Pubdate: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 Source: Houston Chronicle (TX) Copyright: 2001 Houston Chronicle Contact: Viewpoints Editor, P.O. Box 4260 Houston, Texas 77210-4260 Fax: (713) 220-3575 Website: http://www.chron.com/ Forum: http://www.chron.com/content/hcitalk/index.html Section: Viewpoints Authors: Buford Terrell, and Heyward Dixon TWO CHOICES WITH METH The Feb. 4 Chronicle Metropolitan article about illegal methamphetamine laboratories' serious risks of fire, explosion and toxic-waste pollution, "New `meth' labs making hazardous home `cooks'," said the problem is spreading all around Harris County and the country. But it doesn't have to be that way. For almost 70 years, reputable pharmaceutical companies have been safely manufacturing amphetamines with no risk to the rest of us. These companies obey the Food and Drug Administration's regulations on purity, the Environmental Protection Agency's regulations for disposing of toxic waste and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's regulations for safe procedures. Their liability insurance carriers make sure they are running safe operations. These illegal labs are set up for the same reasons that bootleg stills were created during Prohibition: Our laws keep honest companies out of the business and give bad guys a monopoly. We have two choices. We can keep amphetamines illegal, with a few people using them and even fewer suffering harm from their use; or we can legalize the use of amphetamines, with about the same number using them and the same number being harmed by them. Legalization would remove the risk to the rest of us presented by the illegal cookers and let us buy cold medicines in packages we can open. Buford C. Terrell, Houston - ------------------------------------------------------ CALLS FOR PUBLIC DEBATE I read with interest Michael Hedges' Jan. 28 Page one Chronicle article about Republicans urging a continuation of the war on drugs, "Bush urged to hang tough in drug war." The letter from key Republican House committee chairmen, the so-called "Gilman-Burton letter," insists on continuing a failed policy which has effectively trumped the Constitution, wasted taxpayer dollars by the hundred-billion and mindlessly imprisoned nonviolent offenders by the hundred-thousand. What positive purpose has been served by this war? This is a question being asked by growing numbers and is a key reason leaders of both parties fear a widespread public debate on the issue. More and more voters are becoming wise to the senseless extremism of prohibition dogma because for the past 30 years, escalating enforcement, interdiction, incarceration and propaganda have only marginally deflected key drug use indicators. President Bush should stamp the Gillman-Burton letter "Return to Sender" and proceed to chart a new course for a federal drug policy. Given the clear division among the electorate, both the president and Congress should feel obliged to listen to the people and seek new consensus on drug policy. Heyward Dixon, Houston - --- MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart