WAR ON DRUGS IS A SHAMEFUL CHAPTER IN HISTORY OF AMERICA

The "sneakiness and secrecy" of anti-marijuana policy at Ohio University to
which Larry Hayman, president of the OU chapter of the ACLU refers (The
NEWS, Nov. 12), is nothing new in this nation when we speak of the "War
Against Drugs."

The Marijuana Tax Act of 1936 was slipped through the back door of
Congress, supported by the fabrications and lies of William Randolph
Hearst, the religious fanaticism and racial bigotry of Harry J. Anslinger,
and then the perjury of Congressman Vinson, who was later rewarded by being
appointed chief justice.

That this shameful chapter in American History has not yet come to a close
should be a source of great concern for Americans. As long as government
can legislate our private behavior, no one except the legislators and
judges will enjoy privacy or freedom of choice.

Ray Carlson, Redwood City, Calif.

DRUG WAR JUST ANOTHER EXCUSE TO DIMINISH CIVIL LIBERTIES OF AMERICANS

This is in response to the article about Ohio University's plan to toughen
marijuana possession penalties (The NEWS, Nov. 12).

Cannabis has no lethal dose and its pharmacological effects have never
caused a single death in over 5,000 years of recorded history.

The (unseen) driving force against medical (or unrestricted adult)
legalization of cannabis is the fact that cannabis can't be patented. This
precludes the need for big business to be involved, and that fact makes
cannabis commercially unattractive to the pharmaceutical, tobacco and
alcohol industries (lobbies). It seems that if it can't be profitized
successfully, the government can't justify legalization even for the sick
and dying.

Furthermore, the war on cannabis drives the war on drugs. Without cannabis
prohibition, the drug war would be reduced to a pillow fight. This is the
politics and the economics of cannabis prohibition.

Maybe the corrupt politicians and media are required to adhere to the party
line of cannabis prohibition because law enforcement, customs, the prison
and military-industrial complex, the drug-testing industry, the "drug
treatment" industry, the INS, the CIA, the FBI, the DEA, the politicians
themselves et al can't live without the budget justification, not to
mention the invisible profits, bribery, corruption and forfeiture benefits
that prohibition affords them.

The drug war also promotes, justifies and perpetuates racist enforcement
policies and is diminishing many freedoms and liberties that are supposed
to be inalienable according to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Myron Von Hollingsworth, Fort Worth, Texas

STUDENT GROUP DESERVES PRAISE FOR EFFORTS TO FIGHT STRICTER POT PENALTIES

Ohio University's Students for Sensible Drug Policy is to be commended for
raising awareness of the drug war's collateral damage. Draconian marijuana
penalties do more harm than good. That being said, there is a big
difference between condoning marijuana use and protecting children from
drugs. Decriminalization acknowledges the social reality of marijuana use
and frees users from the stigma of life-shattering criminal records. What's
really needed is a regulated market with enforceable age controls. Right
now kids have an easier time buying pot than beer.

Like any drug, marijuana can be harmful if abused. Still, the hypocrisy of
the drug war is glaring. Alcohol poisoning kills thousands annually.
Tobacco is one of the most addictive drugs available and perhaps the
deadliest overall. Marijuana, on the other hand, is not physically
addictive and has never been shown to cause an overdose death.

If health outcomes determined drug laws instead of cultural norms,
marijuana would be legal. The first marijuana laws were a racist reaction
to Mexican immigration during the early 1900's, passed in large part due to
newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst's sensationalist yellow
journalism. White Americans did not even begin to smoke marijuana until a
soon-to-be entrenched government bureaucracy began funding "reefer madness"
propaganda.

These days marijuana is confused with '60s counterculture.

This intergenerational culture war does far more harm than marijuana.
Illegal marijuana provides the black market contacts that introduce
consumers to hard drugs like meth. This "gateway" is the direct result of a
fundamentally flawed policy. Taxing and regulating marijuana is a
cost-effective alternative to the $50 billion drug war.

Robert Sharpe, program officer, The Lindesmith Center-Drug Policy
Foundation http://www.drugpolicy.org, Washington, D.C.

USING A BIGGER STICK TO ENFORCE POT RULES AT OU DOESN'T MAKE SENSE

Increase the penalties for pot at Ohio University? Why? Please tell me what
this is to accomplish.

If we look at the various vices that people enjoy, we know without a doubt
that smoking cigarettes kills thousands every year. Yet other than
excluding it from some places, we take no notice of the doorways filled
with people puffing away. That includes the doorways to OU administration
buildings, by the way.

Then there is the alcohol issue. Again there is no question that every year
thousands die from alcohol-related diseases, not to mention the numerous
deaths of drinkers and their victims from drunk driving. How many
university functions serve alcohol?

Now what damage does pot cause?

Cancer? Nope.

Liver problems? Nope.

Driving under the influence deaths? Maybe, but cell phones probably rate
higher.

So what damage does it do? Well, there are hundreds of thousands in prison
for possession. Certainly, their lives have been ruined.

Also, there is another group who can't get student loans. Certainly, it
didn't help them make a better life for themselves.

And now we can look forward to the university expelling students for
possession. Isn't it wonderful when an institution dedicated to education
rejects those who need it the most?

Now what is the common factor in the above damage caused by pot? It is that
the rules of our society are the cause of the damage rather than the usage
itself?

The logic, of course, is to keep using a bigger stick to enforce a moral
issue, with which many disagree, so that at some point you will eventually
succeed no matter how many lives you ruin in the process. The ultimate
conclusion of this logic can be seen in the recent videos of the Taliban
morality police whipping people at random to enforce their version of
morality. Is this an unfair comparison? Certainly, it is unfair in degree,
but in the logic of the approach, perhaps not.

Bill Sams, Elmwood Place, Athens