WE INTERRUPT THIS REGULARLY SCHEDULED COLUMN

Opening The Mail

A number of fine letters crossed my desk this week, but two were of
particular interest. You'll find both of them on this page. And you'll
find the rebuttal in this column.

First off, understand that as an editor, I welcome letters of
dissenting opinions, whether those opinions are mine (as in this
column), the newspaper's (as in our editorials) or those of other
columnists (as in Jim Cegielski's Wednesday offerings).

There is a method to our madness. If you read only those with whom you
already agree, you're not going to learn anything new; and often those
differing views will do one of two things - they'll help you
crystallize your own view, or they'll make you rethink that view.

Or put it in the way an old publisher I knew thought about it: It's to
your benefit, and possibly your intellectual survival, to learn what
the other side is thinking.

Here's what I think about the other side.

The letters below, in our "Letters to the Editor" section, are in
response to a column I published July 23, "Jailhouse scribe deserves
no poetic justice." In that column, I make the point that syndicated
columnist DeWayne Wickham is off the mark by suggesting that minimum
sentencing laws for non-violent criminals are unwise. He uses a
jailhouse scribe - that is, a letter from an inmate - to fuel his argument.

My problem with Wickham's original column is twofold. One, he
classifies drug dealers as non-violent criminals - technically true, I
grant - and two, he gives credence to an inmate's letter - which also
could be technically true, I grant.

Why the concern? Again, twofold. Given the collateral damage a drug
dealer does - to homes, families, children and society - how can we
not consider them violent criminals? What could be more violent than
ripping parents and children or husbands and wives apart, or tearing
the future away from a child?

Also, over my years as an editor, I've received my share of letters
from inmates. I don't ignore them because you never know when a letter
writer will have a legitimate concern. But every time I've explored
this possibility, I've been disappointed. The letter writer has
invariably turned out to have purely personal motives for the
submission, and few readers care if a prisoner feels he isn't getting
a sufficient variety of breakfast foods or if an inmate feels he
getting a bad rap because he's viewed as a criminal and not a
rehabilitated member of society while still serving his time. I'm not
endorsing either of these inequities - for inequities they are - but
such complaints are largely self-serving and completely the result of
actions taken solely by the individuals who now suffer the
consequences.

But to the letters.

Common mistake

Robert Sharpe identifies himself as a policy analyst for the
Washington, D.C.-based Common Sense for Drug Policy. In his missive,
he suggests I make the "common mistake of assuming that punitive drug
laws actually reduce use."

Well, actually, I didn't. Mr. Sharpe assumes that is my argument, for
the sake of his letter, because that is an easy target, and while I
don't agree with all Mr. Sharpe's points, I suspect he is probably
right that punitive drug laws don't reduce use. But that wasn't my
point. I contended then, and contend now, that classifying drug
dealers as non-violent criminals would be criminal itself, given the
effect such people have on society.

And yes, Mr. Sharpe is also right when he writes "the big losers in
this battle (war on drugs) are the American taxpayers," although not
for the reason he lists. Taxpayers lose big every day in terms of
legal and law enforcement costs needed to take dealers off street corners.

Absent disclosure

Mett B. Ausley Jr. makes a good point. Wickham's writing does provide
more full disclosure than did my column. Wickham "admitted his
interest in helping a 'jailhouse scribe' inmate" whereas I never
plainly offered my motive for writing the July 23 column. Given this
absence, I also gave Mr. Ausley license to speculate. Sloppy of me.
But not as sloppy as Mr. Ausley's speculations.

I am a journalist and have been a journalist for a long time.
Moreover, I sit at an editor's desk and have the authority to make
decisions relating not only to the placement of news stories, but what
stories are assigned to reporters and when and if those stories will
run. It's an awesome responsibility and one I have never taken
lightly. So when Mr. Ausley accuses me of writing solely to sell
newspapers, it hits home.

It hits home because this has never been my agenda. To serve the
community by providing fair and impartial news and dispelling rumor on
every page except in the opinion section has always been my guiding
principle. In the opinion section, I strive to provide a balance of
viewpoints. Hence the inclusion of Mr. Ausley's letter.

But to return to full disclosure. I did have a motive for writing the
July 23 column. It was not, however, to sell newspapers. My motive in
writing this piece stemmed from my years spent as a parent and the
years watching my children grow. Now, I have a 5-year-old ready to
enter kindergarten and an 8-year-old entering the third grade. To
think that their lives could be affected by a drug dealer is
terrifying, and if a judge has the authority, through minimum
sentencing, to take such people out of my children's path, then I'm
all for it.

Assuredly, there will always be another dealer to take the place of
one removed from the streets - drug dealers are like weeds that way -
but at least that one is one less I have to worry about for a period
of time.

I don't pretend to be able to change the whole world through my
writing. And for the most part, I like the world as it is. But when
someone strikes near my home and family, as Mr. Wickham's column had
the potential to do, I like to have my say about it.

And so I did.

And so can you.

That's what a newspaper is for.

U.S. subsidizing organized crime
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the Editor:

Editor Tom Mayer makes the common mistake of assuming that punitive
drug laws actually reduce use (in his July 23 column).

The drug war is in large part a war on marijuana, by far the most
popular illicit drug. The University of Michigan's Monitoring the
Future Study reports that lifetime use of marijuana is higher in the
United States than any European country, yet America is one of the few
Western countries that uses its criminal justice system to punish
citizens who prefer marijuana to martinis.

Unlike alcohol, marijuana has never been shown to cause an overdose
death, nor does it share the addictive properties of tobacco. The
short-term health effects of marijuana are inconsequential compared to
the long-term effects of criminal records. Unfortunately, marijuana
represents the counterculture to many Americans. In subsidizing the
prejudices of culture warriors, the U.S. government is subsidizing
organized crime.

The drug war's distortion of immutable laws of supply and demand make
an easily grown weed literally worth its weight in gold. The only
clear winners in the war on marijuana are drug cartels and shameless
tough-on-drugs politicians who've built careers on confusing drug
prohibition's collateral damage with a relatively harmless plant. The
big losers in this battle are the American taxpayers who have been
deluded into believing big government is the appropriate response to
non-traditional consensual vices.

Robert Sharpe, MPA

Policy analyst, Common Sense for Drug Policy

Washington, D.C.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asking for disclosure

To the Editor:

If DeWayne Wickham's opposition to "mandatory minimum" drug penalties
indicates "idiocy" as you allege (in Editor Tom Mayer's July 23
column), this ordinary shortcoming pales beside your editorial's
wanton liberties with truthfulness and reasoning.

Give Wickham credit for forthrightly admitting his interest in helping
a "jailhouse scribe" inmate acquaintance. Absent your own disclosure,
I'm left wondering what of your overstated outrage is sincere, and
what merely reflects an eagerness to sell advertisements and
subscriptions by pandering to your readers' familiar prejudices;
toadying to justice functionaries vending the "news" you stream before
your audience in voyeuristic fashion.

Our rotting "War on Drugs" generates much of this titillation, so
wouldn't it be a shame if allowing judges discretion to sentence
slowed the gravy train down a bit? Of course, your self-interest can
be waved aside with the profundity that "drugs are bad."

When this facile excuse for exploiting human weakness and misery wears
thin, there's always refuge in the First Amendment. Following your
example, pimps and drug dealers might do well to elude "mandatory
minimums" by calling themselves "journalists."

Mett B. Ausley Jr.

Lake Waccamaw, N.C.