Updated 98/09/05
by webmaster@vote-al.org
----- Built, hosted, and maintained by kryo.com
US: WSJ (Online edition): PUB LTEs Re: 500 Drug Genuises
Your recommendations on what to do about the drug war on your editorial
( "500 Drug Geniuses") are about as idiotic and pointless as putting on
suntan lotion in hell. The "war on drugs" is ripping the fabric of morality
in this country apart by criminalizing a health problem. I count myself as
one of the growing rank of ordinary people who consider the "war on drugs"
to be immoral and obscene. We've given it a chance, at tremendous human and
monetary cost -- it hasn't worked, and it won't! And there are 500
respected and admired world leaders that will back me up on that one.
Ghamal de la Guardia Atlanta
In your editorial I was shocked to see the following statement.
"an international group of eminences urged the world to cede victory to the
drugs' allure and concentrate its money and attention on making the addicts
more comfortable."
What ever led the staff of The Wall Street Journal to descend into such
childish petulance is beyond me.
The list of world leaders you choose to denigrate has first-hand experience
in trying to fit the square peg of prohibition into the round hole of drug
control; an impossible task. They have already learned what still eludes
the your editorial staff. Prohibition is an abdication of responsibility,
if government cares about protecting its citizens. Drug use and abuse can
never be eliminated, no matter how repressive the law. The only sensible
course, if you give a damn about the welfare of those who depend on
government for responsible adult leadership, is to minimize the harm done
to society by the small percentage of drug users who cause crime and abuse
problems.
Harm reduction has nothing to do with making addicts comfortable. Harm
reduction is already our national policy for controlling the really
dangerous drugs of nicotine and alcohol. It is a better solution than
self-righteous, morality-based posturing, and forcing children to deal with
the 24-hour-a-day black market in drugs that feeds off prohibition.
Harm reduction is the reality-based drug policy choice of a free society
that cares about all its citizens; especially the children.
Arthur Sobey
Norfolk, Nev.
I find this issue simple, perhaps so much so that this article's author
overlooks it.
People get emotional over this issue, and it clouds their judgment. It
seems painfully obvious, for example, that doctors should be able to
prescribe to their patients any drug they think will do the best job for a
given problem. What other reason than misplaced emotion can there be to
prohibit doctors from prescribing marijuana, given its proven medicinal
applicability?
Please understand I've personal experience with a loved one being hooked on
drugs, and it angers me to no end. Nonetheless I'm glad this does not cloud
my judgment.
Jim Walsh jim.walsh@worldnet.att.net
While I agree with your argument that legalizing drugs condemns some,
perhaps many, people to death I would ask two questions your editorial did
not address. First, would more or less people be harmed ( not just addicted,
mind you) if drugs were legal than are now under our prohibition? Second,
if we are going to fight a "war on drugs," are we really willing to make it
a war -- send military troops after high-level drug dealers a la Gen.
Noriega, shoot down civilian planes that refuse to land when ordered, and
( here's the kicker) prosecute drug users as well as pushers?
You say: "If the war on drugs isn't working, the answer is not to abandon
the fight." Very well. But it is clear the current strategy is failing. If
the answer is not triage, are we as a society willing to take the next
step? You discuss "... families who've bankrupted themselves trying to
bring a son or daughter out of heroin hell." Are we willing to lock up that
son or daughter to prevent him or her from introducing a friend or sibling
to that particular devil? Or even after he or she has already done so?
As you no doubt can tell I lean towards legalization, although I recognize
that it contains more than a little of that most vicious of philosophies,
Social Darwinism. But I also recognize that society is not yet willing to
go that route, the path of the defeated. The only other course with any
hope of success, I suspect, is to start treating the war on drugs like a
real war.
Leo Jakobson Leoanton@earthlink.net
If you change the phrase "War on Drugs" to "War on Poverty", you're left
with the same arguments supporting a failed status quo that you rail
against the other four days of the week. Asking the left to set aside their
ideology in the face of years worth of demonstrably unsuccessful policy,
when you are unwilling to do the same, is the definition of hypocrisy.
Steven Haskett Austin, Texas
Your editorial makes me wonder when drug prohibitionists will ever come to
understand the phrase 'consenting adults.'
In a free society, the state leaves consenting adults to do as they please,
as long as they don't harm anyone else. Therefore, charging that legalizing
'pedophilia and child pornography' somehow parallels drug legalization only
muddies the issue, since both of those cases involve at least one person
who isn't a consenting adult.
I confess to doubting the potential profit of publicly stating any
recreational drug habits, since that information would have no effect on
the validity of any arguments. But I'll oblige The Wall Street Journal's
editors, and mention that I've never used any recreational drug, other than
a glass of champagne at Christmas. That's not illegal yet, is it?
Furthermore, Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich, both prohibitionists, have
said they used marijuana. While that may undercut the argument that drug
use automatically ruins lives, I don't see any other way that admission
relates to a sound drug policy.
