This letter is response to Bradley Fish’s Oct. 16 letter “Paying for War.” Mr. Fish raised some rhetorical questions in his letter that prompted a response.

Mr. Fish asks “Why is so little of the ‘war on drugs’ budget allocated to prevention and treatment programs while so much is spent on whittling away citizens’ rights in the form of military spending and police funding?”

In this statement, Mr. Fish seems to suggest the use of police power is not consistent with prevention of the drug problem.

Reducing the drug supply by police power is a preventative effort to reduce the availability of drugs to those who have not started using them. It is a prevention program, which is what he suggests be implemented.

Mr. Fish asks “Why is our government making criminals out of the 50 million Americans who smoke pot? Who is waging this ‘War on Drugs’ and who is it against? For this matter, who is paying for it?”

Mr. Fish doesn’t begin his analysis at the correct starting point, which is the status quo. The reality is that any drug possession, use and sale is now illegal.

This is because a majority of voting Americans continue to support politicians who take that position. Thus, it is the American voter and taxpayer who is waging and paying for the war on drugs.

We complain about laws such as speed limits and drug laws that are inconvenient for us to follow, but when someone gives our child a drug overdose or kills our brother while speeding, we rely on these laws in seeking punishment.

Laws are enacted for protection, not to hassle the people not in need of protection. The government isn’t making criminals out of pot smokers, they are making criminals out of themselves.

To have a civilized society, we must choose to obey all laws, not just those that seem rational or convenient.

Mr. Fish is guilty of what afflicts many Americans today. We forget the political process we are so quick to criticize is the one that gave us our constitutional freedoms.

These are the very constitutional rights Mr. Fish relies on in his outcry against the system.

Certainly our political process is less than a smooth running mechanism free from corruption, but it is a political structure creating the greatest amount of personal freedom in the world.

It invites Mr. Fish to use his First Amendment Rights to make other Americans aware of his point of view and to approach change through the process. I wish him the best of luck in this endeavor.

Andrea M. Mogensen

Law Student