I am glad that Noelle Bush has been given a second and even a third chance to face and defeat her personal demons. It is unfortunate though that thousands of people with the same personal demons who are not famous do not get second chances. Our prisons are filled with nonviolent drug offenders, all of whom should be granted the same second chance that Noelle Bush has been given. [end]
In her Backtalk column of July 26, public health nurse Darlene Hanke points out some of the dangers of smoking marijuana. Regardless of whether or not they are overstated, Ms. Hanke is missing the point. Whether or not marijuana is harmful, is arrest and incarceration really a positive and productive solution? Does arresting hundreds of thousands of people every year for marijuana crimes really help keep us safe? Does jail time for marijuana users really help them become better citizens? Do we really want to spend millions of dollars a year to arrest and jail people for smoking marijuana? The answer to all of these is, of course, no. There are much better ways of dealing with the drug problem in this country than prohibition. Ari Elias-Bachrach, St. Louis, Mo. [end]
Editor, The News: Re: 'Harm reduction,' needle exchange don't work, experts say" (May 18). Contrary to popular myth, police officers are not scientific experts when it comes to drugs. Let's see an actual study, made by doctors and scientists, instead of anecdotal evidence from law enforcement agents and former addicts. Ari Elias-Bachrach, St. Louis, Missouri Editor, The News: For future reference, "beat cops" are not "experts" on harm reduction. Publishing the opinions of a small group of police officers without calling attention to the contrary opinions of real public health experts and associations does a disservice to the community. [continues 666 words]
President Bush's recent proposals would cut law enforcement budgets, including several drug task forces. To this I say, "Good." The reason is simple. Enforcement and incarceration have never proven too successful in reducing drug use. The money that is saved from these cuts should instead go toward treatment and harm reduction -- two strategies that have been proven more cost-effective than policing ever could. Ari Elias-Bachrach, St. Louis [end]
To the editor: While it may look impressive now to have so many children graduating from DARE, the sad truth is that DARE doesn't work. Studies have shown that after a few years, children who graduated are not less likely to use drugs. To the contrary, some studies have even shown that they are more likely to use drugs. DARE's scare tactics simply don't work in the long run. The U.S. is just starting to get rid of DARE. Canada should not adopt a failed program from the United States. Sincerely, Ari Elias-Bachrach President, Washington University Students for Sensible Drug Policy St. Louis, Mo. [end]
Recently, several members of Students for Sensible Drug Policy grilled U.S. Rep. Mark Souder, R-4th, on his bill that denies financial aid to a student convicted of a drug offense. On several occasions, Souder accused the organization of advocating drug use. The accusations were misguided, unfounded and completely inaccurate. At no time has anyone speaking for the organization advocated drug use. SSDP does not advocate any form of drug use. Rather, its mission is to promote an open, honest and rational discussion of alternative solutions to our nation's drug problems. By labeling the entire organization as advocating drug use, he has found a convenient way to dismiss SSDP's arguments but has missed the entire point of the democratic process. [continues 72 words]
To the Editor: March 8, 2002 Frank Powell (Letters, March 2), mocks the idea of lowering crime by decriminalizing drug use. As he points out, decriminalization of any currently illegal activity would lower crime due to the simple fact there would be one less crime people are committing. However, this is not the point of Redford Given's letter. There is much money being made in the drug trade -- this is why gangs and organized crime fight to control distribution. Barely a day goes by when someone isn't killed in a shoot-out that stemmed from a drug-related turf war. Decriminalization or outright legalization would take the money out of the drug trade, making it unprofitable for organized crime, and safer for the rest of us. [continues 81 words]
Editor: Many people took note of the super bowl commercials, which claimed that drug users were funding terrorists. While it is technically true that much drug smuggling is done by terrorist groups, the accusation that drug users are funding terrorism makes as much sense as accusing alcoholics of supporting Al Capone during the prohibition period of the 1920s. Were there not tremendous profits to be made in drug smuggling, terrorist groups wouldn't be using it as a method of raising money. Prohibitionist policies have created a lucrative black market that is allowing criminals of all sorts to profit from drugs, not the users. Ari Elias-Bachrach, President, Washington University Students for Sensible Drug Policy, St. Louis, Mo. [end]
Many people took note of the Super Bowl commercials, which claimed that drug users were funding terrorists. While it is technically true that much drug smuggling is done by terrorist groups, the accusation that drug users are funding terrorism makes as much sense as accusing alcoholics of supporting Al Capone during Prohibition. It is the prohibitionist policies, and not the users, that have allowed terrorists and other criminals to profit immensely from the black market drug trade. Ari Elias-Bachrach President, Washington University Students for Sensible Drug Policy St. Louis [end]
To the Editor: Many people took note of the Super Bowl commercials that claimed drug users were funding terrorists. While it is technically true that much drugsmuggling is done by terrorist groups, the accusation that drug users are funding terrorism makes as much sense as accusing alcoholics of supporting Al Capone during the prohibition period of the 1920s. It is the prohibitionist policies, not the users, that have allowed terrorists and other criminals to profit immensely from the black-market drug trade. Ari Elias-Bachrach, Arts and Sciences Class of 2003; President, Washington University Students for Sensible Drug Policy [end]
Many people took note of the Super Bowl commercials that claimed drug users were funding terrorists. While it is technically true that much drug smuggling is done by terrorist groups, the accusation that drug users are funding terrorism makes as much sense as accusing alcoholics of supporting Al Capone during the prohibition period of the 1920s. It is the prohibitionist policies, and not the users, that have allowed terrorists and other criminals to profit immensely from the black market drug trade. Ari Elias-Bachrach, President, Washington University Students for Sensible Drug Policy [end]
To the Editor: We have once again seen one of the basic premises of economics in action. The recent article entitled "Laced marijuana hits campus" has demonstrated that any product that is provided illegally will be provided at a much greater risk than a product that can be obtained through normal, legal means. People have to obtain marijuana illegally, and thus subject themselves to the risks associated with the black market. The stories of people becoming sick from getting Ritalin or aspirin that is mixed with some more dangerous drugs are few and far between. [continues 128 words]