Ananda Gupta Bethesda, Md.
In ( "500 Drug Geniuses") you write, "The notion that drug use is both a
human right and an unstoppable urge is at root an immoral one, with its
suggestion that some human lives are not worth saving from the scourge of
addiction." The sentiment expressed is commendable, but is the Federal
Government the appropriate agency to foster this moral argument and save
lives from addiction?
Legalization, taxation, and regulation are appropriate government
responses, not criminalization and war.
As with abortion, tobacco, alcohol, homosexuality and other lifestyle
issues regarding choice and conscience, the civil society provides ample
area for debate and discussion. And it is in the civil society that such
issues should be resolved, not under the heel of the police power of
government.
David W. Holmes Fairfax, Va.
Yes, by all means, lets keep up the war on drugs. It's gratifying to see
all those druggies locked up in jail, giving the U.S. the highest per
capita prison population in the world. And its been a positive effort
making otherwise productive people who might smoke a joint or two now and
again or who do a line of cocaine at a party instead of getting blasted on
tequila into felons. That certainly will teach them. It's been such fun
watching the Fourth Amendment gutted.
Don't forget that if we end the "war on drugs", a huge agency called the
DEA won't have anything to do. Those are good people and we certainly don't
want them out of jobs, breaking into houses and such. And they set such a
good example for other agencies, like the FBI, BATF, FDA, and a whole
alphabet of other suddenly heavily armed agencies, out to protect Americans
by breaking down their doors.
Rick Berger rickb@colossus.net
It should come as no surprise to you, if you pay attention as much as you
claim to, that many of those signatories to the letter advocating a
different approach were actually there. George Shultz made it known more
than 10 years ago that he believed we were fighting the wrong battle.
However, I'm sure your cynicism doesn't allow you to acknowledge that. If
you are ever able to remove your cynicism from the debate, maybe you will
realize they are not advocating a general retreat, but rather a serious
review and the rather unpopular notion that maybe we could control it
better if it was legally controlled as other drugs in this society are,
namely, nicotine, alcohol, antidepressants and pharmaceutical cocaine, just
to name a few.
Eric Howard ehoward@airmail.net
I agree with the 500 geniuses. Drug use has risen, not fallen, during the
terrorist war on drugs. The war on drugs makes drug selling highly
profitable -- to the point where dealers employ all available force to
protect their territories. It also escalates the cost of drugs, and theft
of goods from otherwise uninvolved parties is the result. The war on drugs
does not really hurt either drug dealers or drug users, but it does make a
battlefield out of our neighborhoods. Our problem is not that we have not
adequately escalated the war; our problem is that it's a failed strategy. A
peaceful strategy of containment would cause much less harm. Yes, drugs are
harmful. But let's reduce the harm that they now bring to non-users.
W. David Mills wdmills@papyrus-inc.com
Immoral. Quite a word. Have you heard of prohibition? That didn't work
either and it got people thinking. And are you luminaries from The Wall
Street Journal editorial staff going to save the poor downtrodden from the
scourge of addiction, instead of saving the rest of us from your moralizing
and suggestions? Perhaps we should also save everybody from the vagaries of
capitalist economics, because if the hoi polloi can't rationally choose how
to conduct their lives then how are they going to distinguish between bars
of soap?
Michael Madrid Michael.Madrid@daiwausa.com
While I agree that the views of the Group of 500 ( "500 Drug Geniuses") are
disconnected from reality, Mr. Chirac's statement is just as removed from
reality. It is no better than a banal platitude uttered by a hack
politician trying to sound profound without saying anything concrete. As
the editorial correctly states, the war on drugs cannot be fought locally.
It must be a concerted, world-wide effort. Laws that are already on the
books must be enforced unequivocally with no legal shenanigans.
All drug dealers should be put to death immediately upon discovery. In
addition to sending a very strong message, this will also have the effect
of saving time and money, and unclogging court calendars. Yes, it would be
draconian, but effective. Rehabilitation should be reserved for the
addicts. Detoxify them once, twice; subsequently put them in prison as
recidivists.
Chris Malek csm2@exchange.co.westchester.ny.us
Sorry dear editorial writer, I agree with the "geniuses". And that many of
us, The Wall Street Journal readers, agree should be even more scary to the
whole anti-drug establishment and its hundreds of thousands of employees
and multi-millions of dollars of government money. ( not to mention the
for-profit prison industry.)
What the anti-drug establishment has been doing doesn't work. Let's try
something different. We could begin with a discussion or a ballot.
California had their vote and the status quo lost. Arizona had their vote
and the government decided that the citizens really didn't mean what the
ballot box said.
Not everyone who opposes your reaction is evil or stupid. Maybe we just
don't believe the editorials anymore. Try more facts and less fear. After
several decades your case is getting weaker.
Peter Liefer peterl@primeview.com
Copyright 1998 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Updated 98/09/05
by webmaster@vote-al.org
----- Built, hosted, and maintained by kryo.com