ARGUMENTS AGAINST STATES LEGALIZING DRUGS

Jacob Sullum argues that states should be allowed to "experiment" with new
drug policies because they supposedly have the right to do so under the
Constitution ("A delicate balance on drug initiatives," Commentary, Monday).

Perhaps Mr. Sullum has not read the Constitution fully, because Article VI
declares that treaties are the "supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in
every State shall be bound thereby, ." Surely, he ought to know that the
United States is party to several international agreements that require it
to enforce laws against illegal and addictive drugs such as marijuana,
cocaine and heroin.

He also neglects to mention that marijuana is being singled out for ballot
initiatives, separate from how all other proposed medications are handled,
despite the fact that more than 1,000 federal studies have proved that
inhaled marijuana is neither safe nor effective as pain relief. Would he
approve of cigarettes being "medicalized" because some people claim they
are effective for weight control or for calming nerves?

Also, Mr. Sullum completely avoids the issue of consumer safety, never
mentioning that long ago, when snake-oil salesmen were peddling opium-laced
"tonics" to innocent Americans who then became addicts, the government
responded by creating the Food and Drug Administration to test products
before they were marketed. Mr. Sullum has cast his lot with a new
generation of snake-oil marketeers who are financed by a few wealthy
individuals, such as George Soros, who hope to prevail in ballot scams
after their products repeatedly failed the FDA's scientific approval process.

If marijuana is legalized through deceptive ballot referendums, the nation
will spend billions more treating addicts and paying for the consequences
of drug addiction: higher crime, higher health care costs, increased
emergency room visits, spousal and child abuse, foster care, injuries,
deaths from drugged drivers and lost economic productivity. One would think
libertarians, who like to claim drug abuse is a victimless crime, foremost
would be alarmed that those costs will largely be borne by taxpayers and
employers.

Last, Mr. Sullum should read a Washington Post expose from several years
ago about the death of a seriously underweight baby named Chaulette, found
in a crack house with raw and blistered skin from a soiled diaper with
pounds of feces in it (a death caused by drug abuse, but conveniently
attributed to sudden infant death syndrome), and ask himself why he wants
to legalize deadly narcotics.

DAVID H. HEMENWAY, Alexandria, Va.