WAR ON DRUGS
Sunday January 4, 1998

ANOTHER COSTLY, DESTRUCTIVE WASTE

I too have a light in my window that will burn until the Drug War ends.

My children missed their father’s presence this Christmas as we miss him
every day. It has been a year since he was sent to federal prison 2,000
miles from home. We've eight long years of separation left.

As in other wars, there are children falling casualty to this one. The
Center for Children of Incarcerated Parents estimates that on any given day
more than 1.5 million children in our country have a parent in jail or
prison. Susan Phillips the director laments, "If that many children were
touched by any other war, the evening news would show their pictures and
humanitarian relief efforts would be underway."

But this is the Drug War, described as "unwinable" by many public
officials, as a “colossal failure” by Ann Landers and “waste and nonsense”
by senior federal judge, John H. Kane. And yet, it rages on.

Industry and corporate profits fuel this war, just as every other war. We
have rising numbers of jobs connected with law enforcement, prison
industries, drug testing, prison construction, jailers and guards, to name
but a few. Even the D.A.R.E. program has become a multi-million dollar
enterprise.

Meanwhile, my husband will serve a longer prison term than a rapist or
murderer. Our children are denied a father. It is time to end the drug war
and bring peace to America.

Consuelo F. Doherty Kettle Falls, Wash

LET'S GET PAST HYSTERIA, PANDERING

Michael Wiman (Letters,December 26) yes, I do remember the "just say no to
drugs" campaign of the Reagan years. These were the same years that ushered
in a rash of minimum sentencing and sentencing guidelines so barbaric and
unjust that today 87% of our federal judiciary is opposed to them.

Clearly the vast majority of these disillusioned judges were appointed by
republican presidents.

As to blaming Clinton for a failed drug war, no single politician bears the
entire blame. Drug war hysteria has been a convenient tool for our
presidents and our congress and state lawmakers as well. War rhetoric and
escalation passes freely between partisan lines. Why? Appearing tough on
crime gets votes.

Drug addiction has remained a constant in 5% of our population since the
drug war began.

Drug enforcement dollars have not been "slashed". On the contrary, drug war
spending has increased exponentially each year since "war" was declared
over thirty years ago. Last year direct costs were $15.2 billion while
indirect costs are no longer calculable. Clinton is increasing spending for
1998.

These are the facts. What are we getting for our money besides destruction?

Solutions could be found in pragmatism - they will never be found in
hysteria.

Public recognition of the facts will be the first steps of reform. At
present rates of incarceration, within fifty years half of our citizens
will be behind bars. We had better start looking beyond the hysteria and
pay attention to these facts. Our freedom depends on it.

Nora Callahan, Colville, Wash

Same paper: December 26, 1997

BLAME CLINTON FOR FAILED DRUG WAR

Re: "End futile, failed drug war," by Nora C. Callahan (Letters, Dec. 16)

I wonder if Callahan remembers how effective the Reagan adminstration's
"just say no" campaign was during the 1980s. The movement was characterized
as too simple to work. The liberals could not, however, deny that drug
usage dropped more and more every year. When the program was dropped, the
real drug war ended.

Along came Bill Clinton in 1992. Hidden in the bravado of his
well-publicized slashing of federal employees was the 75 percent cut in
drug enforcement field officers. Drug usage didn't just increase, it
spiked. No wonder Callahan thinks Clinton's drug war isn't working.

I agree with her opposition to jail sentences for drug offenders, but only
concerning first-time possession of small amounts of drugs - that is, the
users. Possession of large amounts, indicating dealing activities, should
be dealt with harshly. Similarly, repeat small-amount offenders should
receive jail time.

First-time offenders could be required to wear electronic devices so they
could be monitored. They would be required to find work. If they were
receiving welfare, it would be revoked. They would be subject to drug tests
at any time during their probation. This tough life, brought on by their
own actions, would allow them to return to productive society instead of
burdening it.

Michael G. Winman, Spokane, Wash