PROHIBITION REDUX

Victoria -- Columnist Peter Gzowski may be old enough to remember the
sixties and paraphrase Bob Dylan, (Something Is Happening, And You Know
What It Is, Don't You, Mr. Rock? -- Aug. 4), but evidently he is not wise
enough to remember the twenties and alcohol prohibition.

Alcohol prohibition was repealed, not because alcohol is good, or not so
bad, and not because we decided to give alcoholism a societal "stamp of
acceptance," but rather, because prohibition caused tremendous harm without
producing compensatory benefits.

The decision to prohibit or regulate a substance is not as simple as
deciding whether or not a substance should exist. The decision to regulate
or prohibit a substance can not be arrived at by itemizing the substance's
benefits and liabilities on a balance sheet, but rather, by tallying the
benefits and liabilities of prohibition versus alternative regulatory models.

If cannabis were as addictive as tobacco, as criminogenic as alcohol, as
hazardous as mountain climbing, as toxic as monosodium-glutamate and as
demotivating as television, it would make less sense to abdicate its
distribution to black marketeers who sell on commission to anyone of any
age, any time, anywhere, no questions asked.

Matthew M. Elrod