Legalizing Drugs and Reducing Crime
* Correlating the messages presented in two articles in The Times, Dec. 21 (View’s “Fear Is Starting to Run Our Lives” and Commentary’s “How Legalization Would Cut Crime,” by Steven B. Duke), underscored my long-held belief that legalizing some drugs, i.e., marijuana and cocaine, could bring about better control of the substances while reducing the crime and violence that have taken over our society, just as the legalization of alcohol stemmed the criminal dealings created by Prohibition.
The issue is so controversial that I doubt that present Administration officials dare give credence to thoughts of legalization, but it would be courageous of them to follow Surgeon General Dr. Joycelyn Elders’ suggestion of at least beginning to research the issue.
Legalization doesn’t mean no restrictions; I would think the same guidelines of acceptability that have been established for beer, wine and hard liquor would apply to any use/abuse of a legalized drug.
ROBERTA LAUNE
Los Angeles
* Duke’s commentary reaches conclusions through logic that is confounding to me.
While it may be true that the criminalization of drug usage has increased the costs of hallucinogens to their users, his conclusion that less expensive drugs would decrease the crime rate is illusory.
If a “druggie” needs a fix, whether it costs $20 or $200, it is probable that the money to pay for it will be coming from the sale of someone else’s stolen property. Let us be realistic; it is unlikely that Duke honestly believes that the hard-core drug users are paragons of virtue who are gainfully employed, contributing members of our society.
He states that we “could expect somewhat more use of . . . drugs and . . . drug abuse” (if we legalize drugs). Somewhat? Is that like being a little bit pregnant?
How do I teach my children that drug use is unacceptable behavior if society condones it? It is already difficult enough discouraging cigarettes and booze--thank goodness that they taste awful the first time you try them. However, drugs can have a euphoric effect the first time you use them. If society legalizes the use of hallucinogens, then it will have to be prepared to pay the consequences: decreased productivity of our work force, deterioration of the public’s health, babies born dependent on drugs, and more deaths due to driving under the influence.
MICHAEL A. WATERMAN
Encino
* Duke states “that drug prohibition is responsible for much of the crime in this country is beyond dispute,” and he makes reference to “crimes that are prohibition-caused.” Really? Is he saying that if I commit a drug-related crime, it’s not my fault? That I am not responsible for my own actions? Nonsense! Put the blame for criminal behavior where it belongs--on the criminal.
JOHN CONSUEGRA
North Hollywood
* Of all the syndicated cartoons that you could have selected to feature on the Commentary Page for Dec. 26, why the Mike Peters inanity? Comparing one’s use of a chemical substance with violent crimes against others is perverse and dishonest. Worse, I fear that this blatant lack of parallelism may not be noticed by the large number of people who have never seriously thought about the problem. Because of the simplistic power of cartoons, I can imagine many of your readers mindlessly nodding in agreement with this nonsense as if it settles the debate. If you selected this cartoon to “balance” the well-reasoned essay by Steven Duke, the illogicality of Mike Peters utterly fails to present whatever arguments there may be for the “other side” of the drug legalization issue.
C. J. WRIGHT
Venice
