WHO'S WINNING WAR ON DRUGS?

GET TO THE ROOT OF NATION'S DRUG PROBLEM

I am writing in response to the April 1 column by Tom Webb, which suggested
that the war on drugs should be fought in hospitals and in rehabilitation
centers rather than on street corners and against massive drug shipments ("
'Traffic': Nation rethinks the 'War on Drugs' ").

Although these solutions are very practical, they fail to look at the root
of the problem. The drug problem lies in the glamorization and
justification of what is done by those shown so often in the media.

These figures are idolized by the youth of our society because, all too
often, an environment in which it is suitable to raise a child is lacking.
The television is conveniently turned from an entertainer into a teacher,
baby sitter, parent and idol.

Kevin Junius, Fox Point

TIME, MONEY HAVE ACCOMPLISHED NOTHING

The time has come to develop a more rational view on narcotic substances.
In the past 20 years, the United States has spent $300 billion on the war
on drugs, and that money has accomplished absolutely nothing. Imagine what
could have been done with all that money. Sent a man to Mars? Developed a
cure for cancer? I guess we'll never know.

Our narcotics policy has had numerous bad effects, including:

1) It has denied painkillers to terminally ill patients. Doctors who place
their Hippocratic oath first and give adequate pain medication are subject
to government investigation and harassment if they prescribe what some
medically ignorant bureaucrat deems to be "too much" medication.

2) It has caused numerous violations of the Constitution, particularly
regarding unjust searches and seizures.

3) It has caused tremendous damage to the environment. The paper this
newspaper is printed on is made from wood pulp. It has to be, because
making paper from hemp is illegal, due to the fact that hemp is better
known as marijuana. However, hemp is a much better choice for paper making.
It is more renewable than wood, makes for a better quality paper and does
not create noxious chemicals such as dioxin as does the wood pulp industry.

Destroying acres of timber every day and pouring dioxin into rivers is a
much worse thing in the long run than a few idiotic people getting high. A
society such as ours, which is so foolish as to regard the former as
preferable to the latter, has a lot of growing up to do.

Ann Morgan, Oconomowoc