DRUGS PRESENT A DILEMMA

In response to, "We'll never make drugs legal," Oct. 23: I have to admit,
when I started reading this article, I thought it would be entirely
different than what it is. This writer asks some very valid questions.

I would like to see an end to the drug wars. But I, too, often wonder how it
could be done.

I think the outright legalization of marijuana is the first step that is
needed. Along with that, releasing every nonviolent pot offender, restoring
their rights and allowing this to become the industry that it already should
be. There is no valid reason that marijuana is still illegal except that
it's illegal, and that's just not enough.

As far as other drugs go, I cringe when I think of the people who are making
the drugs that are being ingested in today's market. These are people you
wouldn't want to even touch anything you would eat, much less inject.

Drugs should be regulated and made by people who wear white coats, in a
controlled environment, consistently, and for that to happen they would have
to be made legal.

I don't want my children doing drugs, but keeping them illegal isn't going
to ensure that. It is only going to ensure that the drugs they do will be
made by dirty people in dirty places out of God knows what.

But there is a lot more to this. If you have a friend who overdoses, and you
happen to be there to take him to the hospital or call the ambulance, you're
going to have to answer a whole bunch of questions, and the chance is you're
going to do it downtown.

Another thing here is that people who are addicted have no way to get help
to get off. Alcohol is legal, therefore it's honorable to go to treatment,
and it's easy. Most insurance companies will even pay for it. With drugs,
which are illegal, there is no honor in trying to get off, and most times
the only way is after you're busted.

As for the how, this is something that would be under the heading of
governing, and if the people in charge were to step up and do what it is
they are hired for, which is governing, and get off the ruling mind-set, I
think the solution would come.

What we people who want to end the drug war are saying is that our
government has no right to punish people for a choice, even if it is a bad
choice, if it doesn't hurt anybody. And for our government to force
prohibition on Americans and all the people of the world is wrong. No one
has the right to force a moral issue.

Mark Chambers, Poulsbo, Wash.

I agree with Doug Clark's ending point that many people call for the
legalization of drugs but never give a structure as to the ways and means.
Personally, I am for regulation, not legalization, and have made it a point
to sit down and think about my ways and means, though I did not write this
letter to debate my idea here (I'm saving that one for my thesis).

I just wanted to say I share in Clark's frustration with the mainly hollow
claims advocated so far by pro-legalization groups, though I think the
philosophy behind the temperance movement was built on a flawed idea and
continues to operate against the grain of human nature.

John Breeding, Memphis, Tenn.

I'd like to respond to a couple of Doug Clark's statements:

"Can we ever tell how many Americans, how many young people, have been
spared a life of degradation and despair because of even the threat of
arrest and prosecution for drug offenses? How many lives do we have to save
to justify a war?"

Now, let me get this straight. Clark thinks there's a kid out there
somewhere who's willing to run the risks of overdose, tainted drugs, dealing
with black market suppliers and addiction but who's thwarted by the
astronomically rare chance that he might get caught? Not only are we not
saving lives with our current practices, we're taking many and ruining many
more.

"So what corporation would get into the cocaine or heroin business? Think of
the lawsuits for selling addictive substances that, when consumed in
excessive amounts, can kill outright, and that frequently lead users on a
path of self-destruction?"

That just leaves companies like Seagrams, Anheuser Busch and Eli Lilly.

No one thinks that currently illicit drugs are wholesome or harmless. But
many of us have realized that our methods of dealing with alcohol and other
dangerous drugs have been far more successful than our method of dealing
with these certain taboo substances.

Roughly 70 percent of adults will admit lifetime illicit drug use when asked
by a surveyor. Yet only a very small percentage of people ever engage in any
kind of real criminal activity (i.e., victimizing behavior like theft,
violence, fraud.) We should never have made substance abuse a
law-enforcement issue in the first place.

Ginger Warbis, Lighthouse Point, Fla.

Truth to tell, the drug-warrior politicians, officials, media and civilians
(secretly) don't list victory as an objective in their expensive and
oppressive trillion-dollar war. When they do spout their
"zero-tolerance/total victory" rhetoric, how many of your readers actually
believe them? How many actually believe that this year's multibillion-dollar
drug-war budget will be the one that will achieve total victory after
decades of billion-dollar budgets have totally failed?

Just remember that the drug czars' and warriors' jobs depend on the
perpetual prosecution of, but never a victory in, the drug war. Also,
remember that the politicians depend on the drug war and its rhetoric to
scare up votes (by scaring voters).

Maybe the corrupt politicians and media are required to adhere to the party
line of 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 diminishes many freedoms that are supposed to be inalienable
under the Constitution.

Myron Von Hollingsworth, Fort Worth, Texas

Doug Clark asked how will it be possible to end the drug war.

Of course, no one has all the answers; it needs to be a community effort in
order to work. I would, however, like to share my thoughts on how things
might be after the end of drug prohibition.

How could drugs be made available without potential liability against the
manufacturer? I anticipate a need for a doctor's prescription, supervised
drug-use classes and a signed release document from each user stating they
know the potential dangers of their drug choice. The equivalent scenarios I
can think of are in purchasing dynamite or in selecting a campsite in bear
country.

Clark is of the opinion that youngsters will continue to get drugs even with
the end of prohibition. I cannot deny it will happen. However, by selling
these drugs through state-licensed shops, only adults would have initial
access to these drugs. Because these drugs, even with a hefty tax, will cost
only 3 percent to 10 percent of their current black-market price, users will
not have the same incentive to "share the load" by asking their friends to
try it. More importantly, by taking away the more rebellious aspect of drugs
- - illegality - countries like the Netherlands now have a much lower
teen-usage rate than does the United States. I also would vote to imprison
anyone who sells to children. There should be lots of prison space to hold
such deviants for a long, long time.

Clark asked, "Can we ever tell how many Americans, how many young people,
have been spared a life of degradation and despair because of even the
threat of arrest and prosecution for drug offenses? How many lives do we
have to save to justify a war?"

I can only respond with another question. How many decent, useful lives have
been destroyed by our drug laws? How many hundreds of thousands have been
raped, degraded and re-educated as professional criminals in our prisons?

For 87 years, prohibition has failed. We know it will continue to fail. Let
adults use responsibly, and treat hard-core abusers.

Dean Becker, Houston, Texas