RATIONAL DEBATE A 'MUST'

To the editor:

Regarding your Sept. 28 editorial, "U.S. drug legalization an
unnecessary surrender," I support the Globe-News in its call for
rational debate on the drug issue.

But since prohibition is the order of the day, there is no incentive
for McCaffrey even to approach the table. Indeed, the indefensibilty
of our brand of prohibition requires that he shy away from any
competent, rational debate.

The editorial, unfortunately, parrots deeply-ingrained assumptions
with no basis in reality. Those assumptions can be quickly refuted as
logical fallacies learned in Philosophy 101. These statements glare
out at anyone with an eye for objectivity.

The last half of the editorial is a list of "musts" and "must nots"
which almost seems a gentle attempt to exclude unpopular ideas from
open and honest debate. Why "must" law enforcement be involved? For
fear that what might happen? Is not a crime a crime regardless of
whether a drug was involved? Why is watching TV with a joint any more
a crime than watching TV with a beer?

As long as discussion remains on this level, there is really no point
in continuing. We might as well shoot every drug user on sight for
his own and our own good, because that is the end result of the slope
our society is slipping down.

DAVID CARTER
Houston