LETTERS; Mark Pritchett;Mike Morris;Mary WagnerDavis;R. Van Kampen;
Merilee Brink;Annette Reed;Nina M. Middleton;Brian Faulkner
Copyright (c) 1997, McClatchy Newspapers, Inc.

Modern Prohibition

Re "A little drug history may cast light on the
legalization issue," OpEd, March 16: As usual, Gen. Barry
McCaffrey did not address the real problem of illegal
drugs. The black market, not drug use, is responsible for
most of society's drugrelated woes.

The black market finances criminals, from the
international narcoterrorist to criminal cartels to
violent youth gangs. The black market allows unlimited
access to drugs for children. It is the uncontrolled black
market that produces dangerous drugs such as crack.

McCaffrey should follow his own advice and put illegal
drugs into some sort of context when discussing
legalization.

Mark Pritchett

Sacramento

I once thought, as our drug czar McCaffrey thinks, that
since drugs are abusable and potentially harmful and
addictive, therefore they should be illegal. It sounds so
simple.

The deeper question is whether battling a given drug is
worth the price of war, given the fact that no drug is ever
eliminated by criminalization.

In all of his historical analysis, McCaffrey failed to
even mention America's greatest lesson in the drug war
past Prohibition. If the harm caused by a drug is the
sole determinant of its legal status, as our drug czar
suggests, then obviously we should make alcohol illegal.
America tried this. Why did we make it legal again? People
realized that the cost in dollars, personal freedoms and
blackmarketrelated violence was not worth the limited
return they were getting.

As with Prohibition's repeal, decriminalization would
not equal government approval. Instead, it would free up
money to help addicts who want help and to educate all of
us about the use and abuse of all drugs.

Mike Morris

Sacramento

Drug war lessons

Re "School antidrug programs bashed," March 19: It
doesn't take a $ 3 million study for parents and the rest
of the public to see that school antidrug programs don't
work. As the article stated, this generation of children
has received more antidrug education than ever before, yet
drug and alcohol abuse continue at unacceptable levels.

People who abuse drugs and alcohol do so because they
experience an "emptiness within." They try to fill
themselves up, satisfy their most basic needs for love and
belonging with drugs and alcohol. No antidrug education
program can prevent that. Prevention begins at home.
Prevention means enabling parents to raise children who
feel competent and secure in who they are.

Drug and alcohol abuse will not be stopped by antidrug
education. It can only be stopped when we turn our eyes
toward home and treat our children as the precious beings
they truly are.

Mary WagnerDavis

Roseville

Drugsniffing wrongs

Re "Drugsniffing dogs at Galt High targeted by suit,"
March 20: The students at Galt High School are to be
commended for challenging the use of drugsniffing dogs in
public schools.

The twisted logic of allowing unwarranted searches
without consent or probable cause escapes me. The end does
not justify the means when it requires the surrender of our
basic rights. I must point out that the humiliation
suffered by these students will only decrease their respect
for the law and those who enforce it.

R. Van Kampen

Placerville

Schools trying to get drugs out, and a teacher and
students filing a court lawsuit. What is Michael Millet
trying to accomplish with his actions? Does he think this
is in the best interest of Jacob Reed and Chris Sulamo?

If we really want our schools cleared of drugs, why
wouldn't we be open to use any method necessary to
accomplish that? I wonder if Millet realizes what impact he
has on students and their future with his actions.

We're so engrossed in our "rights being violated" that
we lose sight of correcting our wrongs.

Merilee Brink

Roseville I am saddened when I hear people express their
support of the drugsearch program and when they suggest
that my son, Jacob Reed, has something to hide by refusing
the search.

The March 24 editorial "Drugsniffing overdose" was
right on. It seems as though presumed innocent has turned
into presumed guilty.

I know the school administration and board are made up
of good, caring, wellmeaning people who only want to make
life better for our children. But these people need to take
a really hard look at what they're doing here and the
message they're sending our kids.

As a parent and childcare provider, I've learned that
we need to build trust and confidence in our youth. They
are our future leaders, but what they are being taught here
is that they are liars and criminals, can't be trusted and
are incapable of governing themselves.

Annette Reed

Galt Medical marijuana pushers

I am a biologist who has seen the effects of drugs on
others. I have not been an advocate of marijuana usage ever
in my life. When the medical marijuana bill came to the
ballot box, I did not vote for it. I have heard all the
information in support of medical marijuana, and I do not
agree with it.

A member of my family is seriously ill. She has never
been a supporter of medical marijuana either. And yet we
have had too many people recommend medical marijuana for
treatment of the illness. I would like to recommend another
bill be brought up in California. It should read, " Medical
marijuana should be prescribed only to members of the
immediate family." People like myself would not have to be
stressed out by a family illness and also have to put up
with people pushing drugs at the same time.

Nina M. Middleton

Orangevale

Freespeech principle The proper function of government
is the protection of the lives of its citizens from the
initiation of physical force by evil human beings first,
with the military against foreign attack; second, with
police against criminals; and third, with courts against
government itself and to carry through police work.

When a government tries to protect its citizens against
the normal vicissitudes of life, such as laziness, error
and accident, it becomes an evil force that steps on, then
tramples, the very rights it was formed to uphold.

As the forgoing applies to the Internet, the government,
by tring to guarantee that "undesirable" (to some people)
material shall not reach anyone's children, will step from
its proper bounds and, as with alcohol, air bags and drugs,
necessarily fail. But it will necessarily succeed at
violating the free speech amendment. Then with this
"forthegoodof society" precedent, full censorship will
be only a few short steps away.

Once a principle is violated, there's no place to draw
the line. A principle is the line. To speak of drawing it
after it's been crossed is not parental, but infantile.

Brian Faulkner

Woodland