DELIVER RIGHT MESSAGE ON DANGERS OF DRUGS

A Jan. 13 Times Union article explained how the White House drug policy
officials previewed some prime-time shows, looking for anti-drug themes in
the shows. If the officials sign off on the shows' anti-drug content, the
networks receive credit reducing the number of costly anti-drug public
service announcements they are forced to air. The article further said some
individuals and organizations thought this was an affront to the First
Amendment.

Can you believe that anyone would disagree with this, and furthermore
conclude that this threatens our First Amendment rights? Doesn't the
anti-drug message have more importance than stepping on the creative,
independent toes of the networks? Listen to what the misguided Media Access
Project said about this: "This is the most craven thing we've ever heard of
yet. to turn over content control to the federal government for a modest
price is an outrageous abandonment of the First Amendment.''

I'm a believer in the First Amendment, despite its obvious abuses in this
country. However, I think the government has worked a creative compromise
here to attain a very worthwhile goal. If the networks' independence or
creativity is being threatened, so be it. They have far too much latitude
now, as is evidenced by what they are "getting away with'' on prime-time
programming.

It is clear here that the importance of anti-drug messages far outweighs
the petty concerns of this Media Access Project and others. Our young
adults need to be delivered the right message about the dangers of drug
use. Network programming provides the right medium for that message.

MARK DAILEY,
Saratoga Springs