LAWS NOT SUCCESSFUL AT PREVENTING DRUG USE

In his Jan. 7 op-ed column, state Sen. Dale M. Volker defends the
Rockefeller Drug Laws by raising the specter of neighborhoods "under siege
from drug dealers.'' The drug war's collateral damage hardly justifies New
York's draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws

There is a clear historical precedent. Alcohol prohibition ended in 1933
and with it the inflated illicit market profits that drove mobsters to kill
one another in violent turf battles. The deadly poisons sold on the streets
of New York are the modern day equivalent of the unregulated bathtub gin of
the Prohibition era.

While U.S. politicians ignore the historical precedent, European countries
are embracing harm reduction, a public health alternative based on the
principle that both drug use and drug prohibition have the potential to
cause harm.

Examples of harm reduction include needle-exchange programs to stop the
spread of HIV, marijuana regulation aimed at separating the hard and soft
drug markets, and a range of drug-treatment alternatives that do not
require incarceration as a prerequisite.

The burden imposed on New York taxpayers by Rockefeller Drug Laws gets
higher every year as a never-ending supply of drug dealers is added to the
state prison system. New replacement dealers immediately step in to reap
outrageous illicit market profits.

Throughout the nation, this vicious cycle has led to the creation of a
massive prison-industrial complex -- the U.S. now has the highest
incarceration rate in the world -- while failing miserably at preventing
drug use.

ROBERT SHARPE,
Program Officer,
The Lindesmith Center,
Washington, D.C.