Pubdate: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 Source: Herald American (NY) Copyright: 2001, Syracuse Herald American Contact: P.O. Box 4915, Syracuse, N.Y. 13221-4915 Website: http://www.syracuse.com/ Forum: http://www.syracuse.com/forums/ Authors: Duane Hardy, Larry Seguin . The Rev. Jack Wilkinson DOLLARS TO COLOMBIA PRODUCE BAD RESULTS To the Editor: A few months ago, our Congress appropriated $1.3 billion to be delivered to Colombia in connection with the "war on drugs." Almost immediately, I began to notice small items in our papers reporting the shooting of groups of people, randomly, in their yards and other village settings, carried out by military or paramilitary personnel. There was no mention of any connection the victims had to any phase of the drug trade. Colombia is not an unstable country. It is a nation with important connections to world trade, with ports on both the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean, and with oil and other rich resources. It has its own internal problems of land ownership and distribution of wealth, among others. These have been aggravated by our providing a market for drug cartels to become almost a kingdom unto themselves. It seems to me that it is not our right or our duty to try to solve Colombia's internal problems, as the $1.3-billion "aid" indicates is our intention. Rather it is our responsibility to change our way of handling the drug-consumption problem that makes it so profitable to the drug lords of Colombia. The movie "Traffic" portrayed the futility of present methods. New York Gov. George Pataki is suggesting the repeal of some of Nelson Rockefeller's draconian sentencing laws. Some states are allotting increased funds to treatment centers. More money to Colombia will lead to more involvement by our government and more killings in Colombia. There's got to be a better way! Duane Hardy, East Syracuse NY - --------------------------------------------------------------------- A JOINT COULD REFRESH LIKE A GLASS OF WINE To the Editor: Why do we waste so much time on the medical marijuana issue? It seems so senseless. Why couldn't cannabis be decriminalized and regulated like alcohol? Any doctor will tell you that there is no harm in relaxing after work with one beer or one glass of wine - it can actually be healthy for you. The 18th Amendment in 1920 (Prohibition) made alcohol illegal, except within the home or for "medical," religious or industrial purposes. Cannabis contains antioxidants "more powerful than vitamin E or vitamin C," according to Dr. Aiden Hampson of the National Institute of Mental Health. This is in addition to its well-documented neuro-protective, anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties. So why couldn't one joint a day to relax with after work be healthy too? Why couldn't alcohol and cannabis be sold in the same stores, side by side? Why not be able to grow your own cannabis? You can manufacture your own alcohol. You can legally make 100 gallons per adult, up to two adults per household. So it's legal to manufacture and have in your home 200 gallons (1,200 pounds) of beer. It doesn't seem to matter that marijuana is illegal, even with the threat of prison people use it recreationally or medically anyway. We didn't repeal the 18th Amendment on Dec. 5, 1933 so people could use alcohol. They were already using alcohol. It was repealed because of the crime and corruption it generated. Larry Seguin , Lisbon NY - --------------------------------------------------------------------- PROBLEM NOT ENFORCEMENT BUT STUPID DRUG LAWS To the Editor: Your editorial Jan. 30, entitled "Fighting Drug Abuse," ends with a quotation from Edward Jurith, acting director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, to wit: "Treatment programs that follow a criminal from arrest to post-release follow-up must be implemented to end the cycle of drug abuse and crime." My quarrel is with Jurith, not with your publication. What he says here is logical only if you accept current laws as givens. However, if drugs were legal, there would be no drugs-to-crime-to-drugs cycle for the following reasons: You can't break a law that doesn't exist. Drugs are no more associated with crime intrinsically than they are with, say, going to your job every day. In other words, making drugs illegal makes about as much sense as making earning a living illegal. If drugs were legal they would be: a) regulated, b) off the street and c) affordable. Only about 15 percent of drug users need treatment. The rest are merely committing radical acts of freedom in protest against stupid drug laws. Yes, there is a cycle, but not the one suggested by Jurith. It goes like this: Stupid drug laws (cop and crook enrichment) lead to arrest and trial (criminal justice attorney enrichment), leading to treatment, whether needed or not (health professional enrichment) or to jail (prison-industrial-complex enrichment), leading to disenfranchisement (white supremacist gratification), leading back to stupid drug laws again. Well, yeah, let's stop the cycle. Get rid of the stupid drug laws! The Rev. Jack Wilkinson CNY Chapter president Reconsider, Forum on Drug Policy Syracuse , NY - --- MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart