Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
© St. Petersburg Times, published August 13, 2001
Re: U.S. versus them.
It is rare that we are given the opportunity to step back and look at the big picture of prohibition in the United States without being subjected to atavistic, politically safe rantings of agency pod people. Thank you! Real journalism still lives.
The primary driving forces behind our failed "drug war" have become obvious to any reasonably impartial person. They are: racism and political dollars. We have removed to prison an entire generation of black men in a manner that is disgraceful.
The numbers of dollars spent on prisons, police, corrections, probations and the endless stream of studies and legislation, not to mention profits made on prison labor, make the "war" big business. It is rare for any politician to even imply that we are throwing human beings and money down a bottomless hole and not be branded as being evil incarnate.
The two letters on Aug. 7 (Sound, balanced policy lessens illegal drug use and Drug series was skewed) from the directors of two of the agencies that continue on in their war manage to repeat, ad infinitum, the statistics of their success. We even have a quote in The Weekly Standard that Holland has become a den of iniquity. Some would argue that the quality of life in Holland is superior to that of this country. If we look at education, recreation, crime and wooden shoe production, Holland beats us hands down. The last time I strolled the streets there I saw very few "sex-obsessed druggies." They do, however, put mayonnaise on their french fries.
It is interesting that the agency people never mention the statistics on alcohol use, tobacco deaths, prescription drug abuse and corn dog consumption. All of these are far more likely to kill us than pot.
Can someone please explain to me the difference, besides the crazy statutes, between the guy at the liquor store who sells me a bottle of tequila and the guy who sells me cannabis?
The DEA can poison every single plant in South America and shoot down missionary planes in an ever more efficient manner, but if the demand remains, there will always be a source to supply it. The demand, of course, comes from a life which is not quite measuring up to hope.
-- Tom Maciocha, Palm Harbor
Re: Sound, balanced policy lessens illegal drug use and Drug series was skewed, letters, Aug. 7.
Both sides will make our eyes glaze over if they base their position on the percentage of U.S. kids using certain drugs, then versus now. The database is so complex that either side can pick the numbers it likes and ignore the rest.
So let's approach from a political direction. Compare the list of countries backing away from the U.S. model of repression to the list of those moving closer to it. We have Australia, Canada, Switzerland, Belgium, Portugal, Germany, Spain and the Netherlands versus China, Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Russia. Those backing away are all Western democracies.
Another approach is from a historical perspective. Read paragraph two of the resolution passed unanimously by WONPR (Women's Organization for National Prohibition Reform) at their first conference in April 1930:
"We are convinced that National Prohibition, wrong in principle, has been equally disastrous in consequences in the hypocrisy, the corruption, the tragic loss of life and the appalling increase of crime which have attended the abortive attempt to enforce it; in the shocking effect it has had upon the youth of the nation; in the impairment of constitutional guarantees of individual rights; in the weakening of the sense of solidarity between the citizen and the government which is the only sure basis of a country's strength."
By 1933 WONPR had 1-million members and Prohibition was dead.
-- John Chase, Palm Harbor
Re: Drug series was skewed, letter, Aug. 7.
Kudos to the Times for its excellent presentation regarding America's drug war. The letter writer expressed the opinion that Susan Taylor Martin's presentation was "skewed." In actuality, Martin and her staff nicely covered U.S. drug warring both within and outside our borders, as well as the undue influence our federal government wields against other countries who do not share our punitive approaches to dealing with the very real problems of drug abuse.
The letter writer complains about the use of statistics from 1991-1999 and suggests that we refer to data from previous decades. Such an opinion is understandable since the last 12 years of intense drug warring have produced dismal results in terms of reducing drug use by minors, though it has done wonders for grossly inflating our jail population and also militarizing police forces across the country. In addition, there has been a huge increase in the number of businesses that do coerced drug testing of their current and prospective employees, a practice that puts money into the letter writer's pocket as the director of Drug Free America.
She asserts that "to hold the Netherlands up as a success story is disgraceful." This is puzzling, since the current drug policies of the Netherlands are not only less punitive than ours, but also have far greater success in reducing drug-related deaths, disease and the crimes associated with addicts obtaining illegal drugs.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the National Household Survey of Drug Abuse and the University of Amsterdam provide combined information showing the Dutch prevalent use of marijuana for ages 12 and up is less than half of that in the United States. Additionally, the lifetime prevalance use of heroin for the same group is one-third the rate of the United States and homicide rates nationally are one-fourth of ours. All of this has occurred with a per capita spending on drug law enforcement that is three times less that of the United States.
