BETTER SENSE ON DRUGS

Regarding the article "Nonabstinence programs seem to work for many" (by
Christopher D. Ringwald, Opinion Page, Jan. 2), I wonder why we insist on
enforcing drug abstinence by law and order rather than simply encouraging
it through education and treatment.

"Harm-reduction" models seem much more humane and effective. We know prison
is unlikely to solve drug abuse but, rather, has a tendency to make matters
worse.

I don't really know why we choose the "zero-tolerance" approach. Perhaps we
do not want to feel humanity toward those who have drug problems. We may
only see them as a menace that needs to be eliminated.

We know our current approach, the war on drugs, does not work. It creates
many more problems than it is intended to solve. Not only are we fighting
drug abuse, but we've created a worldwide black market flooded with guns,
violence, corruption and conspiracy.

Is our heavy-handedly enforced abstinence policy so necessary that we are
willing to take on an army of criminals looking to profit from it? Wouldn't
a humane public health approach be much easier and sensible?

Joel W. Johnson San Jose

)1998 San Francisco Examiner