Source: The New York Times Contact: Letters to the Editor Authors: Joseph D. Mc Namara, David Borden, Harry G. Levine, Mark Mc Namara, Judith D. Wallach Website: http://www.nytimes.com/ Pubdate: April 18, 1998 Editors Note: It is a pleasure to know that the efforts of our newshawks and all who receive and respond to the news items we distribute, or to our DrugSense FOCUS alerts, had a part in this success. Five of six published letters in today's NYT responding superbly to Mr. Rosenthal's rant is what keeps many of us doing what we do. - Richard Lake, Sr. Editor, DrugSense News Service. p.s.: The Rosenthal column is at: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n269.a09.html PROHIBITION WON'T WIN DRUG WAR To the Editor: A. M. Rosenthal's attack on Dr. Ethan Nadelmann -- for suggesting the right to "possess and consume" drugs responsibly may be better understood in the future -- smacks of the fanaticism that has long marked America's ill-chosen war on drugs (column, April 14). As a career police officer for 35 years (including terms as deputy inspector of the New York Police Department and as police chief of Kansas City, Mo., and San Jose, Calif.) I have seen the racism, violence, corruption and failure to curb drug abuse that stems from government policies. Mr. Rosenthal fails to mention that before 1914 Americans had the right to possess and use drugs. Of course there were abuses, but there was no $400 million black market or widespread corruption and violence, nor was there the vastly disproportionate incarceration of non-whites, until the Harrison Act of 1914 criminalized drugs. Prohibition does not work; new approaches are needed. JOSEPH D. MC NAMARA Stanford, Calif., April 15, 1998 The writer is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. .......... No 'Backdoor' Debate To the Editor: A.M. Rosenthal's notion (column, April 14) of "backdoor legalization" of drugs is odd. How could such a major change occur unnoticed? Ending prohibition would require votes taken in the halls of power or the ballot box -- the front door. Perhaps medical marijuana will spark a rethinking of drug policy. But open debate is the lifeblood of democracy, and should be welcomed, not feared or denounced. DAVID BORDEN Executive Director, Drug Reform Coordination Network, Washington, April 14, 1998 .......... Prisons Aren't Answer To the Editor: A. M. Rosenthal (column, April 14) suggests that all opponents of United States drug policy are "legalizers." Many of us support decriminalization, not legalization -- an important distinction. Legalization conjures up images of cocaine and heroin sold in liquor stores. Decriminalization and other forms involve moving addiction and drug problems away from the police and prisons and placing them in the hands of doctors and public health officials. In recent years most Western countries have been reducing or eliminating arrests, prosecutions and prison sentences for possession of small quantities of illegal drugs. As Europe has shown, protecting public health doesn't require imprisoning hundreds of thousands of impoverished drug addicts each year. Medical and other services are less expensive and more effective than prisons. HARRY G. LEVINE New York, April 14, 1998 The writer is a professor of sociology at Queens College, CUNY. .......... An Obvious Solution To the Editor: I am encouraged by A. M. Rosenthal's April 14 column, "Lean Back or Fight." Every time a vehemently pro-prohibition article is published in a major newspaper, more people are driven to ask the question, How do we control drug abuse? How do we best control alcohol use? License sellers, enforce strict laws restricting access by minors, limit the locations where use is permitted, tax the billions spent on it each year. How do we best control tobacco use? License sellers, enforce strict laws restricting access by minors, limit the locations where use is permitted, tax the billions spent on it each year. So how do we best control drug use? The answer seems obvious, doesn't it? MARK MC NAMARA St. Louis, April 14, 1998 .......... More Education Needed To the Editor: Despite the suggestion to the contrary in A. M. Rosenthal's April 14 column, the moral high ground has room for more than one position on drug legalization. The statement that "legalizers use euphemisms and back doors" tars many individuals and organizations that are forthright and articulate about their stand. I agree with Mr. Rosenthal that society must invest far more heavily in drug rehabilitation and therapy, in and outside of prison. Furthermore, money and effort must go into widespread education for children and adults - -- honest, open education that acknowledges the need for a continuing search for answers. JUDITH D. WALLACH New York, April 14, 1998 Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company