Pubdate: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 Source: Ogdensburg Journal/Advance News (NY) Copyright: 2001 St. Lawrence County Newspapers Corp Address: P.O. Box 409, Ogdensburg, New York 13669 Website: http://www.ogd.com/ Authors: Nicolas Eyle, Larry Seguin, Russell Nelson, Mary Monnet, Joanne Monnet, Lee Monnet, Philip Green, Kelli Hogan (8 PUB LTEs) NOTE: Accepts LTEs by mail only! Must be signed w/phone# Referenced: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01.n342.a02.html WAR ON DRUGS To the editor; District Attorney Richards said, in his letter to your paper, that he understands that our drug policy may be in need of a little " fine tuning " and that those who are in favor of more serious reforms are either " on drugs or looking to make money from drugs." Then he leaves it to the readers to decide. I'd like to make a couple of comments to help those readers decide. ReconsiDer believes that the laws governing our drug policy are in need of substantially more than "fine tuning". We have been "fine tuning" this policy for some thirty years now with diasterous results. Our prisons hold more people than those of any other country in the world. Vast sums of our tax dollars fund anti-drug programs that have been proven to be inneffective instead of doing things Americans truly need. Our cities are crumbling around us with neighborhood after neighborhood being negatively affected by the war on drugs. US troops are getting involved in a war in Columbia. And, most importantly, drugs are purer, cheaper, and more available than ever all over the streets of America. If the management of a private company reported results like that to the stockholders they'd be out of office so fast their shoes would still be under the table! The DA goes on to say "Drug offenders are almost always involved in other crimes besides drug offenses. Violent crime is a direct and natural result of illegal drug possession and selling. Illegal drug users commit crimes of violence and theft to support their habit. Illegal drug sellers use violence as a means of enforcement to protect their business territory, to collect their illegal debts and intimidate witnesses into not testifying against them." He is exactly right. The illegal drug selling business brings with it, a culture of violence that does great harm to our society. This is the reason Americans voted to repeal prohibition in the 1930's. People were still getting all the alcohol they wanted but the crime was more than anyone would put up with . They legalized booze, regulated it, and now if the Miller salesman has an argument with the Bud salesman over shelf space at the supermarket they take it to court. The violence around the illegal alcohol market stopped almost overnight. As to the DA's other comment that those who favor something more than "fine tuning" are "either on drugs or looking to make money from drugs." are you aware, Mr. District Attorney, that among those you include in your statement are United States federal judges, police chiefs of major cities, governors of states, as well as millions of other solid citizens and concerned parents who have taken the time to look just a little deeper into the America's drug problem and do not believe a little "tuning up" is the answer. They are neither on drugs nor looking to make money selling them Mr. District Attorney. If they wanted to make money selling them they would be supporting you in your efforts to keep in place a system that lets drug dealers earn 17,000 percent profit from cocoa leaf to street sale! It's clear to anyone who looks at it that America's "drug problem" is worse now than it was thirty years ago, before we started this failed policy. Where is the harm in questioning some of the things we've been doing all that time that have produced such miserable results? Nicolas Eyle, executive director ReconsiDer: forum on drug policy Syracuse, New York REFORM DRUG LAWS To The Editor; The state District Attorneys Association has launched an aggressive campaign to prevent any reform of the Rockefeller Drug Laws. Every year they bring out the same old arguments These people are not nonviolent. If you change the laws, crime will rise. We'll lose the best tool we have for fighting drug trafficking. Hey, our conviction rates are high, why would you want to mess that up? Of the 70,000 inmates in state prison, 21,000 are in for selling or possessing drugs. Forty-two hundred of them are first-time offenders. Although study after study has shown that the majority of drug users are white, 95 percent of New York's drug prisoners are Hispanic or black. Under the current scheme, prosecutors set sentences by deciding charges and accepting plea bargains. Unlike sentences set by judges, however, prosecutors' decisions are unreviewable, and the criminal-justice system lacks mechanisms to hold prosecutors accountable for their choices. In a regime of harsh mandatory sentences, prosecutors have even greater leverage in plea bargaining than in most criminal cases. Defendants have little choice but to give up their right to trial and plead guilty. The real concern from DA's is in the past year or so, the reformers have developed broad support from citizens and in the mainstream of New York politics. People see what is happening concerning drug laws! Laurie Hiett sends $700,000 of illegal drugs to New York City ( 5 pounds of herion ) She is prosecuted in New York. Because of her connection To General Barry McCaffrey who was head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy at the time, the mandatory sentencing or Rockefeller drug laws were waved. She will only do three years! Closer to home, State Senator Ronald B. Stafford's son had his illegal drug charged dropped! A good example of being tough on crime was in the Ogdensburg Journal Tues. 6 Feb. 2001. 