CONGRESSMAN'S ATTACKS SHOW REFUSAL TO DEBATE DRUG POLICY

As he often does, Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.) ignored the facts and
engaged in ad hominem attacks in his Nov. 20 letter, "Politico -
Ideological Prism?"

Instead of disputing Politico's report that Rep. Souder incorrectly
labeled the American Federation of Teachers, the National Council on
Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, the United Methodist Church and
others as "drug-legalization groups" because they oppose a law he
wrote that strips financial aid from college students with drug
convictions, the congressman decided to attack the credibility of
reporter Ryan Grim.

While this should be shocking behavior for a member of Congress, it
isn't surprising at all in this case. Rep. Souder has repeatedly
refused to engage in a real debate on the facts about his penalty,
which has stripped financial aid from more than 200,000 students,
instead flippantly labeling any and all critics as drug legalizers.

If Mr. Grim truly had a biased agenda because of his previous
employment in drug policy reform, rather than an interest in
reporting on a newsworthy dispute, why would The Hill and
Congressional Quarterly have subsequently picked up the story?

Surely, Rep. Souder would have us believe it's because they, too, are
part of a vast drug legalization conspiracy that includes not only
members of the news media but more than 500 prominent organizations
specializing in education, substance abuse recovery and faith that
have called for Congress to overturn the student aid elimination penalty.

Tom Angell

Students for Sensible Drug Policy

Government Relations Director

Washington