FRIENDS OF JUSTICE NEEDS TO COME CLEAN WITH FACTS

TULIA - I read with interest Alan Bean's Aug. 4 guest column, in
which he portrays the Friends of Justice as a faith-based,
grass-roots organization that is seeking to correct a social
injustice.

I do not disagree with this characterization, but I noted that
several important facts were missing.

The recent Tulia rally was sponsored in part by the Drug Policy Forum
of Texas, an organization that advocates legalization of illegal
drugs.

Two of the speakers at the Tulia rally were DPFT representatives. The
night of the rally, Globe-News reporter Greg Cunningham spoke with
these two individuals and asked them about their proposed talks.

They said that they were not going to speak about the legalization of
drugs, but about the removal of prohibition of drugs.

An Aug. 1 Globe-News editorial said that, at the rally, the speakers
mentioned above did advocate legalization of drugs, a point that was
sharply criticized at the rally by two members of the Friends of
Justice - Mr. Wafer and a woman whose name I do not know.

The editorial went on to say that it seemed that the DPFT was using
the Tulia controversy to advance the agenda of its organization. This
point of disagreement also was aired on Amarillo's Channel 4 news the
night of the rally.

I am puzzled by Mr. Bean's omission of the sponsorship of the DPFT. I
also note that in Mr. Cunningham's article regarding Jeff Blackburn's
concern about the writ of habeas corpus filed by Gary Gardner, Mr.
Bean used the phrase, "removal of prohibition of drugs."

I wish Mr. Bean would both admit that the DPFT helped sponsor the
recent rally, and while he's at it, explain the difference between
legalizing drugs and removal of prohibition of drugs.

During Prohibition in the 1920s, mobsters were awash in cash from
selling illegal alcohol. When Prohibition was repealed, these same
gangsters went into the legal production and distribution of alcohol,
still making money without the expense of bribes to the police,
hiring hit men, legal fees to defend mobsters who were indicted, etc.

How can we be sure that the same scenario would not prevail if drugs
were legalized, or if one prefers, "prohibition of drugs removed"?

I have no interest in a public debate with Mr. Bean or anyone else in
the Tulia community.

This matter will be settled in the Court of Appeals. I merely ask
that writers from the Friends of Justice be candid about their
association with and implied support of goals of the DPFT and the
Kunstler Fund for Racial Justice.