A BETTER WAY

TO THE EDITOR: In the argument regarding legalization or decriminalization
of narcotics, both sides usually at least agree that there's no way to
eliminate all narcotics. There are examples of drugs being sold in
maximum-security prisons, as well as criminals concocting new narcotics as
old standbys become less available. Those who would keep narcotics illegal
at any cost proclaim the fact that drugs will always be available does not
mean we should give up the fight. If this is true, it's important to
explore the effects of fighting drugs by making them illegal. If it's
agreed that no reasonable amount of resources could stop the trafficking
and usage of narcotics, then we must also agree that the only choice the
government is making is who controls the channels of distribution. If drugs
are illegal, those involved in the marketing and distribution of drugs are
those willing to break the law (gangsters, thugs, criminals).

If drugs are legal, then those who comply with the law will also run the
channels of distribution. The current marketers of illegal narcotics are
some of the best marketers in the world. They provide free samples to
children. They use children as salespeople. And they protect their market
share with guns.

Those who want to legalize narcotics do not want to "give up" on the
problems associated with drugs; they just know there's a better way to keep
fighting.

Michael J. Randazzo

Midwest City