TWO CHOICES WITH METH

The Feb. 4 Chronicle Metropolitan article about illegal methamphetamine
laboratories' serious risks of fire, explosion and toxic-waste pollution,
"New `meth' labs making hazardous home `cooks'," said the problem is
spreading all around Harris County and the country. But it doesn't have to
be that way.

For almost 70 years, reputable pharmaceutical companies have been safely
manufacturing amphetamines with no risk to the rest of us.

These companies obey the Food and Drug Administration's regulations on
purity, the Environmental Protection Agency's regulations for disposing of
toxic waste and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's
regulations for safe procedures.

Their liability insurance carriers make sure they are running safe operations.

These illegal labs are set up for the same reasons that bootleg stills were
created during Prohibition: Our laws keep honest companies out of the
business and give bad guys a monopoly.

We have two choices. We can keep amphetamines illegal, with a few people
using them and even fewer suffering harm from their use; or we can legalize
the use of amphetamines, with about the same number using them and the same
number being harmed by them.

Legalization would remove the risk to the rest of us presented by the
illegal cookers and let us buy cold medicines in packages we can open.

Buford C. Terrell, Houston

CALLS FOR PUBLIC DEBATE

I read with interest Michael Hedges' Jan. 28 Page one Chronicle article
about Republicans urging a continuation of the war on drugs, "Bush urged to
hang tough in drug war."

The letter from key Republican House committee chairmen, the so-called
"Gilman-Burton letter," insists on continuing a failed policy which has
effectively trumped the Constitution, wasted taxpayer dollars by the
hundred-billion and mindlessly imprisoned nonviolent offenders by the
hundred-thousand.

What positive purpose has been served by this war?

This is a question being asked by growing numbers and is a key reason
leaders of both parties fear a widespread public debate on the issue.

More and more voters are becoming wise to the senseless extremism of
prohibition dogma because for the past 30 years, escalating enforcement,
interdiction, incarceration and propaganda have only marginally deflected
key drug use indicators.

President Bush should stamp the Gillman-Burton letter "Return to Sender"
and proceed to chart a new course for a federal drug policy.

Given the clear division among the electorate, both the president and
Congress should feel obliged to listen to the people and seek new consensus
on drug policy.

Heyward Dixon, Houston