LEGALIZE, REGULATE NOW-BANNED DRUGS

In the July 10 editorial, "Which of these things is not like the other?"
the Globe-News says that New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson "advocates the
dangerous and illogical stance of drug legalization."

I wonder why this author does not get on the mountain and scream bloody
murder about the horrors of the drugs alcohol and tobacco. After all, what
is the reason drugs are prohibited other than the harm they do to people?

It's obvious that prohibition does more harm than good. What seems
dangerous and illogical is to keep prohibition going. Gov. Johnson's talk
of regulation and true education about the harmful effects of drugs is much
less dangerous and more logical to me, a father of two young children.

The problem with the forced treatment that U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M.,
promotes is that tens of thousands of Americans already are forced into
drug treatment programs each year, despite not having any serious drug problem.

According to Joel Brown of the Center for Educational Research and
Development, fewer than 10 percent of people who enter treatment actually
have a problem; thus with forced treatment, the person who really needs
help can't get it.

Clearly, Gov. Johnson's proposal of regulating drugs and educating people
about them is the better choice.

Peter S. Conklin, Hyde Park, N.Y.

LET'S START DIALOGUE ABOUT DRUG USE

Your July 10 editorial on New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson and drug policy is
erroneous in setting up an "either/or" framework for discussion: "... one
side advocates the dangerous and illogical stance of drug legalization
while the other supports a proactive stance to a possible solution."

The governor's stance is that we need a dialogue, not that he will dictate
the solutions. Your implied support for treatment vs. imprisonment (drug
courts) is part of what Johnson calls "moving the needle" - change in a
positive direction. Wouldn't you also support the right of states to
experiment with different policies free from federal interference?

Or for medical personnel to make medical decisions free from police
interference ?

While Johnson has called for the legalization specifically of marijuana,
this is not a blanket call for "legalization." (And do you mean legal like
apples or like alcohol or like prescription drugs? Big differences.)

You would be helpful if you addressed the specific case and whether you
accept the general scientific view that marijuana is much less dangerous
than alcohol, and that making it illegal makes it a "gateway."

And are you arguing for a return to alcohol prohibition, and if not, why not?

The other specific suggestion of Johnson was that we emulate experiments in
Switzerland, which allow clinics to supply heroin to addicts. The Swiss
program has produced no difference in addiction rates but has meant far
less crime and cost to society and has damaged the drug cartels.

Note that this is not "legalization" and only applies to registered addicts.

We need to test our basic assumptions.

We need to encourage cooperative and creative exchanges of views.

Jerry Epstein, President, Drug Policy Forum of Texas, Houston

PROHIBITION DOESN'T WORK

In reference to your July 10 editorial, "Which of these things is not like
the other?" I suppose the repeal of alcohol prohibition was "dangerous and
illogical."

Gov. Gary Johnson is advocating a proven model of control where we
currently have none.

Drug courts are a good idea in place of what we have now, but do you really
propose that someone should go through drug rehabilitation for simple
marijuana possession charges? That's like brainwashing someone for having a
can of beer or a cigarette, and I know you wouldn't stand for that, would you?

We have a system in place for those who can't handle their liquor. It's no
stretch of the imagination to consider that we afford everyone the same
courtesy without prejudice. This is still America, is it not?

Christopher A. Joseph, Parma, Ohio

MORE MONEY ISN'T THE ANSWER

Regarding your July 10 editorial, "Which of these things is not like the
other?" Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., proposes that we throw more money at a
solution that has not worked, will not work and cannot work.

New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson says that when something we have been doing
since 1920 is not working, and is in fact counterproductive, we should do
something different.

Which makes more sense?

Kirk Muse, Vancouver, Wash.

SOLUTION IS OBVIOUS

Please be so kind as to tell me where prohibition has worked. Ever.

If you can answer this question, then what to do about drugs will be obvious.

Michael Simon, Rockford, Ill.

JOHNSON'S MESSAGE HAS MERIT

In your July 10 editorial, "Which of these things is not like the other,"
you wrote the following:

"These are two glaring examples of how government addresses a problem - one
side advocates the dangerous and illogical stance of drug legalization
while the other supports a proactive stance to a possible solution."

Clearly you are not paying attention to what New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson
is saying.

Both ideas have merit, but most of government is hooked on the punitive,
prohibitionist model. Wake up.

Gerald M. Sutliff, Emeryville, Calif.