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