Bush’s Choice of Walters as Drug Czar

Re “Baffling Drug Czar Choice,” May 15: President Bush, in nominating hard-line conservative John P. Walters to head the Office of National Drug Control Policy, tells how he will redirect drug war policy with emphasis toward curbing demand. He mentions increases in treatment, which would certainly seem to be a step toward curbing demand. But let’s not neglect reality. The addict takes up a small percentage of the prohibited drugs consumed in this nation. Most prohibited drug use is recreational, without discernible effect on society, certainly significantly less than the legal counterpart, alcohol. What does treatment do for a recreational user, that is, a non-abuser?

Treatment may be the compassionate catchword, but the reality is that there will be more SWAT raids, more asset forfeiture, more incarceration and more lives of peaceful people shattered due to the prohibition of drugs than from the use of prohibited drugs. Do we really need a police state, or is prohibition just an excuse for one?

Richard L. Root

Westminster

*

Doesn’t Walters get it? Drug prohibition is itself the greatest current threat to democratic institutions around the world. Where does he suppose racial profiling, asset forfeiture, no-knock raids and our world-record incarceration rate come from? What does he think is driving the gang warfare that is tearing our inner cities apart? What does he suppose is the source of the money that corrupts government after government in Latin America, Southeast Asia and beyond?

For a man who is supposed to become one of the leading architects of American drug policy, Walters doesn’t seem to know much about the drug trade.

Keith Sanders

Oakland

*

As you correctly point out, it originally appeared that Bush’s instincts regarding America’s drug problems were thoughtful, moderate and enlightened, until the bizarre appointment of Walters. I grudgingly concede after these first few months that perhaps Bush does indeed personally embrace “compassionate conservatism” and has several workable and useful ideas. But Walters’ appointment joins a growing list of baffling appointments, surprising areas of budget cuts and confusing policy proposals that have contradicted Bush’s own musings and statements. The comments and positions of his Cabinet members also seem often and oddly contrary to those of Bush.

While the press and public archly and facetiously have suggested that perhaps Bush is not “really” the one in charge, with a growing uneasiness I suggest it may not be too soon to seriously consider that premise. Perhaps he is benignly delegating too much and not minding the store as closely as he should, or perhaps it’s not a joke that others really are pulling the strings. Beyond humor and sarcasm, it is time for the press to legitimately examine and question this strange pattern.

Mary K. Landry

Tempe, Ariz.