Ben Wattenberg is one of the few columnists offering an opinion on the
tobacco deal to even raise the question of prohibition, and he is
certainly right to do so.

The most important choice a society can make in determining a policy
towards a dangerous addictive substance is whether it is to be traded in a
legal or an illegal market. The seductive idea that public health and
societal problems attributable to alcohol could be solved by Prohibition
lured us into the "Noble Experiment" in 1920. What we learned to our dismay
was that Prohibition created an uncontrollable criminal market. This led to
Repeal in 1933.

A less well publicized and very poorly understood matching program of
federal drug prohibition was also initiated at the same time and has been
fiercely championed despite ever more expensive annual failure. Despite
its failure, it has developed the quasi-religious aura of a crusade and as
such has become a sacred cow which politicians dare not oppose. Our prisons
are bursting at the seams, but street drugs are purer and more available
than ever.

It's clear that Mr. Wattenberg is angry at the tobacco industry and leans
toward some form of prohibition. I would ask him and your readers if this
country could possibly afford the enormous criminal market that would
inevitably occur when 40 to 50 million addicts are abruptly cut off from
their drug. The Attorneys General were on to something when they opted for
a deal which would retain a legal tobacco industry. Rather than the folly
of prohibiting tobacco, we should legalize all drugs forthwith.

Thomas J. O'Connell, MD
San Mateo, CA