Ann Donnelly's July 12 column, "Just say no to marijuana
legalization," is very interesting. I would like to clear up a few of
the many factual errors she writes as fact.

First, Donnelly complains about the lack of age restrictions in the
Compassionate Use Act of California. Unfortunately, there are no age
restrictions on terminal illnesses, either. Until Congress passes a
law that makes it illegal for children to get cancer, would Donnelly
suggest not treating children?

A law against childhood cancer would certainly be more productive than
the law against marijuana use. When the United States passed the
marijuana tax act in 1937, there were approximately 55,000 users in
the country, according to the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. As of last
year, after 60 years of prohibition, the federal Drug Enforcement
Administration estimates there are 70 million users.

Donnelly writes that under Washington's Initiative 692, marijuana
would be legalized for medicinal use without restrictions. In the next
sentence she writes that a doctor's recommendation would be required.
A doctor's recommendation isn't a "restriction"? All of the physicians
I know take their jobs very seriously and would no sooner prescribe
marijuana to someone who doesn't need it than they would Valium.

Donnelly claims that Arizona's medicinal marijuana campaign never made
clear the measure could also have legalized medical use of illegal
drugs other than marijuana. Is she suggesting that Arizona voters are
too stupid to read a ballot measure? The measure won by landslide, but
Donnelly writes, "Arizona lawmakers subsequently had to pass
legislation to undo the damage." What really occurred was that the
legislature acted against the will of the voting public.

Donnelly asks, "Is this movement fundamentally about expanding the
U.S. market for drugs?" We already have such a movement, led by the
DEA, the U.S. Customs Service and the CIA. Without the U.S.
government' s policy of prohibition, drug cartels wouldn't have the
funds or the motivation to corrupt entire countries like Mexico,
Columbia, the Bahamas. Personal drug use is bad, but compared to the
wholesale corruption that billions of drug dollars bring, it seems
like a lesser evil.

Donnelly describes George Soros, a backer of medicinal marijuana
initiatives, as "harder to categorize." Apparently she doesn't realize
that Soros is probably the one person in the world most responsible
for the end of communism in Europe. He is highly intelligent,
motivated and generous and will go against political tides to push
what is right, not what is expedient or traditional.

Regulation and taxation

Despite Donnelly's implication, Soros doesn't support legalization of
marijuana. He just doesn't understand why we must allow participants
in the only unregulated market in the world to profit beyond the
capabilities of even the major regulated multinational corporations.
He understands that the illegal drug market could be crippled in one
swift move, by regulating and taxing it.

Donnelly suggests that anyone against driving under the influence of
intoxicants should be against the medical marijuana movement. Why?
Would the initiative remove restrictions against driving under the
influence? No. Did alcohol prohibition decrease driving under the
influence of that substance? No. I have a number of prescriptions in
my medicine cabinet right now that warn against using heavy machinery
under the influence. What is so different about marijuana?

In the course of my business, I spend a lot of time in Vancouver,
B.C., Amsterdam, Germany and the New York City area. When I am in
countries that allow their citizens more freedom and that don't
support the drug dealers, I am much safer. I can walk on the streets
of Amsterdam at 3 a.m. and not fear for my life, yet there are coffee
shops selling hashish, marijuana and psychedelic mushrooms on every
corner, sometimes up to six places in a block. It doesn't lead to
crime; it decreases crime.

In the past two years, Italy, Australia, France, Germany, Spain, and
many other countries have stopped enforcing personal possession drug
crimes. As a result, they live in safer communities. I challenge
Donnelly to walk the streets of Portland at 3 a.m. and tell me how
safe she feels in a country that spends $26 billion a year to fight
the "drug menace."

Even police officers and FBI agents can see that the war on drugs is
fruitless and actually causes more damage that the drugs themselves.
Using anti-drug rhetoric to deny sick people access to a substance
that the American Medical Association was against making illegal in
1937 -- and which the AMA announced just last week is helpful in
treating stroke victims, Alzheimer's patients and Parkinson's disease
sufferers -- is beyond asinine.

Let's admit we have made mistakes, and fix them before it really is
too late.

Robert Harris