CENTER DRUG DEBATE ON RATIONAL APPROACHES

It's funny that Al Ronnfeldt in his Dec. 16 letter would use a non sequitur
to try to refute what he alleges to be a non sequitur in Jerry Epstein's
Nov. 23 letter.

Epstein's arguments against the drug war cannot be reduced to something so
simple as "drugs should be legalized because the government has failed to
stop their sale."

The favorite tactic of those who favor more of the same is to make change
sound ridiculous.

Because no one is forcing anyone to smoke marijuana or to use cocaine,
there is a profound difference between drug sales or use and theft, assault
and murder. Theft and murder are crimes against others. Drug use is a choice.

Ronnfeldt says the "debate should be over whether selling drugs is immoral
and harms other human beings," and, "If it is not, then they should be
legalized." It's not that simple.

The list of legal products and substances that are harmful and immoral is
pretty long. Putting people in prison is harmful. When it is done to
hundreds of thousands of people on the basis of subjective morality, it's a
crime against humanity.

Prohibition makes relatively cheap substances worth more than gold. It's
led to the global drug cartels that are the real threat to the world.

What is the price of a human life? Good question. Let's debate whether more
lives could be saved by a rational drug policy or one driven by fear and
emotion.

Gregg Davis

Checked-by: Richard Lake