THE WAR ON THE WAR ON DRUGS

The argument for a war on the war on drugs ("Counterattack: Soros, Two Rich
Allies Fund a Growing War on the War on Drugs," page one, May 30) seems to
suffer from an incomplete definition of harm, specifically, the increased
harm that will accrue to non-drug users. Calculating the harm to society
has to go beyond what drug users do to their own bodies and lives.

Consider the potential impact on highway fatalities, for example. Just like
social drinkers, there will be a group of social drug users who take to the
road. On average, they are likely to have a higher accident rate compared
with when they are sober. Where does this fit in the harm equation?

None of this is to say that I think the current drug policy is optimal. I
am, however, confident that the best policy will be found neither in pure
legalization nor pure prohibition.

James E. Heyman, Concord, Calif.

Thank you George Soros, Peter Lewis and John Sperling. The havoc and misery
created by the war on drugs is horrible. Too many families have had a
family member arrested, shamed or incarcerated. The war on drugs has taken
a disproportionate toll on minorities and the poor.

I do not use drugs or encourage others to take drugs. But I am disgusted by
the cost in dollars and wasted lives of this failed war.

Kevin Archer, Tampa, Fla.

George Soros, Peter Lewis and John Sperling do not restrict their
philanthropic activism solely to drug policy. Through his Open Society
Institute, Mr. Soros promotes the development and maintenance of open
societies around the world. All three fund a wide range of good works; drug
policy reform is just one facet.

Americans should be grateful this funding is there to counteract the
estimated $50 billion or more of our tax dollars that various government
entities will spend just this year on waging a war not on drugs, but on
people, making us the world's largest jailer in the process. With even the
Supreme Court eroding our rights with each new decision, it is clear that
action is needed to counteract this threat to our liberty and open a
national debate.

These gentlemen have helped create a situation in which drug policy reform
could happen. They are American heroes, and hopefully someday soon their
foresight and dedication to freedom will be recognized.

Gary Storck, Madison, Wis.

Three men of great wealth may find jail time for users or possessors of
illegal drugs unduly harsh, and from their lofty perch, it may seem an
attractive position. But before there is a rush to "treatment not jail"
these factors should be considered:

1. Treatment programs do not have, and generally do not claim, outstanding
success. The cycle of arrest, treatment, relapse and re-arrest is all too
common to law-enforcement officers and judges.

2. Addiction is often defined as destructive behavior, whose consequences
are known, which nevertheless continues. Releasing those who use or possess
affects family, friends and society.

3. No one is compelled to use unlawful substances. The use of unlawful
substances is one of personal choice, not societal demand.

As a resident of a state targeted for the good works of this unusual trio,
I will vote against the direction of their misguided initiatives.

Frank H. Stewart, Cincinnati