33 year old women sentenced two to four years in prison for cocaine, a non violent crime, a personal use crime. Same day, same court. 21 year old man sentenced to maximum six months in county jail for " sexual contact for his sexual gratification with a female under 11 years old". I do not see bragging rights for taking a mother from her child with no indication of abuse and than slapping the hand of a person that has abused a child! Larry Seguin, Lisbon, New York JOB OPENINGS To the Editor: Jerry Richards, being on the front line of the War on Drugs, has his facts correct. I must disagree with his interpretation of them, however. When he puts a murderer in jail, he has removed a dangerous person from society. When he puts a drug dealer in jail, he has created a job opening. This is not an effective way to deal with the large drug profits created by the War on Drugs. As Jerry correctly points out, "Violent crime is a direct and natural result of illegal drug possession and selling." However, this is not an intrinsic part of drug possession and sale. Ask your local pharmacist how much violent crime he has seen in his profession! The violent crime associated with illegal drugs exists solely because they have no legal "means of enforcement to protect their business territory, to collect their illegal debts", as Jerry says. If these drugs were legal, then pharmacists would be selling them peacefully. Jerry thinks that "legalization or even decriminalizing drugs will not stop them from committing the crimes which provide them with the funds to pay for their habit." But the drugs only cost that much because the War on Drugs pushes the price up. By making drugs more expensive, they hope that fewer people will use them. This is a good theory, but instead of paying police and prosecutors to make drugs illegal, shouldn't we be taxing these same drugs to pay for drug treatment, as we do with alcohol and tobacco? A further problem that Jerry did not explain is that drug purity and dosage are not well-controlled when drugs are illegal. This leads to accidental overdosages. Further, because the War on Drugs makes it hard to buy and sell illegal drugs, this drives drug dealers to create more powerful, potent, and compact drugs, so they can sell them less often and more easily. This drives drug users further into a habit which might otherwise be casual. Jerry implies that people who want to legalize drugs have a personal interest, either to use the drugs legally, or to profit from drugs. This is a baseless accusation. An equally ridiculous accusation would be to accuse Jerry of profiting from the War on Drugs because his office has more employees and higher funding. Innuendo is so ugly. Perhaps we could refrain from further accusations of personal interest and cut to the chase. A society without illegal drugs will be a less violent society. And what's wrong with that? Russel Nelson, Potsdam, NY LEGALIZE MARIJUANA Dear Editor; Mr. Richards DA., in response to your letter dated 2/25/01. I am a 74 year old citizen and also a strong advocate for legalizing marijuana. By doing this it can be controlled and used for medical purposes. This has been proven many times. You are wrong in stating that if one believes in legalizing marijuana that they are on drugs or making money from it. I do neither and I resent the implication and you insult my integrity. There are many more people my age that feel the same as I do about legalization. It surprises me that a man in your position would make such a remark. Disappointed, Mary Monnet, Ogdensburg, New York TIME TO CHANGE Dear Editor; I respect D.A. Richards for having the courage to publicly write out for what he believes in. Although, I do take exception to his statement that those in favor of legalization are either on drugs or looking to make money from drugs. That is exactly the mindset that prohibits change in our society. There are a lot of people whether local or nationwide who believe it is time for policy change. I feel if DA Richards had shown up for the debate in March 2000 hosted by Clarkson University he would have left with more of an idea what policy reformers want. DA Richards and all 61 other attorneys can try to stop the movement but when you have governors, judges, police officers, and informed parents come out against the war on drugs their efforts in the end will be out numbered Joanne Monnet, Ogdensburg, New York DRUG POLICIES Dear Editor; District Attorney Jerry Richards 02/25/01 letter to the editor (DA s War on Drugs) astonished me. The harsh words he used toward drug law reformers contradicted two previous statements he made. On January 14, 1997 in the Watertown Daily Times article ( Drug Dealing and Turf Wars on Rise, Deputy tells Legislators). Mr. Richards said "There are a significant number of people in this country, this state, and this county who casually use marijuana and hold jobs just like the people in this room and are otherwise law-abiding citizens." On February 11, 1997 in the Ogdensburg Journal article (Legislature