WAR ON DRUGS IS LOST; STOP TRYING TO WIN IT

To the Editor: To Rep. Walsh:

I was disgusted, but unfortunately not surprised, to hear that
Nicholas Eyle and Dr. Eugene Tinelli were denied positions on the
Syracuse-Onondaga Drug and Alcohol Abuse Commission. It is disgraceful
that our government is willing to sacrifice free speech and open
dialogue, rights essential for a functioning democracy, to prolong a
war on drugs that was lost before it started.

The reason that I was not surprised to hear of this is a bill
currently before the House Judiciary Committee, known as H.R. 1428,
the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act. The provisions of this
bill are frightening to anyone who believes in freedom.

It is illegal under this act to teach or demonstrate the manufacture
of a controlled substance or distribute any information pertaining to
the manufacture or use of a controlled substance. This may sound like
a good idea at first, until you consider the many possible ways of
interpreting this ban on speech.

It would be illegal to warn people of possible deadly combinations of
drugs. Health teachers would go to jail for telling their students
about dangerous rave drugs that should be avoided. Medical marijuana
clubs would be shut down; newspapers couldn't print pictures or
articles on drug-ravaged people. Even fictional accounts of drug abuse
would be forbidden.

Allowing the passage of this bill would make it easier for groups like
the Syracuse-Onondaga Drug and Alcohol Abuse Commission to tell people
who disagree with the war on drugs that they are not welcome. This act
is a full assault on the right to free speech and should not be
passed. The drug war must be ended so that true healing of addicts and
our society can take place.

Michael Wilson
Fabius

BRING DRUG POLICY OUT OF THE DARK AGES

To the Editor:

Dr. Eugene Tinelli and Nicholas Eyle are two brave men who could help
us reduce alcohol and drug use.

Their desire to sit on the Syracuse-Onondaga Drug and Alcohol Abuse
Commission stems from a commitment to less drug use and
safer-should-it-occur solutions, not bury-your-head-in-the-sand and
launch-nuclear-missile philosophies of many other commission members.

An accurate analogy to the current drug war is to that of medieval
medicine, where the (often-fatal) prescription was usually more
leeches, regardless of the underlying condition.

It is time, to step out of the dark ages. Are people more likely to
consume cocaine in a baggiefrom a friend or from a warning-covered
container? Which is safer?

Support these men for a spot on the commission.

Marc Romain, Director
Promoting Common Sense Ideas
Chittenango

WHY EVEN BOTHER TO HAVE A COMMISSION?

To the Editor:

As a former Syracusan, I read the article by Greg Munno (Viewpoint
sinks drug commission nominees, June 4) with some consternation.

It took a while to digest the logic (?) of the feds and the health
committee regarding the two ReconsiDer nominees. I didn't realize that
the War on Drugs included federal oversight of county legislative
bodies and commissions.

Let me get this straight. The ideal nominees for the commission are
non-existent nominees not proposed by legislators other than Kinne.
The nominees must then be approved by the U.S. Attorney's office. The
nominees are then approved by the Health Committee, which doesn't take
time to properly review their credentials.

Finally, the two nominees in question must agree with the other 43
commission members on all policy issues. Why don't they save money and
reduce the commission to one member? This eliminates the danger of
disagreements.

William H. Tiede
Paoli, Pa.