IF OXYCONTIN CHANGES DEBATE ON DRUG WAR, IT'S ABOUT TIME

The article by Norah Vincent about the OxyContin situation ("Heroin
is legal; it's called OxyContin," July 24) was most interesting and
informative. The rhetorical question "Could this be the crisis to
force a reevaluation of the drug war?" was thought-provoking and
commendable. It seems to me that if the shooting-down of innocent
missionaries in Peru in the name of the drug war did not provoke a
public outcry and reevaluation of the drug war, the OxyContin affair
will not, either. I hope I am wrong, however, because the drug war is
in serious need of reevaluation.

Unfortunately, a misinformed public does not understand the issues at
stake, and Congress, composed mostly of demagogues, prefers to
perpetuate the fantasy that criminal sanctions actually stop people
from using certain drugs. European legislators seem to be coming to
their senses by admitting the futility of prohibition, but we
Americans are still living the myth.

Ms. Vincent's point that drug prohibition is unconstitutional is
right on the money, though the Establishment, including the media,
will not discuss it. There is no authority in the U.S. Constitution
for the federal government to prohibit the citizens from ingesting or
possessing certain substances, and I challenge anybody to show any
such authority. Certainly, Article 1, Section 8, grants it the
authority to regulate interstate commerce in any commodity, including
drugs, but regulation of commerce and prohibition of possession or
use are two different things.

Ms. Vincent has done a good thing by raising the questions she has,
and your paper is to be commended for publishing her piece.

Richard Sinnott

Fort Pierce