I have a quick suggestion for resolving the crisis of overcrowding in our jails: Stop locking up marijuana consumers. Seventeen out of every 100 federal prisoners are there for marijuana crimes -- 17,000 marijuana prisoners in all. At least an additional 20,000 marijuana offenders are in state prisons and local jails. That prison space should be used for rapists, muggers and other dangerous criminals. There are more than 400,000 marijuana arrests each year. Think of how we could better use our limited police resources. I firmly believe we should allow responsible adults to grow and consume marijuana in the privacy of their own homes and then watch how quickly prison overcrowding is reduced and the black market dries up. Chuck Thomas Director of Communications Marijuana Policy Project Washington DC [end]
The citizens of California and Arizona have spoken. Through voter initiatives, the majority of voters in those states opted to let physicians and their patients decide on the most effective means of medical treatment, including the use of marijuana. Now the federal government has responded with the threat of prosecution and decertification of physicians who recommend marijuana for their patients. What this amounts to is a law enforcement agency (the Drug Enforcement Administration) determining the mode of medical treatment. Where else in the world do we find the police deciding what is appropriate medicine? [continues 177 words]
Particularly amusing is "drug czar" Barry McCaffrey's comment that the medical marijuana vote "sounded like the Cheech & Chong Show, not a medical issue." I guess such confusion is understandable -- when I first tuned into the Senate hearings I mistook them for a colorized version of "Dr. Strangelove: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb." Come to think of it, the "war on drugs" might make a perfect sequel to this classic -- how about "Dr. Strangelove 2: Or How I Hijacked the Peace Dividend and Learned to Love the Drug War." Craig Schroer Austin [end]
While respect for the will of the people is an important issue, there is also the question of whether marijuana is really the best treatment for any conditions at all. Jack E. McCleary, M.D., president of the California Medical Association, recently observed that "the huge voter support of Prop. 215 is really a mandate to the federal government that marijuana must be studied for any medical benefits." The federal government has been forbidding such research for many years. If that research were now conducted and showed marijuana conferred no benefits (or caused substantial harm) then prohibition could be justified on the merits. Otherwise, thoughtful persons would have reason to re-examine their positions. Don Raichle Irvington NJ. [end]
As one of the organizers of Prop 215, I can attest that its intent was entirely medical, namely to relieve the suffering of the many patients who need marijuana for medicine and were being denied legal access to it. From the beginning, Prop 215 was the work of an informal, volunteer coalition of Californians, who labored over five years on a shoestring budget to bring public pressure to bear on the medical marijuana issue. We were gratified by the support of the public, the press and the Legislature, which responded by twice passing medical marijuana bills, only to be vetoed by Governor Wilson. [continues 129 words]
Attorney General Lungren should stay home and do his job by defending the state of California's new medical marijuana program from the unjustified usurpation of state jurisdiction by the federal government. It is not a given that the federal laws overriding the lawful (under state law) possession of marijuana for personal medical use makes a person subject to federal prosecution. Should the federal government make such a move against such a person Dan Lungren should tell them to ``Butt out, the people have spoken.'' What is the federal government going to do? Nationalize the National Guard? Kiss our electoral votes goodbye? Politically, Lungren and Pete Wilson have more to gain by asserting ``states rights'' on this issue than being a lick spital to the DEA. GERALD M. SUTLIFF Walnut Creek [end]
I cringe when I read about programs like drug tests for extracurricular activities -- those are just going to get the kids off the drugs tested for (marijuana being the easiest) and onto something worse. The answers do not lie in more propaganda and more programs based on drug-war hysteria. The answers lie in truth, in science, and in understanding that humans have always been a drug-using species. The solution is not abolition or prohibition, but research and regulation to reduce society's harm to a minimum. Neither the bogus education programs nor building more jails and filling them up is working, and they won't start working any time soon. [continues 53 words]
Apparently you've discovered that stories about teens and drugs sell. Unfortunately, you still don't understand the subjects of your stories. Let's start with your headline on page two of the Dec. 19 edition. "Teen drug and alcohol parties." Although legal, alcohol is a drug, our most widely used and abused drug for adults and teens alike. I'm dismayed that an anonymous PTA member would have the Fourth Precinct "go into parties and arrest everyone." Does she read the laundry list of property crimes that occur in the Five Towns every week? Would she divert limited law enforcement resources from apprehending criminals to arresting our children? The very suggestion is obscene. Even if we had the spare law enforcement, the criminal justice system doesn't help, but actually hinders dealing with drug abuse. Nor is it the responsibility of the Nassau County Police Department to act in a parental capacity. [continues 368 words]
But the human use of mind-altering substances is complex and rife with ambiguities: consider cancer patients using marijuana, junkies holding jobs, Native Americans using sacred peyote. The lure of innocent pleasure co-exists with the threat of addiction, the promise of spiritual enlightenment and the urgency of relieving pain. Unambiguous drug education denies these complexities. To succeed, drug education must deal honestly with them. Mr. McCaffrey and other drug warriors have tried to link teen-age drug-use to the medical marijuana issue in California and Arizona, contending that those initiatives compromise the zero-tolerance message. But the drug war's ideology already contradicts the virtues of tolerance and civil liberty we try to teach our kids. Defaming medical marijuana by falsely linking it to adolescent indulgence constitutes an attack on the virtue of compassion. "Just let 'em suffer" is not a message I want taught to America's kids. PAUL M. BISCHKE Co-director Drug Policy Reform Group St. Paul [end]
