REGARDING - NEGOTIATING TRAFFIC

While agreeing with Nick Gillespie's critical assessment of the drug war, I
experienced a strong visceral reaction while reading it. He goes beyond
defending the right to choose intoxication, to outright championing of the
intoxicated state itself. He reveals himself as an apologist for
stupefaction. I find this at odds with REASON's masthead, which promotes
"free minds and free markets," not bad choices. I believe that we are
called to a life of virtue and that the value of reason is to help sort
through all the noise that inhibits virtuous decisions. If reasoned
thinking does not have this practical application, then it is just so much
mental masturbation.

Such thinking is not an easy endeavor, and it requires a disciplined
commitment to intellectual awareness. As a child of the '60s, I have
observed that substance-induced intoxication does not enhance one's mental
acuity. In fact, it invariably dulls the senses, leading to a state of
"comfortable numbness." As Roger Waters of Pink Floyd passionately pleads,
"This is not how I am." Our basic being is obscured, not revealed, by
intoxication. Further, connecting to reality in receding waves of awareness
is the antithesis of reason. Maybe we can tolerate this mind-altered state
in an editor-in-chief, but I doubt if anyone would encourage it in more
critical citizens, such as doctors, airline pilots, judges, teachers, and
parents.

Randy Hoffman
Seaford, VA

As a recovering addict, I am incapable of understanding Nick Gillespie's
assertion that there is such a thing as recreational drug use. Most people
in my position can never comprehend how a social drinker can have just one
glass of wine-it just doesn't compute. But I do agree that the current
approach to fighting drug use is misguided and largely unsuccessful. I do
not support legalization, but rather a redirection of forces and resources.

Arguing from a utilitarian perspective, decriminalization still does not
compute. Sure, most people who use recreational drugs don't become addicts
who burden the state. But the occasional weekend toke on a joint or dose of
Ecstasy at a rave has consequences far beyond the brief escape from
reality. The economic costs of drug use, including legal drugs like alcohol
and tobacco, are staggering.

The Center for Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University
recently found that states spent more than $83 billion "shoveling up" the
wreckage of substance abuse. Most of that sum was devoted to the criminal
justice system, foster care, and social services (not including treatment).
More than three-quarters of the average state's criminal justice spending
and 25 percent of health spending was related to substance abuse. In
Colorado, for example, 95 cents out of every dollar spent on substance
abuse went toward cleaning up the mess, while just five cents was allocated
to prevention and education.

I will grant that for many, drugs are fun and harmless. But a drugless
society would be a better society. It may be more enjoyable to sit at home
and get stoned or go to a bar to drink, but doing so means foregoing myriad
opportunities for personal growth, public service, and communitybuilding. I
enjoy concerts and sporting events without ingesting mood-altering
chemicals, and I can be productive the next day instead of nursing a
hangover. The rewards I get from making my community a better place far
outweigh any drug high.

We need to demonstrate that it is possible to enjoy a chemical-free life;
there are alternatives to participating in a drug-based economy. But most
importantly, Americans need to redirect our resources toward prevention and
treatment or we will never win this war.

Mark C. Gribben
Lansing, MI