CLEAR AND CONSISTENT

The editorial stated: "Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court held
that there is no medical exemption to the federal controlled
substances act, which prohibits the possession, use and distribution
of marijuana."

Why then, is there a recreational exemption for the two most deadly
and dangerous of all drugs, tobacco and alcohol, from the Controlled
Substances Act, granting special rights to these two hard drugs?
According to the CSA: "The term 'controlled substance' means a drug or
other substance, or immediate precursor, included in schedule I, II,
III, IV or V of part B of this subchapter. The term does not include
distilled spirits, wine, malt beverages or tobacco, as those terms are
defined or used in subtitle E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986."

The editorial concludes by stating: "That means this is a question
that is again headed for the courts. Because there is value in having
laws that are clear and consistent, we thing it can't happen soon enough."

Does this mean that the The Denver Post supports the repeal of the
recreational drug exemption for tobacco and alcohol, thereby
transforming the CSA from a law that is unclear and inconsistent into
a law that is clear and consistent?

Tom Barrus, Golden