Re: "Get crime off street? They see one way," Dec. 26: As a retired police detective, perhaps I can help Steve Carmichael in reducing crime in Camden by 50 percent overnight. His idea of a one-way street may be of some slight benefit in reducing crime and violence, but it is just a slight nibble at the edges. The cancer, the up-stream problem, is the policy of drug prohibition. End it and no more drugs will be sold on the sidewalks. Customers would park their car and walk into a state-regulated store, just like Pennsylvania has for the two deadliest drugs, alcohol and tobacco. Ending prohibition is not a solution for the drug problem. It is a time-tested solution to the crime associated with prohibition. Officer Howard J. Wooldridge (retired) Education Specialist, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition Washington [end]
During my 18 years of police service near Lansing, Mich., I went to zero calls for service generated by the use of marijuana. As I focused on the deadly threat of DUI drivers, too many of my colleagues like Tom Gorman (editorial, Oct. 10) spent their shift trying to find a baggie of marijuana. Please end marijuana prohibition and allow my colleagues to focus on DUI, child molesters and other public-safety threats. Howard J. Wooldridge Louisville [end]
To the Editor, As the debate takes place on October 17th, keep this in mind. As an organization of hundreds of law enforcement professionals, we support the Nevada effort to have the governement, not criminals, regulate marijuana. Marijuana prohibition reduces public safety. Road officers in Nevada will spend about as much time searching for a baggie of pot, as they do searching and arresting DUIs. Detectives/narcs who bust those who sell adults an ounce of pot are not at that moment searching for child molestors, rapists and those breaking into our homes. [continues 60 words]
As a retired police officer with 18 years experience, I am surprised that in 2006 you still say that "crime is driven by drugs" ("Budget cuts: What happened to drug 'war?' " Oct. 5 editorial). It is the prohibition of drugs which causes 75 percent of felony crime - not the use. If we were as wise as our grandparents and ended the new prohibition, we would experience a tremendous drop in felony crime. Also, a serious drop in DUI deaths would result because then officers could focus on drunk drivers instead of Willie Nelson. As Thomas Paine wrote in The American Crisis in 1776: "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." Howard J. Wooldridge Member Law Enforcement Against Prohibition Frederick, Md. [end]
As a police officer, I arrested about 400 drivers for DUI of alcohol and 2 for DUID (both intoxicated on prescription pain killers). In 18 years of police service, I went to zero calls for service generated by the use of marijuana. Pot, like any mind-altering drug, is a poor choice, and I urge everyone to be as drug-free as possible. However, chasing pot users is a horrible waste of good police time. Officer Howard J. Wooldridge (retired) Member, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition Washington, D.C. [end]
As a retired Michigan police officer, your call for a harder fight in the war on drugs made me chuckle. After 35 years and a trillion dollars spent, 100,000 dead Americans and 2 million in prison, drugs are cheaper, stronger and readily available to kids. The policy of drug prohibition has been and will always be an abject failure. There is too much money to be made. Legalize, regulate and tax the 10 illegal drugs. If you have a drug problem one day, see a doctor. Howard J. Wooldridge Frederick, Md. [end]
As a police officer, I worked the trenches of the war on drugs for 18 years. Mr. Melloan's comments were right on. I would add that as we chase pot smokers, etc., we have less time to arrest DUIs, pedophiles and people who fly airplanes into buildings. As a detective, 75% of my case load was generated by drug prohibition. Drug gangs now plague medium and even small towns. What part of this policy is benefiting America? None of it. Howard J. Wooldridge Education Specialist Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (www.leap.cc) Washington [end]
Editor: Re: Whatever happened to the pot debate? Thomas Barker, Barking at the Big Dog, Houston Today, Jan. 25 - Yet another marijuana grow-op busted near Hungry Hill. I heartily agree with your article on the monumental waste of police time chasing the Willie Nelsons of the world and their suppliers. In Alaska simple possession of up to four ounces in the privacy of one's little castle has been legal for over two years. There has been a thundering silence of problems associated with that legalization. As a retired police officer, I applaud Alaska's law. Marijuana prohibition is a horrible waste of good police time. In my 18 years of police experience I was dispatched to zero calls for service generated by the use of marijuana. Officer Howard J. Wooldridge (retired) Education Specialist, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (www.leap.cc) Washington, D.C. [end]
In my 18 years of police experience, I never went to one call generated by the use of marijuana. Why? Alcohol releases reckless, aggressive or violent feelings by its use. Marijuana use generates the opposite effects in the vast majority of people. Every major study by the U.S. government has shown it not to be a gateway drug. Indeed, President Nixon's Shaffer Commission recommended it be legal, regulated and sold to adults. Mr. Rice is a believer in the prohibition approach which has made pot much easier for kids to buy than alcohol. While he was wasting time on pot, I was arresting hundreds of drunk drivers, saving the lives of innocent citizens. I challenge him to name one substantive advantage of prohibition. Howard J. Wooldridge Retired Officer, Education Specialist Law Enforcement Against Prohibition Frederick, Md. [end]
