HIGH ANXIETIES...

We received a huge amount of mail, most of it congratulatory and
complimentary, on our September 20 special issue, "Beyond Legalization: New
Ideas for Ending the War on Drugs," guest edited by Michael Massing. Here
are kudos and a few dissenting viewpoints. - The Editors

I read articles on the Web from your special drug policy reform issue. I
was so impressed, I immediately became a paying subscriber. Thank you for
recognizing the seriousness of our failed policies and making the effort to
shed more light on them.

John Goepner
Ramona, Calif.

I am organizing a program in Harlem providing social services, job training
and jobs to recovering addicts and your special issue has helped inspire me
to get our organization up and running.

Michelle Gaza
Harlem, N.Y.

Hearty congratulations on your in-depth coverage of the debate on our
failed drug war. An open dialogue on alternatives to this wretched policy
is precisely what is needed to move us in the direction of a sane drug
policy. I was surprised, however, that your articles didn't mention two of
the most popular and most informative Web sites on drug policy. The
DrugSense Web site (www.drugsense.org) and the Media Awareness Project Web
site (www.mapinc.org).

Mark Greer
DrugSense (MAP Inc.)
Porterville, Calif.

Michael Massing is not the first to put forth the idea of shifting the
federal drug budget to a 50/50 supply/demand split. I was in a meeting with
a small group of AIDS and substance abuse advocates during the 1992 New
York State primaries, which included Congressman Barney Frank and
then-advocate but now New York City Councilman Phil Reed, where candidate
Bill Clinton made this same promise without solicitation. When I asked
Clinton for his position on needle exchange programs, he said, "I don't
have a problem with needle exchange, but I would leave it up to the states
to decide." We can only wonder where we would be today in our struggle
against drug abuse and AIDS if the man who won my support in that meeting
had kept his word.

Howard Josepher
Exponents Inc.
(a drug treatment and harm reduction service agency)
New York City

My deepest thanks for providing such an excellent forum on drug policy. In
1998 the French medical research institute ISERM rated drugs by their
danger at government request. The "most dangerous" group was made up of
three drugs - heroin, alcohol and cocaine. The French Health Minister,
Bernard Kouchner, asked, "Why does society persecute those with some kinds
of addiction, while putting up with others that are far more widespread,
dangerous and expensive?" We have some 16 million people addicted to
heroin, cocaine and alcohol combined, about 14 million of those addicted to
alcohol. Since the number of illegal drug addicts has increased by about 35
percent since 1979, we can see that the war on drugs is a massive, futile,
lengthy attempt to get a few million illegal drug addicts to switch to an
alcohol addiction, arguably worse.

Jerry Epstien
Drug Policy Forum of Texas
Houston

Michael Massing's piece on seeking drug policy reform seems to me yet
another example of The Nation's (and the liberal left's) failure of nerve.
He would levy fines for use of pot but jail terms for production and sale.
This is illogical and gutless. There is simply no credible basis for
criminal sanctions against marijuana users or growers, particularly in a
culture that not only accepts but, through government policy and subsidy,
promotes the production and use of recreational and pharmaceutical products
known to cause illness and death. We "fight drugs" with one hand and then
force drugs on adults and children. Examples are legion of therapies not
studied, and therefore stigmatized, simply because there is no profit in
them (e.g., vitamin and diet therapy for behavior problems in autistic
children, versus the polypharmacopoeia endorsed by the medical community).
The social problems teenage users suffer from are symptoms of their
relations with their families, their schools and the culture at large, not
provable effects of the only organic drug indulged in by Americans. We have
devastated communities and ruined lives in a pointless quest for some
imagined moral purity. Enough! No more "compromises." I smoke pot, along
with at least 50 million other Americans. We need to reject the stigma
imposed on us by regressive forces.

Kenneth Hymes
Charlottesville, Va.

I disagree strongly with Michael Massing's call to maintain drug
prohibition. "Decriminalizing" drugs is not the answer. The problem with
substances being just a little bit illegal is that it's too easy for an
opportunistic politician to make them a little bit more illegal. Example:
Possession of less than an ounce of pot has been decriminalized in
California since 1976, but in the mid-nineties Governor Pete Wilson ushered
in legislation that suspends for six months the driver's license of anyone
caught with any amount of marijuana - even when the possession had nothing
to do with driving, As long as a drug is against the law, there is
potential for ill-conceived punishments related to its possession and use.

Massing also misreads drug-war politics. The drumbeat to end drug
prohibition is growing, and I predict that at least marijuana will be legal
in California and/or other Western states in five to ten years. Six Western
states have already approved "medical" use of marijuana, and a group in
Washington State attempted to place a real marijuana-legalization measure
on the November 2000 ballot.

