DRUG WAR DEBATE CHALLENGE ACCEPTED

The word "CHALLENGE," in bold-faced caps, jumped off the page. The short
letter was from a man with a powerful government job.

"I have tried to follow, lately, your column regarding your stance on this
Nation's War on Drugs," he wrote. "One of my great concerns is that there
is no regularly reported, columnist's type response to your fixations.
Therefore, I CHALLENGE you to a public debate on the topic of Ending the
War on Drugs."

Well now. I really try to avoid any sort of public speaking situations. I'm
far more comfortable with the writing process because you can check things
as you go, look up specifics you don't remember.

And there are a tremendous number of scientific and well-documented facts
and figures to use as evidence that the drug war is a big fat flop. I only
started learning and writing about them relatively recently, so I can just
see how it would be at a debate, me trying to remember the details of a
particular study or a set of statistics from another failed attempt at
national prohibition, the war on alcohol. I'd be hemming and hawing,
getting red-faced.

Setting The Conditions

The challenger, on the other hand, has years of experience at wielding
powers and reaping rewards in the WOD. He also enjoys an advantage in not
having to remember Prohibition data or scientific studies. Drug war
supporters traditionally have ignored such research and historical precedent.

However, I don't want to be considered a chicken when such a gauntlet is
tossed. Ergo, as the one who has been challenged, I am exercising my right
to set some conditions as I accept:

1. It will be a team debate. I get to select three people to be on my team,
and the challenger can select three. After all, the purpose of debate is to
present information. Teams can dispense much more information than two
individuals going head to head.

2. Any proceeds generated by this blockbuster event will be donated to a
drug treatment program, selected via mutual agreement.

While on the subject of money, I wouldn't feel right if I didn't inform the
challenger that, by approaching me to debate, he is passing up a chance to
collect a $1,000 reward.

Drug Policy Forum of Texas officials have offered that amount to any
qualified person willing to "argue in favor of punishing possession of
small amounts of drugs" in a DPFT-coordinated public debate. The reward
also may be claimed by anyone who successfully nominates such a qualified
person.

Longtime pharmacology professor and researcher G. Alan Robison, who is
DPFT's founding president, said the offer grew out of a situation a couple
of years ago.

Mike Gray, a producer of award-winning documentaries and an author, was on
tour after the publication of his book, Drug Crazy. Robison said he
arranged to get Gray invited to a radio talk show. The radio guy said he
also wanted someone to represent the pro-drug war side, someone to respond
to Gray's "gripping account of the stunning violence, corruption, and chaos
that have characterized America's drug war," as it is described on the back
cover of the paperback edition.

Short on Pro-Drug-Policy Folks

But Robison said they couldn't find anyone in Houston to accept the
invitation. They even tried Mayor Lee Brown, a former national drug czar.
They called Washington, Robison said, and still failed to find anyone
willing to defend the drug war in such a public forum.

On a flier explaining the reward it says: "Colleges, universities, and
civic groups in Texas are attempting to organize public debates on the idea
of ending drug prohibition. Organizers have no trouble finding people to
argue in favor of doing so, but they are unable to find debaters who
support current prohibition laws. DPFT has been asked to help, but elected
representatives and civic leaders seem unwilling to defend the laws they
support or vote to fund."

Only recently has someone expressed an interest in claiming the $1,000.
Robison said the man soon will meet with a group of DPFT members to
determine his qualifications.

As for the fellow who challenged me, when I phoned him to accept, he
explained that he sent the letter before clearing it with his superiors. He
said he would have to do that before we could firm up any plans. Said he
would get back to me.

Meanwhile, I'm thinking about who I would like for teammates. More on that
later.