IT'S TIME FOR INTELLIGENT RESPONSES TO MARIJUANA

It was refreshing to see Michael Mulligan's comments ("Stop trying to
change the laws of economics," March 23) on our policies regarding
marijuana. Hopefully we will pay attention to a respected lawyer,
appreciated teacher at the law school, and someone very familiar with
the justice system.

The major dangers from marijuana arise primarily from our current
policies.

It is difficult to imagine a less intelligent strategy for responding
to drugs than the laws that are currently in place. They reward
organized crime, endanger the lives of police and citizens, corrupt
legitimate businesses by encouraging money laundering, provide the
major source of corruption among our police, and create a heavy burden
on our justice system.

It is even difficult to understand why such dysfunctional laws
persist. Is it because the CIA is deeply involved in the drug trade to
finance clandestine activities? Are large financial institutions
earning so much laundering drug money that they are opposed to change?
Is the U.S. foreign policy practice of rewarding friendly dictators,
by ignoring their drug dealings, and harassing unco-operative
dictators firmly entrenched?

During the days of alcohol prohibition, organized crime was secretly
supporting the Women's Christian Temperance Union. Criminals wanted
prohibition. Today, is organized crime secretly supporting efforts to
keep drugs illegal?

It is unclear why our dysfunctional laws persist, but it is clear that
U.S. policy makers resist progressive change. So does Canada.

The intelligent recommendations in the LeDain commission report in
1973 were ignored. The U.S. pressures European countries when they
explore reasonable responses to drugs.

Admittedly, effective options are not without problems, but clearly
having marijuana produced by many small farmers under regulated
conditions, and marketed through liquor stores, or some other
controlled situation, would be far better than the present situation.

Similarly, a more liberal approach to medical marijuana, regardless of
the debates over its efficacy, would certainly be an improvement over
the present. In dealing with our most harmful drug, tobacco, we have
not found a solution.

But we tax it. We avoid the burden of criminality. We have convinced
most of the addicts to avoid smoking around others. Most of them live
useful lives until they die of cancer.

Similarly, we have learned to accommodate our second most harmful
drug, alcohol.

The vast majority of people drink with relatively few problems. The
abusers are still there, as they were during periods of
prohibition.

There is no "solution" to the drug problem, but turning these products
into commercial operations that are taxed, regulated and controlled
using economic incentives would certainly do less damage.