Pubdate: Fri, 14 Jul 2000
Source: Amarillo Globe-News (TX)
Copyright: 2000 Amarillo Globe-News
Contact:  P.O. Box 2091, Amarillo, TX 79166
Fax: (806) 373-0810
Website: http://amarillonet.com/
Forum: http://208.138.68.214:90/eshare/server?action4
Authors: Peter S. Conklin, Jerry Epstein, Christopher A. Joseph, Kirk Muse, 
Michael Simon, Gerald M. Sutliff
Note: 6 PUB LTEs
Related: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n955/a08.html

LEGALIZE, REGULATE NOW-BANNED DRUGS

In the July 10 editorial, "Which of these things is not like the other?" 
the Globe-News says that New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson "advocates the 
dangerous and illogical stance of drug legalization."

I wonder why this author does not get on the mountain and scream bloody 
murder about the horrors of the drugs alcohol and tobacco. After all, what 
is the reason drugs are prohibited other than the harm they do to people?

It's obvious that prohibition does more harm than good. What seems 
dangerous and illogical is to keep prohibition going. Gov. Johnson's talk 
of regulation and true education about the harmful effects of drugs is much 
less dangerous and more logical to me, a father of two young children.

The problem with the forced treatment that U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., 
promotes is that tens of thousands of Americans already are forced into 
drug treatment programs each year, despite not having any serious drug problem.

According to Joel Brown of the Center for Educational Research and 
Development, fewer than 10 percent of people who enter treatment actually 
have a problem; thus with forced treatment, the person who really needs 
help can't get it.

Clearly, Gov. Johnson's proposal of regulating drugs and educating people 
about them is the better choice.

Peter S. Conklin, Hyde Park, N.Y.

LET'S START DIALOGUE ABOUT DRUG USE

Your July 10 editorial on New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson and drug policy is 
erroneous in setting up an "either/or" framework for discussion: "... one 
side advocates the dangerous and illogical stance of drug legalization 
while the other supports a proactive stance to a possible solution."

The governor's stance is that we need a dialogue, not that he will dictate 
the solutions. Your implied support for treatment vs. imprisonment (drug 
courts) is part of what Johnson calls "moving the needle" - change in a 
positive direction. Wouldn't you also support the right of states to 
experiment with different policies free from federal interference?

Or for medical personnel to make medical decisions free from police 
interference ?

While Johnson has called for the legalization specifically of marijuana, 
this is not a blanket call for "legalization." (And do you mean legal like 
apples or like alcohol or like prescription drugs? Big differences.)

You would be helpful if you addressed the specific case and whether you 
accept the general scientific view that marijuana is much less dangerous 
than alcohol, and that making it illegal makes it a "gateway."

And are you arguing for a return to alcohol prohibition, and if not, why not?

The other specific suggestion of Johnson was that we emulate experiments in 
Switzerland, which allow clinics to supply heroin to addicts. The Swiss 
program has produced no difference in addiction rates but has meant far 
less crime and cost to society and has damaged the drug cartels.

Note that this is not "legalization" and only applies to registered addicts.

We need to test our basic assumptions.

We need to encourage cooperative and creative exchanges of views.

Jerry Epstein, President, Drug Policy Forum of Texas, Houston

PROHIBITION DOESN'T WORK

In reference to your July 10 editorial, "Which of these things is not like 
the other?" I suppose the repeal of alcohol prohibition was "dangerous and 
illogical."

Gov. Gary Johnson is advocating a proven model of control where we 
currently have none.

Drug courts are a good idea in place of what we have now, but do you really 
propose that someone should go through drug rehabilitation for simple 
marijuana possession charges? That's like brainwashing someone for having a 
can of beer or a cigarette, and I know you wouldn't stand for that, would you?

We have a system in place for those who can't handle their liquor. It's no 
stretch of the imagination to consider that we afford everyone the same 
courtesy without prejudice. This is still America, is it not?

Christopher A. Joseph, Parma, Ohio

MORE MONEY ISN'T THE ANSWER

Regarding your July 10 editorial, "Which of these things is not like the 
other?" Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., proposes that we throw more money at a 
solution that has not worked, will not work and cannot work.

New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson says that when something we have been doing 
since 1920 is not working, and is in fact counterproductive, we should do 
something different.

Which makes more sense?

Kirk Muse, Vancouver, Wash.

SOLUTION IS OBVIOUS

Please be so kind as to tell me where prohibition has worked. Ever.

If you can answer this question, then what to do about drugs will be obvious.

Michael Simon, Rockford, Ill.

JOHNSON'S MESSAGE HAS MERIT

In your July 10 editorial, "Which of these things is not like the other," 
you wrote the following:

"These are two glaring examples of how government addresses a problem - one 
side advocates the dangerous and illogical stance of drug legalization 
while the other supports a proactive stance to a possible solution."

Clearly you are not paying attention to what New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson 
is saying.

Both ideas have merit, but most of government is hooked on the punitive, 
prohibitionist model. Wake up.

Gerald M. Sutliff, Emeryville, Calif.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D