ONCE WE WERE FREE

Regarding "Drug 'legalizers' make a weak case":

The term should be "re-legalizer." Drugs of all sorts were legal for most
of the history of the United States. A more peaceful and affirmative place
it was, too, a place where people were heard to exclaim, "it's a free
country."

The "war" analogy in the "drug war" was introduced by Richard Nixon and
followed up by all those who have led the enforcement effort since.
Methinks they use the analogy to justify the casualties, the thousands of
peaceful people who get hurt in their war, people whose "crime" is that
their choice of habit is different from the majority's choice. Linda Bayer
argues against "medical" marijuana as if she had a study supporting the
medical benefits of putting sick people in jail. In fact, the
prohibitionists have long prevented any real study of the medical benefits
of marijuana. Bayer ignores the blatant fact that thousands of sick people
choose to risk arrest for the smoked, whole form of this medication rather
than obtain prescription "legal" Marinol. Why do they do that? Is it that
the intimidating tactics of the prohibitionists make a fiction of Marinol's
"legal" status for most people? Or maybe people too nauseous to keep their
medication down also can't use nausea medication in pill form?

We libertarian re-legalizers don't fear a controlled study. Why do the
prohibitionists fear it?

Drug prohibition, like the failed alcohol prohibition, does not decrease
usage. Instead it drives use to more concentrated forms -- whiskey and
crack instead of beer and marijuana. Prohibition also makes criminals of
honest people, makes opportunities for real, violent criminals and corrupts
our police and courts.

Join Libertarians and seek to end prohibition with the century that began
it. After all, "it's a free country!"

Tom Howe
Oxford

Checked-by: Richard Lake