POLITICAL AGENDA POLARIZES DRUG POLICY DISCUSSION

Re Canada shouldn't follow U.S. model (Opinion page, Oct. 19) by Ethan
A. Nadelmann, in which he claims drug reform is both timely and
necessary, not only in the U.S. but also in Canada.

Nadelmann is not a preacher but a pragmatist. A trip to the library
would confirm the truth that drug problems always have been, and
always will be, with us.

Nadelmann is not a moral reformer but a common sense reformer. Zero
tolerance and the war on drugs is primarily a U.S. moral metaphor,
driven as he so poignantly describes, "by vested pecuniary and
institutional interests."

But while the metaphor may still burn bright in the eyes of Barry
McCaffrey, head of the White House drug policy office, it is not the
blind that we have to fear but the ones who will not see.

Nadelmann is not an advocate of legislation, he is an advocate of
responsibility. We all, as democratic citizens, have the
responsibility to take it upon ourselves to examine our own drug
policies and ask what the true benefits and harms to drug users and to
society are.

We have a responsibility to dispassionately evaluate our response to
the drug problem - despite strong rhetoric that "just saying no" will
do. We have a responsibility to seriously consider the effects of our
drug policy on the fundamental rights of those human beings affected.

Drug policy discussion is easily polarized by those with political
motives. It is much more difficult to painstakingly sort through the
gray to find the black and white. My hat goes off to those, like
Nadelmann, who try.

Mark Latowsky
Department of Family and Community Medicine
University of Toronto
Toronto