Chris Ford
Los Angeles

By rejecting the full legalization of marijuana, Michael Massing makes a
mistake that is common in liberal circles: underestimating the role of
marijuana in the war on drugs. Massing argues that to "decriminalize"
marijuana possession and private use is enough. New York State
decriminalized possession of small amounts in 1977. But Mayor Rudolph
Giuliani directed the police to target low-level marijuana offenders, and
in 1998 almost 35,000 people in New York City were arrested for marijuana
possession, The rate of these arrests has risen 2,200 percent since 1992
and now accounts for 10 percent of all arrests in Hew York City. Clearly,
decriminalization is susceptible to political opportunism.

Like many liberals, Massing also overlooks the political psychology of
marijuana in the drug war and focuses instead on class- and race-related
injustices. But it is the fear of marijuana, manufactured by opportunistic
political and law enforcement leaders, and played to the soccer-mom set,
that drives the war on drugs.

The drug with which suburban parents have the most contact (cocaine and
heroin are incorrectly perceived as "inner city" problems), marijuana is
the drug they believe their children are most likely to use. By associating
marijuana with more dangerous drugs, the drug war establishment whips up
concern among its favored voting group, suburbanites, who otherwise would
be apathetic about "urban" drug problems. If the left is serious about
ending the drug war, it must recognize the tactical importance of the
marijuana issue.

Thomas Leighton
Aaron Wilson
Marijuana Reform Party of New York
New York City

Michael Massing calls harm reduction "a variant of legalization" that has
now been embraced by supporters of legalization. That some supporters of
legalization have embraced harm reduction is undoubtedly the case. However,
I am baffled by the phrase "a variant of legalization." Harm reduction is
about pragmatism and good practice in public health, (Harm reduction has
also been a well-known concept in the alcohol treatment field for many
decades.) Some harm reductionists believe in legalization, but the majority
do not. Harm reduction is not legalization. In fact, many legalizers
criticize it as a Band-Aid. Since the two are confused, the implementation
of programs in many countries is being held up because of US opposition to
legalization. Supporters of harm reduction should not confuse it with
legalization. Leave that to your drug czar.

Patrick O'Hare
director
International Harm Reduction Association
Liverpool, England

Michael Massing makes no mention of drug use as distinguished from drug
abuse. By far, the majority of people of my generation who use illegal
drugs for recreation have not surrendered their involvement in the rest of
their lives (family, work, other forms of recreation, etc.), But what has
me riled up is Massing's phrase "tough on abuse." Abuse is already tough on
the abuser, so any program that purports to be tough on abuse or abusers is
likely to fail. In the toughness model, the abuser avoids contact with his
persecutor and abuses in private or with other abusers. It is vitally
important to find a workable model for making these illegal substances
available to those who want them and are old enough to make choices
(legally). Any who indulge to the extent of abuse will thus be close to a
situation where they can seek assistance if they need it.

Robert Cogswell
Sausalito, Calif.

Progressives should not follow Michael Massing's advice to use Nixon's drug
policy approach. While Nixon had a better budget balance between law
enforcement and treatment, his drug policy contained the roots of many of
today's problems. Nixon coined the term "drug war," he militarized the
Mexican border, legitimized no-knock entries, developed herbicide spraying
(G. Gordon Liddy's idea) and knew that the drug war would be another way to
lock up African-Americans and other "undesirables." He ignored the findings
of his own commission on drugs when it recommended decriminalization of
possession and small sales of marijuana.

A consensus on a sensible, progressive drug policy is developing. More than
fifty organizations, including the ACLU, NAACP, NOW, Volunteers of America,
YWCA, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America and the United Methodist
Church, have joined the leading reform organizations in writing a letter to
Congress declaring the drug war a failure and urging a new policy. We
recommend:

- -- investing in youth programs to keep adolescents interested and involved
in life;

- -- making treatment on request a reality within three years;

- -- preventing drug-related disease by funding, among other things, needle
exchange programs;

- -- providing no additional domestic or international law enforcement
resources until research shows that it's effective;

- -- ending racial bias in drug enforcement;

- -- undertaking an examination of drug policy and all alternatives to it.

We need to develop a system of legal controls that undermines the illegal
market while sensibly controlling drugs. Taking the profit out of the drug
market is the only way to rid communities of the criminal drug trade. Such
a regulatory system can be developed if we face up to the challenge, but if
we just say it is not a political possibility then the harms of prohibition
will grow. While developing an effective regulatory policy for prohibited
drugs, we can also develop a better regulatory policy for legal drugs and
bring some consistency to the way our nation deals with all drugs. The left
is making progress in developing an alternative to the drug war. More
voices are needed for this dialogue to be effective.

Kevin Zeese
Common Sense for Drug Policy
Falls Church, Va.