THE NEVER-ENDING DRUG WAR

William J. Bennett writes: "And yet recent history shows that, far from
being a failure, drug-control programs are among the most successful
public-policy efforts of the latter half of the 20th century" ("The Drug
War Worked Once -- It Can Again," editorial page," May 15). Is Mr. Bennett
trying kid us?

Let me take you back to late summer of 1978. At that time, cocaine was more
a distant memory than a viable commodity. Sure, if you were on a first-name
basis with a rock star, a sports superhero or the CEO of a Wall Street
firm, you could get some decent coke. Otherwise, you'd pay $100 a gram for
the privilege of snorting mostly baby laxative and lidocaine. If you were
real lucky, 10% of that "disco dust" might have been cocaine. Indeed, the
so-called "head shop" industry did a booming business selling cocaine
testing kits ("Is it cocaine or nocaine?"). This was also the summer of the
biggest "Reefer Madness" push since the 1930s. This, in turn, set the stage
for Ronald Reagan to accuse Jimmy Carter of being soft on drugs. Not
Ronnie. By God, he was going to get the kids off pot. Once elected, one of
his first acts was to send his vice president, George Bush, to Miami to
coordinate the drive to stop pot smuggling. By the fall of 1981, something
strange began to happen: The purity of street cocaine began to improve. It
hadn't been this good since the early 1970s.

By the spring of 1982, street cocaine was essentially pure. By the summer,
the bottom fell out of the cocaine market. For a mere $20 anyone could get
a gram of cocaine of such quality that couldn't be had at any price just a
few years before. By 1983, cocaine was so cheap and plentiful it became
possible to process powder cocaine into crack. Yes, self-righteous Ronnie
got the kids off pot; only now the kids were buying "rocks" instead of
joints. If this is what Mr. Bennett calls "success," what would he consider
a failure?

It's not as though no one could see this coming. During the Vietnam War
there was a similar drive to get our GIs off pot. They burned the fields in
the Mekong Delta. They stopped the pot growing and selling only to see the
troops turn to heroin. It has been said that those who refuse to learn from
history are doomed to repeat it. So far as I am concerned, whoever first
said it was way too optimistic.

Joe T. Penrod, Cincinnati

Bill Bennett's commentary is woefully inaccurate and sadly partisan. Under
Gen. McCaffrey, youth drug use dropped 20% in just the last two years --
the most important measure of success in the fight against drugs. Workplace
drug use fell to an 11-year low (4.6%, down from 13.6% in 1988). The number
of drug-related murders dropped steadily from 1,402 in 1989 to 564 in 1999,
the lowest point in more than a decade. The number of drug-related arrests
hit record high levels under the Clinton administration. The number of
people receiving treatment jumped nearly threefold from the Bush I days. We
expanded the number of drug courts from 12 to more than 800. We launched

the nation's largest effort ever to educate young people about the dangers
of drugs -- a five-year, $1 billion media campaign. And, our overall
counterdrug budget grew to a record high $19.2 billion -- up from just
$12.2 billion under the Bush I administration. Petty partisan attacks waged
against those who should be allied against the deadly scourge of drugs will
do little to address the underlying problem; only a bipartisan commitment
can protect our families and communities.

Robert Housman, Washington

(From 1997 to January 2001, Mr. Housman served in the White House Office of
National Drug Control Policy.)

Yes, Congress ruled marijuana illegal in 1937, after being lied to by the
House Judiciary Committee (read the transcripts for yourself). They did not
take the advice of the AMA, which was that cannabis was a necessary drug

that had been used for years to treat various illnesses, but went on the
lies as presented to them by the committee members, and pharmaceutical and
chemical companies.

I know several federal medical marijuana recipients, and the change using
marijuana has made in the quality of their lives is astounding. They do not
suffer from the extreme pain they have for so long, and they still have
their sight, while thousands have gone blind in the last 25 years. How can
we allow "law" to influence medical care? Lawyers and politicians are not
trained in medical care. Neither are business administration majors. Give
medical marijuana back to the doctors and get the lawyers out of it. Stop
victimizing sick people with

incarceration and probation for trying to maintain their quality of life.

Peggy Monaghan, Arcadia, Kan.

Libertarian for Me, but Not for Thee

So, apparently the "libertarians who don't think drugs should be illegal"
are nothing but a "fringe" that shouldn't be taken seriously by the
American public or certainly the readership of the Journal ("Still
Walters," Review & Outlook, May 14). Interesting, given that the editorial
page takes the libertarian positions on international trade, taxes,
regulation, environment, education, antitrust, etc.

It is disturbing and highly disingenuous for you to dismiss the opposing
view on drugs as too radical because it is held by a libertarian minority
(or as is implied, by extremist nuts of the libertarian fringe), when you
are otherwise happy to quote and publish this same minority to support your
other views. You claim that "nothing has been more debilitating to
America's sense of morale than the idea, expressed most vividly in the
movie 'Traffic,' that nothing really works." This sentence implies that
there are ways to win the war on drugs, if we only have greater commitment
or different methods.

It is a wonderful irony. The Journal often reprimands liberal policymakers
for not facing up to the reality of failures of multitudes of government
economic or regulatory policies. But what do we have here? The exact same
attitude: The war on drugs hasn't worked so far? No problem, we just need
to do more of it! We owe it to our children. No wonder that you claim that
"Mr. Gore had it right." This, after all, is the usual liberal modus
operandi. And in the end we see that the conservatives are not that far
removed from liberals: both are happy and eager to use violent government
coercion to attempt to accomplish their own pet goals, billions of dollars,
innocent victims and personal freedom be damned.

Ivan Pongracic Jr., Hillsdale, Mich.

I was fascinated by your advocacy of "coerced abstinence" for drug users.
Don't you oppose all forms of government regulation? If the government is
incompetent to regulate the economy, why do you put such faith in
government attempts to regulate human beings?

Charles A. Reich, San Francisco