Thank you, Jennifer, for posting the ACLU's position paper "Against Drug Prohibition," and to the other members of the forum for their reactions. This is an important discussion.

I was surprised to see that the ACLU piece was dated 1995, which means that some of the information is out of date. Most notably, I think that the number of nonviolent drug offenders in prison has risen dramatically during the past decade.

There has been growing support for legalization of drugs across the political spectrum, from William Buckley and the National Review on the libertarian/conservative right to the George Soros-funded Drug Policy Alliance on the left, during the past ten years. Unfortunately, passions run so high and opinions are so polarized that it's almost impossible to get representatives of the opposing points of view on the same stage to discuss the issue. Indeed, it was hailed as a great breakthrough when former drug czar Charles Bennett and Rep. Charles Rangel squared off against former Baltimore mayor Curt Smolke and former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson at a CASA conference two years ago. Unfortunately that event, which was posted on the Web for a while, is no longer available. I do think that legalization is a point of view that could benefit from a lot of public debate and compromise.

I don't believe for a minute that nonviolent drug users should spend time in prison simply for using, particularly those who are addicted and need medical attention. I also strongly advocate for harm-reduction measures such as needle exchange and methadone maintenance, and for meeting abusers where they are at rather than trying to ram abstinence down their throats if they are not a threat to themselves or others. That said, I have problems with some advocates of legalization whose main concern seems to be to make the world safe for drug use. I think we need to discuss, for example, the differences between marijuana and crystal meth. Do we really want to sell crack or angel dust over the counter? Should teens really be allowed to drop E at will at raves in the woods? I also believe that many lives have been saved by mandated treatment of substance abusers, and many lives have been lost because we did not insist, as a society, that people in need get help for their illness. I wonder if the ACLU would support mandated treatment for the abuse of a substance that was legal? In addition, I think we need to do a better job of making drugs less attractive and available to teens. Finally, if drugs are legalized, that means that they can be advertised, according to every Supreme Court decision thus far rendered. Madison Ave. has already glorified "heroin chic" in fashion ads. Can you imagine what they'd do with heroin if it were a legal product? After covering the industry as an editor and writer for more than twenty years, I can.

On this subject, I saw what I thought was a particularly insidious Bacardi and Cola commercial on a Yankees broadcast the other day. I mentioned it yesterday to a friend who has two children who are still in grade school as an example of the type of alcoholic beverage advertising that turns my stomach. It's a tongue-in-cheek take on an air-headed babe desperately wanting two "wild and crazy guys" to remember her name, and it implies somehow that Bacardi and Cola "gets it done," whatever "it" is.

My friend said that he loved the commercial, and so did his two kids, the oldest of whom is in fifth grade. What he particularly liked is that it didn't make it seem like you "needed" the beverage to succeed like so many alcohol ads do. It's "just fun." The fact that ten-year olds are associating rum and Coke, which was certainly one of the first hard-liquor drinks I regularly imbibed as an underage drinker, with "fun" is precisely why I hate the ad. In fact, I can't remember the last time I saw an adult order a rum and Coke.

The beer, booze and wine industry gets apoplectic when you suggest that their products are as mind-altering as marijuana, or can do as much — or more — damage to the body than heroin. They are and they can. And I'd venture to say that alcohol has a far more adverse effect on more families in our society than either of these other two substances, perhaps because it is so widely accessible and is so thoroughly woven into the fabric of our culture that it supports whole other industries, such as college and professional sports and the media that carry them.

I think the War on Drugs is a sham on many levels. I don't believe prohibition works. But just as we learned lessons from that failed experiment in 20th century America, I think that any discussion of the legalization of other drugs needs to include a hard look at the state of alcohol marketing and the abuse of prescribed medications such as OxyContin and Pseudo-ephedrine today. And that, of course, is why the alcohol, pharmaceutical and media industries, with a deep and vast pool of resources and clout, will oppose any meaningful discussion of legalization (or de-criminalization) to their last drop of lobbying dollars.

That doesn't mean, however, that they are invincible. What we need to do is open the minds of a lot of well-meaning people whose only motive in supporting interdiction and incarceraton is protecting their kids, as my friend put it yesterday, from addicts like you and me whom they view as "predators" out to ensnare their children. Meanwhile, dad can't take his eyes off the "Coors Twins" who are young enough to be his daughters (or am I just speaking for myself?) . That, to my mind, is where the real ensnaring takes place.