Finally, the letter writer suggests that "we are not losing the war." Since her defined success is a "drug free" America, then it seems rather unlikely we will ever win, though we will clearly provide lifetime employment for her and other prohibitionists.
Thanks again to the Times for printing various viewpoints on what is considered by some to be a taboo subject.
-- Stephen Heath, Clearwater
The recent series U.S. vs. them: challenging America's war on drugs, does a great disservice to your readers. The selective use of data distorts the real progress that has been made in reducing demand for drugs. America has quite properly taken a stand against drug abuse. A 2000 Gallup poll found 64 percent of Americans oppose legalization of marijuana, while the 2000 National Household Survey indicates the percentage of Americans using drugs has dropped by half over the last 20 years. This sharp decline in drug use has occurred during a period of societal disapproval, resolute enforcement and increasing awareness of the dangers of illegal drug use.
Research and technology are proving that drug use harms our children's brains. Pro-drug messages under the guise of "harm reduction" undercut the efforts of millions of individuals who work to prevent the devastation imposed on families and communities by illicit drugs. Despite our significant progress, there is still more to be done. Each year drug abuse costs this nation an estimated 52,000 lives in drug-related deaths and $160.7-billion in societal costs. We must continue to send clear and consistest messages about the dangers of drug use and empower parents to keep their children drug-free. The American spirit is grounded in the belief that individuals are entitled to the opportunity to reach their full potential. The claimed panacea of legalization undermines this fundamental value.
Educators, health care professionals, community activists and law enforcement personnel stand behind a comprehensive drug policy that is grounded in science, compassion and results. U.S. drug control efforts deliver nothing less.
-- Edward H. Jurith, acting director, executive office of the president, Office of National Drug Control Policy, Washington, D.C.
Re: Bill and Hillary as authors.
In addition to the collective $18-million front money for their "candid" writings, perhaps the Clintons will share a Pulitzer for fiction.
Hillary is well remembered for her straight-faced mantra of "I don't recall," or "I don't remember," when responding to questions about Whitewater, missing files, Vince Foster or any other of the myriad scandalous events that were part and parcel of the Clinton administration.
As for finger-waving, non-inhaling Bill, one need only look at his long record for truthfulness. Only the most rabid Clinton apologist would have the termerity to suggest that he is anything other than a habitual (perhaps pathological) lifelong liar.
Who would be so naive as to accept anything either of them would write as being truthful? It will be just more of the self-serving "spin" and flat-out lies that characterized the Clinton years.
-- Anthony J. Wickel, Clearwater
Re: For $10-million, it better be good, by Robert Friedman, Aug. 8.
Friedman's concern over the quality of former President Bill Clinton's book is rather strange, since the book has not even been written. His worry over the financial future of Alfred A. Knopf is touching but unnecessary. This firm has been publishing books successfully for longer than the Times has been in existence.
There is more than a shadow of "prior restraint" in Friedman's peroration, something that is surely anathema to any newspaper.
But it is obvious that basic rules do not apply to Clinton. The money being spent to publish the book is private money, and the publisher is doing business in the market where the rule of supply and demand works.
How about an editorial on what the taxpayers are spending on the Osprey and Bush's Star Wars missile defense. Talk about unusable inventory!
-- Lawrence R. Tartow, Tampa
It is not surprising to hear the vile commentary emanating from the black holes of right wing conservatism over former President Bill Clinton's $10-million book deal. It is not surprising that most people feel he will be less than candid about the more lurid events of his presidency. What is surprising is that the liberal St. Petersburg Times felt it necessary to editorialize on the need for him to prove them wrong.
Too bad all the emphasis on the ugly will overshadow the many accomplishments the 42nd president's eight-year tenure had achieved especially during a spirited economy -- one that may not have been of his making, but certainly one that his policies maintained in good health.
At some later date there should be no surprises when it is learned that this president has fulfilled a public commitment to financially assist those members of his staff who suffered heavy legal costs due to the arbitrary acts of an out-of-control investigation conspiracy.
-- Edward G. Di Panni, Clearwater
We invite readers to write to us. Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by e-mail to
letters@sptimes.com or by fax to (727) 893-8675.
They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.
Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.