April 18, 1998 See
Former New York
Times Managing Editor Rosenthal Denounces "False Compassion" Of Medical
Marijuana Proponents
(Ed. note: the fact that the Times would publish so many letters
by known anti-prohibitionists in response to Rosenthal is very encouraging.)
From The New York Times
letters@nytimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/
PROHIBITION WONT WIN DRUG WAR
To the Editor:
A. M. Rosenthals attack on Dr. Ethan Nadelmannfor suggesting the right to
"possess and consume" drugs responsibly may be better understood in the
futuresmacks of the fanaticism that has long marked Americas 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. Rosenthals 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 boxthe 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 Arent 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
legalizationan 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 doesnt 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. Rosenthals 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, doesnt it?
MARK MC NAMARA St. Louis, April 14, 1998
..........
More Education Needed
To the Editor:
Despite the suggestion to the contrary in A. M. Rosenthals 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