As a retired police officer, I found Mr. Stoker's defense of drug prohibition so sad. He refuses to recognize that prohibition causes 75 percent of felony crime decade after decade. Drug use is a consensual act, whether it's whiskey or pot. Murder, rape, etc is a non-consensual act and will always remain illegal. As legal drugs kill at a 55:1 ratio over illegal drugs, he wants my profession to continue chasing pot smokers instead of focusing on drunk drivers who killed 17,000 innocent Americans last year. [continues 56 words]
As a police detective in Michigan, I was fully aware of the problems that the Prince George's County police face ["Bullets Keep Flying," editorial, Dec. 7]. I learned that drug laws generated about 75 percent of my caseload and that nonviolent felonies often were not investigated because of lack of time. Switzerland has cut its felony crime in half by having the state regulate and sell heroin to addicts in a government program. What part of drug prohibition is making Prince George's County a safer place to live? Will we ever be as wise as our grandparents and end drug prohibition? Howard J. Wooldridge Frederick The writer is a director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. [end]
Re: "Terrorism of the cartels," by Jill Sandoval, Saturday Letters. As a retired police officer, I share Ms. Sandoval's concern that illegal drugs fund terrorism. We in law enforcement are completely aware after 35 years of a drug war that we cannot even slow down drugs, let alone stop them. (Meth is an excellent example.) Legalizing and regulating these drugs would completely eliminate this source of funding for terrorists, like Osama bin Laden and North Korea. Howard J. Wooldridge, education specialist, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, Dallas [end]
After 35 years of drug war, a half trillion dollars spent and tens of thousands of Americans killed, you correctly describe a terrible world filled with the violence and death of drug prohibition. After 35 years of going backwards (drugs are cheaper and stronger than ever), how many decades of drug dealers saturating Durham with their destruction are you proposing the people endure and suffer and pay for? Editor's note: The writer is an education specialist in the organization Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, Washington, D.C. Frederick, Md. [end]
American needs to end pot prohibition. Roughly, smoking marijuana is the combination of drinking a beer and smoking tobacco, both legal for adults. Every hour our profession spends chasing the suppliers of pot means we miss DUIs, rapists and other public safety threats. Even a high-ranking official of MADD I spoke to agrees that police time could be better spent. We have been at this pot war for 35 years and have nothing to show for it, except prisons full of the wrong people. Officer Howard J. Wooldridge, retired Member, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, Washington, D.C. [end]
How is the "War on Drugs" working for us in America? Is it reducing crime? Is it reducing rates of death and disease? Is it effective in keeping drugs and drug dealers away from our children? These are important questions for a policy that costs us taxpayers some $70 billion this year. As a police officer, I fought on the side of the "good guys" for 15 years in this war. I gained a lot of actual experience in the trenches. [continues 419 words]
Regarding "Committee rejects tougher beer sales" (news story, Feb. 16): Rep. Thad Balkman's bill to save lives by increasing penalties for supplying alcohol to minors failed -- and rightfully so. If increased penalties for supplying illegal drugs worked, Oklahoma would have become drug-free 20 years ago. Balkman should introduce a bill that would actually save lives and injury; namely, when a teen is dying of an alcohol or drug overdose, make the call to 911 an arrest-free act, no matter who supplied the drug or alcohol. Having cops and paramedics step over a dead body to catch the drug supplier is a pro-death policy that no parent supports. Howard J. Wooldridge, Norman [end]
Dallas -- Re Will The Real Dopes In This Marijuana-Use Study Please Stand Up? (Feb. 11): Shocking that smoking 350 joints a week is not healthy. Beware: 140 cups of coffee in one hour will deliver a lethal dose of caffeine. Eating 10 raw potatoes may kill you. How can such a study on pot be used to justify cannabis prohibition? Thanks for the chuckle. Howard J. Wooldridge media director, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition [end]
Editor, The Transcript: Your headline trumpets 100 marijuana plants seized on one day. The next day Chief Cotten laments that drunk drivers killed five citizens last year. In the Chief's report I did not read that marijuana use had caused any deaths. As a retired police officer, I know that if the Norman police would focus on the deadly threat of drunk drivers, death and injury caused by DUIs would go down. The Transcript could help by recognizing Norman officers who arrest two or more DUIs on one shift. Publicize their life-saving efforts. Put meaningless, public-safety reducing marijuana busts on the back page where they belong. Howard J. Wooldridge, (retired) Media Director, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, Norman [end]
Editor, Edward Hill's comments on cannabis prohibition were spot on. However he, like most others, leave out how this prohibition reduces public safety. All the police hours spent busting grow-ops could have been spent finding rapists and thieves and drunk drivers. The advice of the Canadian Senate is to treat cannabis just like whiskey: legal/regulated and taxed. Let the police concentrate on public safety. Howard J. Wooldridge, (Retired) Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, http://leap.cc/ Dallas, Texas [end]
Dr. Hoffman keeps mentioning Marinol as an answer [Re: 3rd Degree, Jan. 6]. Two pills a day cost over a thousand dollars a month. For those without health insurance and no money, what does he suggest? Eat cake? Marijuana he admits has at least some efficacy. The prohibition of marijuana has all to do with keeping up the profits of the pharmaceutical industry. Whom is he trying to kid? Howard J. Wooldridge Law Enforcement Against Prohibition Dallas, Texas [end]
