Pubdate: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 Date: 10/09/1998 Source: San Francisco Examiner (CA) Author: Redford Givens Related: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n860.a06.html Note: parenthetical comments by Cintra Wilson of the SF Examiner, headline by MAP Yo Cintra: The solution to our drug problems is very simple. Repeal drug prohibition and use the money we save to take care of the casualties actually caused by drug use. We could also rebuild the inner cities and eliminate most of the causes of drug abuse with the money being wasted on drug laws. Proof that repeal is the answer comes from the fact that no one was robbing, whoring and killing over drugs when addicts could buy all of the heroin, morphine, cocaine, opium and any other drug they wanted cheaply and legally at the corner drug store. Drug crime is entirely a product of lunatic drug laws. The same thing happened during alcohol prohibition, when the best efforts of the "dry's" couldn't stem the tide of bootleg booze that flooded the country. Alcohol use dropped for the first year or so because it took the bootleggers that long to build their stills and organize distribution. From then on, alcohol use rose until it exceeded pre-prohibition figures. The Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. reported that it was paying five times as many alcohol-related death claims in 1925 as in 1920! Alcohol prohibition established organized crime in the United States and set off the biggest crime wave in history up to that time. Now we repeat the same error with a drug policy that hands billions over to the most vicious criminals on the planet. That's brain-dead thinking. It's worth remembering that Eliot Ness and his untouchables never put the bootleggers out of business - repeal did! Prohibition is the worst possible method of drug control. In fact, if you listen to the narcomaniacs, they inadvertently let us know that their policy offers no control of illicit drugs at all. Because of their lack-witted prohibition policy, we now see 13-year-old heroin users. That never happened before drug prohibition. How much more needless devastation will we tolerate before we demand that these idiotic drug laws be stricken from the books? - Redford Givens, San Francisco (Dearest R. Givens: I agree with you about almost everything, but no self-respecting drug pusher wants to give heroin to 13-year-olds, because kids make terrible junkies. They don't have any money, and they're totally unreliable as clockers if they're trying to cover their own habit. Plus, they have truant officers and parents and counselors nearby who notice behavioral changes and confront the kid, who then either runs away (and the cops are brought in) or starts crying and talking (and the cops are brought in). However, while I agree with you about the absurd nature of drug laws, there is no way that they could be repealed at this primitive stage of awareness on the nature of addiction. When liquor stopped being illegal, it became a recreational pleasure for some, and it began a wholesale, unbridled destruction of those with a biochemical predisposition toward alcoholism, like large amounts of the Irish and American Indian populations. If drugs were legal, we'd still have just as many drug addicts - they just wouldn't be as easy to put in jail. A large number of them would wreck themselves to the level of sleeping in doorways and eating through the trash and occasionally resort to crime to satisfy their howling need to fix. Unless there were quantum leaps in advancement made in the treatment of drug addiction, and the generally walloping recidivism rate of lapsing addicts were somehow improved, and unless in-patient rehabilitation facilities became gloriously abundant and free to the desperately indigent, legalizing drugs might make matters worse for a long while, because street-level addicts might never end up with a roof over their heads or enforced periods of sobriety if they were no longer imprisoned. This country has a habit of jailing the poor as political prisoners in lieu of providing civilized options that provide help or care. This is a short-sighted and, eventually, a way more expensive way of hiding the dead dog under the rug, but no politician wants to be responsible for vast, short-term expenditures to facilitate long-term gain. Only a revolution would bring real change in our static system, and that would be beneficial only to our grandchildren's grandchildren. Americans don't have that kind of attention span. Communist? Please write to: CINTRA WILSON FEELS YOUR PAIN, San Francisco Examiner, P.O. Box 7260, San Francisco, CA 94120, or e-mail the Psychic Supergenius at