JUST SAY NO TO LEGALIZATION PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE DrugSense FOCUS Alert #340 - Wednesday, 6 Dec 2006 Not the Alert headline you expected? It is the headline of the editorials in two sister Vermont newspapers, the Rutland Herald and the Times Argus - printed as shown below. The editorials are the newspaper's response to the suggestion that the war on drugs has been a failure and that legalization and regulation of drug use ought to be considered made by Robert Sand, Windsor County state's attorney. You may read what the papers printed leading up to the editorials at: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Robert+Sand The Rutland Herald published the editorial on Tuesday, December 5th and the Times Argus followed printing it on Wednesday, December 6th. Please consider writing a letter to the editor to either or both of the newspapers. We suggest that identical letters not be sent to both papers. The Times Argus is the larger circulation newspaper. It serves as Central Vermont's morning daily newspaper. The newspaper serves the capital region. If you have contacts within Vermont who may be willing to write, please send this to them as letters from state residents are more likely to be published. Contact information for the newspapers: The Rutland Herald By email By webform http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=SERVICES07 The Times Argus By email By webform http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=OPINION03 JUST SAY NO TO LEGALIZATION Robert Sand, Windsor County state's attorney, renewed a perennial debate last week when he suggested that the war on drugs has been a failure and that legalization and regulation of drug use ought to be considered. Sand's statement brought a strong response from Public Safety Commissioner Kerry Sleeper, who said that protecting people from drugs was an important role for law enforcement. The nation has a troubled history with drugs and drug enforcement, partly because of Americans' appetite for drugs and partly because of the political overreaction, bordering on hysteria, that evolved in response to widening drug use. Sleeper is right in saying that legalization would make drugs more widely available and so would magnify the destructive effects of drug use. Yet the nation's attitude toward drugs has been distorted over the years by those seeking political gain by fostering fear. The term "war on drugs" is indicative of the overreaction that began with Presidents Nixon and Reagan, who set in motion a futile law-enforcement campaign that filled the jails with people more profitably handled through treatment programs or with the scaled-down sentences appropriate for minor offenses. A book called "Smoke and Mirrors" by Dan Baum documents the wild excesses of law enforcement during the war on drugs and the inflated threat used to justify draconian police programs. These excesses do not mean that legalization is the best response to drug abuse. Society will always have an element that thrives by exploiting people's weaknesses. Call it the gangster element. There will always be weaknesses, and there will always be gangsters. It is necessary to keep the gangster element in check, which means focusing law enforcement on the big-time exploiters of people and helping those who are being exploited get free of their vices. Supporters of legalization argue that the gangster element would be cut out if drugs were legal. But some drugs will never be legal, and a black market in illegal drugs would be inevitable. The growth of heroin use in Vermont in recent years has been an alarming trend. Heroin destroys lives, and the state has responded by arresting dealers and helping users find treatment. One of those treatments involves the use of methadone, a heroin substitute that is used as part of a medical treatment. This is a realistic and positive response to drug abuse. Supporters of legalization note the irrational inconsistencies plaguing the nation's attitudes toward drugs. Alcohol and tobacco kill far more people than marijuana, cocaine or heroin, and yet they are legal. Prohibition of alcohol failed, and supporters of legalization say that prohibition of marijuana is also failing. It probably is, except in the sense that keeping marijuana illegal discourages its use, which is a good thing. Ask any parent of teenagers, even those who know their kids are dabbling with marijuana, if they want marijuana more readily available, and the answer is probably no. The damage caused by alcohol and tobacco suggests, not legalization of drugs, but containment of the damage that drugs do. We know that prohibition of alcohol and tobacco would be unworkable and undesirable, but gradually, we are containing their damage. The stigma against illegal drugs is helpful in containing the damage they do. The lines defining criminal vices are drawn in different places for different reasons, but those lines must be defended. Suggestions for writing letters may be found at our Media Activism Center: http://www.mapinc.org/resource/#guides Prepared by: Richard Lake, Sr. Editorwww.DrugNews.org =.

Focus Alert Archive