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