CAMPBELL'S DRUG PLAN VS. FEINSTEIN OK OF COLOMBIA AID

I read in The Examiner that Tom Campbell advocates the death penalty for
anyone caught selling drugs to a child under 12 ("Rep. Campbell unveils
radical drug proposal," Sept. 19). The article by Eric Brazil quotes
Campbell as saying, "I propose the death penalty for an adult who
intentionally sells heroin, cocaine or methamphetamine to a child under
12." In some extreme cases, I do support the death penalty. But this
proposal of Campbell's is such a monstrous concept that, quite frankly, it
shows a certain amount of callousness toward human life.

Most of us realize the drug war has failed. The prisons are packed with
people who will be imprisoned for many years for minor non-violent crimes.

We tried to get tough by imposing mandatory prison time for offenses
involving small amounts of illegal drugs, and this policy is ruining us
financially.

The greater tragedy is that whole generations of certain minority groups
are locked away to rot, due to the draconian policies that have failed to
win the war against drugs.

For what I have seen over the years, the war has been waged most strongly
against the poor, the disenfranchised and people of color.

I also point out to Campbell that many leaders throughout history have
argued that it is appropriate to kill people. Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot
come to mind as individuals who advocated cleansing society of those they
said should not be tolerated.

Today, repressive and backward countries like China, Afghanistan and Iran
agree.

Fortunately, most of the rest of the world does not find this killing
attitude tolerable. I do not want to live in a country that can be easily
identified with or put in the same category as China, Afghanistan or Iran
when it comes to public policy.

We live in a civil society, not in one where, if you break the law, you
will likely forfeit your life -- or a hand or foot.

I hope the statement Campbell made is just rhetoric.

Though sometimes I disagree with certain positions he takes, I never
imagined he'd be advocating a genocidal drug policy.

C.M. Evans
Mountain View

AMERICAN SOLDIERS BEING SET UP AS TARGETS

Eric Brazil attempts to portray Tom Campbell as a newcomer who is saying
crazy things to make up for a lack of points in the polls.

To those who pay attention to politics this (speech on drug policy) was not
an unveiling.

We have been well aware of Campbell's views for some time.

Campbell will likely lose the election due to many factors including Sen.
Dianne Feinstein's refusal to debate.

If you have a lead over an invisible opponent, why give him a chance to
open his platform to a wider audience?

As for Feinstein's theory that we should focus on the supply side (in
interdicting illegal drugs): Why not? It worked for Prohibition, didn't it!

After the aid package for Colombia creates a war, I hope that Campbell will
give it another shot.

Maybe the public will remember that Feinstein voted for an aid package with
"dogged oversight."

We all know what that means: American soldiers being set up as targets.

Colin B. Corstorphine
San Francisco

DRUG POLICIES ENRICH ORGANIZED CRIME

Given the California prison guards union's traditionally generous campaign
contributions, I'm not surprised that Sen. Dianne Feinstein prefers to
continue riding the drug-war gravy train.

With any luck she'll be able to use drug hysteria to her advantage this
November.

The great thing about the drug war for the entrenched interests who depend
on it is that it's unwinnable.

The policies Feinstein supports are proven failures, which accomplish
little other than to enrich organized crime.

Her opponent, Rep. Tom Campbell, is one of the few politicians in this
country who offer a viable alternative to the drug war. By registering
hard-drug addicts and providing standardized doses in a treatment setting,
public health problems like HIV associated with addiction could be eliminated.

If able to purchase drugs at cost instead of at inflated black market
prices, addicts would no longer need to commit crimes to feed their habits.
More important, organized crime would lose a lucrative client base. This
would render illegal drug trafficking unprofitable, destroy the black
market and thereby spare future generations the horror of addiction.

This harm-reduction plan may sound defeatist, but if destroying the black
market and permanently protecting future generations from hard drugs is
defeat, I for one am willing to surrender.

Californians who care about protecting their children from drugs would be
wise to vote for Campbell. The counter-productive preaching has gone on
long enough. It's time for a pragmatic drug policy.

Robert Sharpe
Students for Sensible Drug Policy
George Washington University Washington, D.C.