AN 'UNWINNABLE' WAR ON DRUGS

David Broder was right on target (A highly debatable war on drugs, August
30). A cost-benefit analysis of the United States drug war is long overdue.
Instead of wasting billions of dollars incarcerating non-violent drug
offenders while waging a futile supply-side war abroad, the US should be
funding cost-effective treatment.

A Bush proposal to expand the Clinton administration's $1.3bn Plan Colombia
into a broader Andean initiative will not negate the laws of supply and
demand that drive illegal drug production. Creating a global welfare state
in which every developing country is paid not to grow illicit crops is an
expensive proposition.

The armed factions tearing Colombia apart are financially dependent on
profits generated by drug prohibition. While US politicians continue to use
the drug war's collateral damage to justify its intensification at home and
abroad, European countries are embracing harm reduction, a public health
alternative based on the principle that both drug use and drug enforcement
can cause harm.

Ironically, the fear of appearing "soft on crime" compels many politicians
to support a punitive drug policy that fuels organised crime and violence,
while failing miserably at preventing use.

Robert Sharpe The Lindesmith Centre-Drug Policy Foundation, Washington DC, USA

David Broder was right on the mark when he wrote that "the whole 'war on
drugs' cries out for re-examination". This re-examination should not be
limited to techniques or strategies on how best to fight the "war". The war
is unwinnable and should not be fought.

A free country's government has no business dictating to its adult citizens
what substances its citizens may or may not consume.

Prohibition of alcohol did not work in the US because the prohibition of
any desired substance cannot work in a free society. The law of supply and
demand cannot be repealed or nullified.

Kirk Muse Vancouver, Washington, USA