BANNING OXYCONTIN ALTOGETHER NO ANSWER

To the editor:

I am appalled by the attempt to remove oxycontin from the market. People
who advocate that are overlooking two things: 1. The drug is not the
problem; abusers are the problem. 2. Advocates probably have never been in
severe, long-term pain.

In 1998 I broke a vertebrae in an auto accident. At the same time, a kidney
stone was dislodged and became very painful. I did not get lithotrypsy for
several weeks. I was in extreme pain and several drugs were tried for pain
relief. Only morphine and then oxycontin were effective, without
undesirable side effects. My back pain lasted for over a year. This drug
allowed me to survive the long-term pain and function daily. No other drug
worked so well.

In 1994-95 I suffered a rotator cuff tear for which surgery was denied for
eight months. During that time I functioned with severe pain and only
Tylenol for relief after the first six weeks. Doctors would not prescribe
more potent painkillers after that time. I assure you, the second
experience was a great improvement.

To abuse oxycontin, one must alter its form, a deliberate act. Persons who
do so are like those who use guns to kill and then blame the gun, or those
who use cars as weapons. The instrument is not at fault; the user is.

There is no good reason to deny pain relief to those who need it to survive
debilitating pain, in order to reduce temptation for abusers. Does anyone
doubt that if this drug is removed from the market, another will take its
place with abusers?

Could we look for alternate methods to reduce drug abuse, or to reduce
abuse of this particular drug? Banning oxycontin for legitimate use is not
the answer.

Loretta J. Johnson
Cedar Bluff, Va.

-------------------------------------------------
DOES `ZERO TOLERANCE' DEPEND ON WHO YOU ARE?

To the editor: After reading the article about the two Virginia High
students caught using marijuana in the school restroom, I began to wonder
why they call it a ``zero tolerance'' policy.

If smoking pot in the bathroom doesn't exceed zero tolerance, then what in
the world would? After thinking about it, I realized the inconsistency must
be because of ``who'' the students are. As someone who only knows what I
read in the paper, I can only guess that the students must be related to
someone on the School Board or to one of our city officials or social
leaders. If the child of the average working man was caught using marijuana
at school, he would surely feel the effects of ``zero tolerance.'' Perhaps
I am wrong, but that is certainly the way it looks to me.

If the School Board thinks the penalty for the zero tolerance policy is too
harsh, then the policy should be changed. But don't exempt certain students
and leave the policy in place for others.

Bruce Shaffer
Bristol, Va.