Debate Over Legalizing Drugs

* Ethan Nadelmann argues persuasively against the drug war (“The Problem Is Prohibition . . .,” Commentary, Feb. 7) but Cal Thomas responds with little more than skeletal stiffness (“. . . No, It’s Lack of Moral Backbone”).

Public policy is compromise for common purposes. If there is no desired effect (or worse), I don’t want my money wasted on more causes. How does it help the “weak” (presumably those who take drugs) to put them in prison? On the other hand, I don’t like the idea of a “federal drugstore” any more than the scam of state lotteries. Let’s settle on USDA inspection and mandatory testing only for public safety (let businesses manage based on performance, not urine).

The only valid moral arguments against chemical ingestion are ethical and religious (for example, Christianity’s teaching that the body is a temple of the Holy Spirit). For government to act “in loco spiritus” is positively dangerous! Thomas is welcome to rail against “depravity,” but he should remember Thomas More’s warning that if we sacrifice our common sense and civil liberties to root out “the devil,” then the devil wins.

SCOTT R. SCRIBNER

Santa Ana

* After reading Nadelmann’s well-researched and reasoned commentary on legalizing drugs it would have been nice to read a similar piece against. But that goal is probably beyond Thomas. He must know he is on shaky ground because he doesn’t even attempt to give a compelling argument, instead giving a knee-jerk, hysterical, and even homophobic argument; if we legalize drugs, we’ll then wind up killing our elderly and (gasp) legalizing homosexual marriage.

This is, of course, a common tactic by conservatives who know they’re on shaky ground; play on the fears of the religious right and if you can resort to a little homo- phobia--that always works with Thomas’ target demographic.

DANIEL McVEY

Los Angeles