownership” of women displayed in the old south, when “our women” had to be protected from Negroes, portrayed as incapable of controlling their base desires.
We are also warned about “predatory males” who, sensing an opportunity, will don women’s clothing to prey on innocent and “defenseless” women and little girls in restrooms. This is complete nonsense, as there has never been a single documented case of this occurring (hence, the solution without a problem).
The real victims are nonconforming, lesbians, women who “need protection,” and transgender women.
Transgender men (female-to-male) often have facial hair, receding hairlines, and a very masculine appearance. As a transgender woman, even I would be uncomfortable with them in my restroom, simply because of the jarring absurdity of it all. Can you imagine if these men are forced to use only women’s restrooms?
And can you imagine putting these people in jail? Transgender men and women are already in danger of prosecution. The May 2016 report of the Center for American Progress and the Movement Advancement Project, “Unjust: How the Broken Criminal Justice System Fails Transgender People,” shows that transgender people are vastly overrepresented among adults reporting time spent in prison. They are also the population in greatest danger of assault. The Justice Department Web site cites the alarming statistics, as does the 2011 report, Injustice at Every Turn: A Report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey.
States are beginning to enact laws that target this same population with the legal requirement to “out” themselves by using the restroom matching the gender on their birth certificates. They are to be given the “Lady or the Tiger” choice: use the restroom assigned at birth and risk being assaulted by immediately identifying themselves as transgender to anyone in or around that restroom, or use the restroom matching their gender presentation and risk arrest and assault in jail or prison.
My personal experience has been positive. I worked with Human Resources in my work environment to communicate with all employees about my planned transition. The bathroom “issue” was part of the process, and we managed it successfully by having empathy for those who were scared, uncomfortable, or hostile to a former male colleague using their restroom. Respecting even those who could be seen as “backward” or unaccepting gave them a voice in the process. In the end, this is how we should be addressing this with empathy for both sides.