We have seen William J. Bennett's type before in American History, even one with the same initials: William Jennings Bryan. America's frontier-town love for raunchy and violent entertainment may explain the sales of over-the-top compact discs, but I think it also explains the popularity of the "Clean America to the Core" preacher-types who so often are heard moralizing, even on the street-corners where the rich and educated congregate, such as the pages of the New York Times. Sincerely, Peter Webster [end]
What's more, every drug warrior has a vested interest to see this drug war drag out as long as possible. Why? Money. I do think that many Americans are being hoodwinked. But those pulling the wool over our eyes are the Drug Warriors themselves! Let's "Just Say NO" to the Drug War and begin to reach for rationality. I would also be very interested in knowing where John Webster gets his facts on marijuana. Every study I've seen refutes his claims of marijuana's dangers. Are you sure you checked his facts before publication? [continues 92 words]
The war on drugs is a real war. With marijuana legal, what would drug warriors do? Marijuana is their big cash cow because it is so common, despite escalation after escalation of the war on drugs. Construction and operation of new prisons, one of our prime growth industries, would be ruined. Attorneys and judges Would have to focus on real crime. And what would we do with all the billions of dollars saved? What's more, we would suddenly have our most valuable natural resource back - hemp. Industries such as timber and paper, petroleum and petrochemicals, synthetic textiles and more - their vast profits would start spreading back to the people. [continues 68 words]
The law has been passed by a majority of California voters. The question is not whether to accept the law, but rather on how to enforce it. Dan Lungren and others admirably admit that this is the will of the people. Yet they still seek to subvert the will of the people by imposing impossible requirements upon the people whom the law protects. All this while continuing to block any attempt to perform valid medical and scientific research into the subject of medicinal marijuana. Our elected officials must be hiding the benefits of this natural medicine for a reason. Could it be to protect the pharmaceutical companies from an effective but unpatentable medicine? Or is it because of the governmentally imposed social stigma against marijuana? Or both? [continues 66 words]
Shame on both the South Shore Record and Nassau Herald for their hysterical, sensationalistic coverage of teen attendance at rave parties. Both articles missed the real story; the vast majority of teen drug abuse involves alcohol and tobacco right here in the Five Towns, not exotic drugs in the demonized haunts of New York City. These articles mention every illicit drug under the sun. But given that the most popular activity at raves is dancing, I rather doubt that depressants like heroin and Rohypnol are widely used. [continues 314 words]
Mr. Soros has no financial interest in his support for the medicalization of marijuana in Arizona and California. [end]
I applaud USA TODAY for taking this important stand and supporting an issue as important and necessary as this one. Marnie Regen Drug Reform Coordination Network San Jose, Calif. [end]
Judges, not Congress, should determine the appropriate penalties on a case-by-case basis. Minimum sentences tie judges' hands and overcrowd prisons, leaving no room for violent offenders. Increased penalties don't work as a deterrent. Instead, they ruin the lives of those unlucky enough to get caught. To the extent that this would have any deterrent effect at all, it would strengthen organized crime and increase the incentive for small marijuana dealers to become bigger dealers. Why not just sell cocaine, which yields a larger profit margin for the same risk? Marnie Regen San Jose, Calif. [end]
During my 35 years in law enforcement, I found that police officers were unabashed conservatives, vigorously denouncing welfare and other government handouts. Yet too often cops display a liberal, big government mentality when it comes to their own funding. A small example of this mindset can be found in the latest newsletter from an association of retired New York City police brass. The retired police supervisors were unhappy that under the Republican plan the "annual premium for Medicare would nearly double from the present $46 to $90 by the year 2002." [continues 774 words]
I always thought Texans prided themselves on telling tall talles, but I guess we have to give the award to Balakitsis. I live in one of those large cities, and in my more than 40 years, I have yet to see hundreds of pushers and users lining our streets. Crack houses are far from rampant. Balakitsis is correct when she says that crime is the easiest way for addicts to support their habits, but did she stop to think that the prohibition on substances such as heroin and cocaine and their artificially high cost lead to even more crime? Did she stop to think that perhaps drug abuse should be treated as a medical problem as opposed to a criminal one? According to the Rand Corp., it costs seven times as much to incarcerate a drug addict as it does to treat him. Tobacco-related illnesses kill an estimated 400,000 annually. Illicit drugs are responsible for about 10,000, so I guess Balakitsis is correct that cigarette use and drug use cannot be addressed in the same way. Alan Bryan, Dallas [end]
According to the most recent data from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, an estimated 71 million Americans -- more than one-third of the voting population -- have smoked marijuana at some time in their lives. Many successful business, professional, and political leaders admit they have used marijuana. Therefore, we must begin to reflect that reality in our state and federal legislation and stop acting as if otherwise law-abiding marijuana smokers are part of the crime problem. They are not, and it is absurd to continue to spend law enforcement resources arresting them. [continues 87 words]
