Andrea Mogensen’s letter on Nov. 8 was insightful and has brought many important issues to the fore.

The use of interdiction to stem the flow of illicit drugs into the United States has only a small effect on the volume of drugs available.

The failure of prohibition efforts is the main reason cited by the Reagan/Bush administration for stepping up the Drug War at home and concentrating more on eliminating the demand for drugs.

Unfortunately, our government has chosen to reach this goal by means of disinformation and indoctrination.

As evidence I cite a pamphlet which exposes some of the lies perpetuated by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America.

Such scare tactics serve only to add to the general feeling of mistrust toward our elected officials. So too does the concept of mandatory sentencing for drug possession.

I suggest we employ a slightly different “prevention program” that Andrea has in mind.

An honest assessment of the problems associated with the recreational use of drugs must begin with the realization that such use is here to stay.

With this realization, the goal of a national drug policy becomes the minimization of the damage caused by the activity.

Clearly, a relief from the rampant violence generated by the criminal element of the drug trade would go a long way toward reaching this goal. As would an educational program based on fact and freedom rather than fiction and fear.

Andrea states: “…we must choose to obey all laws, not just those that seem rational or convenient.” Does this mean we should follow the law even when it is irrational?

If this is Andrea’s assertion, I must whole-heartedly disagree. I feel it is my duty as an American citizen to help our government to eliminate such irrational laws.

Bradley has not “forgotten the political process … that gave us our constitutional freedoms.” In fact, he is trying to point out it is these freedoms being put in jeopardy by the government’s Drug War tactics.

I fully agree with her earlier statement: “Laws are enacted for protection, not to hassle the people not in need of protection.”

Andrea and I seem to have a different response to a law which violates this statement. Andrea would choose to obey the law even though it may be “irrational.”

I contend the prohibition of drugs does very little to protect our fellow citizens and, in fact, serves to promote violence and mistrust within our society. Such laws should be eliminated.

Dave Okar

Graduate Teaching Assistant

Chemistry