Judge’s Drug Views Provoke Wide Reaction

The current discussion relative to the “legalizing” of drugs is healthy and the Commentary by Edward Kaufman (“Judge’s Plan Would Cause More Agony Than It Would Heal,” April 19) serves its purpose in the debate that is centered around Judge (James P.) Gray’s proposal.

We have to recognize that it is a vagary of our language that we have to say legalize when we really mean to decriminalize drugs. The most beneficial thing we could do would be to acknowledge the overriding fact: We are not now able to control distribution. It is in distribution of illegal substances that we encounter the crime and violence that is brutalizing our society.

We do “have two lethal, dangerous mind-altering substances, tobacco and alcohol” in distribution now. But we do not have rampaging violence attendant to their distribution.

We license the manufacture, the trucking, the warehousing and the sale of tobacco and alcohol products. We do not have our police force contaminated by the money involved in their distribution. Cigarette and alcohol sellers do not recruit our youth into their system of distribution.

The financial infrastructure does not fall victim to the temptation of handling the money of distributors and manufacturers.

We do not have to spend the bulk of our police budget attending murders and other crimes that attend the distribution of other lethal mind-altering dangerous products (tobacco and alcohol) which are controlled. We spend our time, energy and resources where they should be spent: on prevention, treatment and cure of the illness of addiction.

Dr. Kaufman is blinded by the details of application, as are so many others who propose no changes in the current “capture and incarcerate” approach.

Believe me, if a small percentage of the money and energy spent on the present failed approach could be turned to controlled distribution, good functional programs would be developed.

My feeling is that we should decriminalize all the mind-altering substances. We could and should control the manufacture, distribution and sale of these substances.

At least, let’s continue to discuss the alternative without all the emotionalism and self-interest exemplified in Kaufman’s commentary. And let’s be grateful to Judge Gray for bringing up the subject.

LLOYD WINBURN, Newport Beach