I hope you will forgive a little tooting of the horn. The recent MAP Focus
Alert on the Abe Rosenthal hit piece in the NY Times generated an
outstanding response of letters to the editor from all over the nation (and
world for that matter).

A MAP all time record has subsequently been generated. FIVE LTEs published
in one edition AND in the NY Times!! Absolutely awesome. Congrats to all
including the scores of letter writers that wrote LTEs on the Rosenthal
piece and didn't get published. It was the muscle of your combined efforts
that generated these impressive results. Big thanks and accolades to
everyone who responded to this Focus Alert! Old Abe has taken another shot
across the bow and an outstanding message has been sent to the NY Times
about the importance of drug issues and the lack of complacency for blatent
inaccuracy.

New York Times Circulation is 1.115 million souls that potentially read and
reconsidered the reform issue.

A total ad value of over $13,000 was generated for reform by this one
effort in one day!

Every one of you give yourselves a well deserved pat on the back.

At 07:48 AM 4/18/98 -0400, Richard Lake wrote:

Source: The New York Times
Contact: letters@nytimes.com
Section: Letters to the Editor
Authors: Joseph D. Mc Namara, David Borden, Harry G. Levine, Mark Mc
Namara, Judith D. Wallach
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/
Pubdate: April 18, 1998

Editors Note: It is a pleasure to know that the efforts of our newshawks
and all who receive and respond to the news items we distribute, or to our
DrugSense FOCUS alerts, had a part in this success. Five of six published
letters in today's NYT responding superbly to Mr. Rosenthal's rant is what
keeps many of us doing what we do. - Richard Lake, Sr. Editor, DrugSense
News Service.
p.s.: The Rosenthal column is at:
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n269.a09.html

PROHIBITION WON'T WIN DRUG WAR

To the Editor:

A. M. Rosenthal's attack on Dr. Ethan Nadelmann -- for suggesting the right
to "possess and consume" drugs responsibly may be better understood in the
future -- smacks of the fanaticism that has long marked America's
ill-chosen war on drugs (column, April 14). As a career police officer for
35 years (including terms as deputy inspector of the New York Police
Department and as police chief of Kansas City, Mo., and San Jose, Calif.) I
have seen the racism, violence, corruption and failure to curb drug abuse
that stems from government policies.

Mr. Rosenthal fails to mention that before 1914 Americans had the right to
possess and use drugs. Of course there were abuses, but there was no $400
million black market or widespread corruption and violence, nor was there
the vastly disproportionate incarceration of non-whites, until the Harrison
Act of 1914 criminalized drugs. Prohibition does not work; new approaches
are needed.

JOSEPH D. MC NAMARA Stanford, Calif., April 15, 1998

The writer is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution.
..........

No 'Backdoor' Debate

To the Editor:

A.M. Rosenthal's notion (column, April 14) of "backdoor legalization" of
drugs is odd.

How could such a major change occur unnoticed? Ending prohibition would
require votes taken in the halls of power or the ballot box -- the front
door.

Perhaps medical marijuana will spark a rethinking of drug policy. But open
debate is the lifeblood of democracy, and should be welcomed, not feared or
denounced.

DAVID BORDEN Executive Director, Drug Reform Coordination Network,
Washington, April 14, 1998
..........

Prisons Aren't Answer

To the Editor:

A. M. Rosenthal (column, April 14) suggests that all opponents of United
States drug policy are "legalizers." Many of us support decriminalization,
not legalization -- an important distinction. Legalization conjures up
images of cocaine and heroin sold in liquor stores. Decriminalization and
other forms involve moving addiction and drug problems away from the police
and prisons and placing them in the hands of doctors and public health
officials.

In recent years most Western countries have been reducing or eliminating
arrests, prosecutions and prison sentences for possession of small
quantities of illegal drugs. As Europe has shown, protecting public health
doesn't require imprisoning hundreds of thousands of impoverished drug
addicts each year. Medical and other services are less expensive and more
effective than prisons.

HARRY G. LEVINE New York, April 14, 1998

The writer is a professor of sociology at Queens College, CUNY.
..........

An Obvious Solution

To the Editor: I am encouraged by A. M. Rosenthal's April 14 column, "Lean
Back or Fight." Every time a vehemently pro-prohibition article is
published in a major newspaper, more people are driven to ask the question,
How do we control drug abuse?

How do we best control alcohol use? License sellers, enforce strict laws
restricting access by minors, limit the locations where use is permitted,
tax the billions spent on it each year.

How do we best control tobacco use? License sellers, enforce strict laws
restricting access by minors, limit the locations where use is permitted,
tax the billions spent on it each year.

So how do we best control drug use? The answer seems obvious, doesn't it?

MARK MC NAMARA St. Louis, April 14, 1998
..........

More Education Needed

To the Editor:

Despite the suggestion to the contrary in A. M. Rosenthal's April 14
column, the moral high ground has room for more than one position on drug
legalization.

The statement that "legalizers use euphemisms and back doors" tars many
individuals and organizations that are forthright and articulate about
their stand.

I agree with Mr. Rosenthal that society must invest far more heavily in
drug rehabilitation and therapy, in and outside of prison. Furthermore,
money and effort must go into widespread education for children and adults
-- honest, open education that acknowledges the need for a continuing
search for answers.

JUDITH D. WALLACH New York, April 14, 1998