vote No on Drug Deputies) he said "I may be in a little political trouble, but that s OK. in my mind I d rather see these kids smoke a pound of marijuana because that kid would be alive today." Why is the DA new lashing out against people who don t embrace the current drug policies? The drug war has allowed prosecutors to wield substantial power in sentencing offenders. If, the punitive drug laws are reformed they face the possibility of having to relinquish some of the control they have over drug offenders. For example, a person looking at life behind bars for drug possession can become and informant for the DA for a reduced sentence or an outright dismissal of charges. A serious flaw with this is that many of these people have little integrity and often fabricate accusations against others in order to save their own hides. A St. Lawrence County drug task force deputy sheriff summed it all up in the same 01/04/97 Watertown Daily Times article when he said "The informants you deal with are often just as bad as the people you re going after. You have to pretend you trust them when you really don t." Mr. Richards, you may label us drug users or drug profiteers but the fact of the matter is we are people who are speaking out against police corruption caused by the huge profits from drugs, innocent people being killed in botched drug raids, terminally ill people being denied medical marijuana, people serving more time for drug possession than would a burglar, child molester, or rapist, and most of all the erosion of the Bill of Rights which, has suffered terribly in the last 30 years of this insane war on drugs. Lee Monnet, Ogdensburg, NY PROFITS & DRUGS To The Editor; In a letter to the editor Sun. 25 Feb. 2001 St. Lawrence County District Attorney stated, "Those in favor of legalization are either on drugs or looking to make money from drugs." The "people in favor of decriminalizing illegal drugs" will not have any opportunity to make money! Profit hungry corporations will move into place. Pfizer, Warner-Lambert, Parke-Davis, followed by Walmart, Kinney's, P& C. The Domino effect will go right down to the local gas-convenience store. Lets not forget taxes for the city, county, state, and federal governments. That would make the $17 billion he refers to, a tax gain instead of a tax drain on the state of New York. The "people in favor of decriminalizing illegal drugs are on drugs"! That's even harder to believe. Decriminalization has been recommended by a few! Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico. US National Academy of Sciences. Dr. John Morgan, head of Pharmacology at CUNY Medical School, and Dr. Lynn Zimmer, of Queens College. William F. Buckley Jr. The New England Journal of Medicine. The British Medical Journal, and The Lancet. Dr. Louis Lasangna, author of 1982 National Academy of Sciences report on marijuana. In the 1970s the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association and the National Council of Churches all endorsed the decriminalization of marijuana along with President Jimmy Carter. Marijuana has been decriminalized in Netherlands, Belgium, France, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, and Italy. The War on Drugs today is mostly about marijuana. Marijuana arrests, convictions, incarcerations, and the seizure of property in marijuana cases constitute the great majority of "drug-war incidents." Without marijuana prohibition, the War on Drugs and its bloated budgets would simply not be justifiable, nor the DEA, nor foreign intervention, nor political anti-drug posturing; without marijuana prohibition the whole War on Drugs would soon fall apart. Philip Green, Lisbon, New York LEGALIZE DRUGS To The Editor, In response to DA Richards letter....The people who are in favor of decriminalization and legalization are gaining momentum and aren't going to be slowed downed for lack of a North Country DA's validation. Not all convicted felons are in prison because the were dealing heavily or caught with large amounts.Quite the opposite and the reason for my opposition of harsh drug laws. If caught with even a gram of marijuana you will go to jail lose your car and pay ridiculously heavy fines.Contrary to the DA's statement they don't offer marijuana rehabilitation..before they send you to jail.So this venue isn't even approached its just jail. Now why would the DA want to mislead the publics trust in such a deliberate way ..sounds like politics to me. I'd like to know what harm to society he thinks marijuana would cause if he didn't get these dangerous potheads off the street? Are our streets really any safer now that ol' uncle Joe is in the big house? This is as archaic as the Reefer madness film . The D A wants to link marijuana to the reasons people steal and commit violent crimes,more fabricating. People who are violent do violent acts ..people who have larceny in their hearts ..steal...They may drink coffee and smoke cigarettes too but we shouldn't shift the blame to the scapegoat. Also I would like to comment on the D A accusing all those involved in fighting for just laws and personal freedoms..of being users and dealers.Now if Mr. Richards were inclined to be a contemplating man he would realize that the dealers have the most to lose, if marijuana were legal they wouldn't have a black market would they? Prohibition has never worked and still isn't working. Kelli Hogan, Potsdam , New York - --- MAP posted-by: Jo-D