ABOLISH THE DRUG LAWS?
400 READERS GIVE THEIR
National Review, July, 1996
EDITED BY WM. F. BUCKLEY JR.
THE ISSUE Of NATIONAL REVIEW dated February 12, 1996,
gave the conclusion of the magazine that the time had come to revise
our laws on drug trafficking. Seven writers contributed to the
symposium. There were no differences among them on the primary
findings. They were 1) that the famous drug war is not working; 2)
that crime and suffering have greatly increased as a result of
prohibition-, 3) that we have seen, and are countenancing, a
creeping attrition of authentic civil liberties; and 4) that the
direction in which to head is legalization, whatever modifications in
kind, speed, and variety commend themselves in study and practice.
The response from the magazine's readers is, in volume, second
only to the response to the issue in 1991 given over to the exploration
of anti-Semitism. We have had over four hundred communications,
and the only civil way to introduce fragments from these letters, as
we now do, is to apologize to their authors for our failure to
acknowledge them individually. (One letter is approximately eight
thousand words long and is marked, "Not for publication in whole or
in part.") Four hundred letters addressed to the President of the
United States, or even to a senator or congressman, would almost
certainly be acknowledged, by using form letters A, B, and C. But
even a letter so spare as to have been usable to all our
correspondents would have broken our clerical bank. Add to this an
indisposition to craft letters so diffuse as to fall to qualify as serious
answers. (H. L. Mencken's formula was always to say, "You may be
right. Sincerely, HLM.")
Readers are about evenly divided on the recommendations of
NR. A heavy majority were grateful that NATIONAL REVIEW had
ventilated the subject extensively; all agree that the drug problem is
acute, and no one disputes that the drug war is being lost. Those
who oppose legalization are divided on what then to do, one half
asking for harsher penalties, the other proposing different
strategies. Inasmuch as the heavy majority of those who lean
toward, or forthrightly advocate, legalization endorsed the findings
and analyses of our own panel, they are given, to avoid repetition,
less space in this summary. The analyses by Messrs. Buckley,
Duke, McNamara, Nadelmann, Schmoke, Sweet, and Szasz are
requoted here only when their recollection helps to achieve
perspective in answering our critics.
- The Classic Prohibitionist View
Prominence should be given to a long letter from our old friend and
fellow warrior John A. Howard, founder of the Rockford Institute,
now counselor to Rockford (which also publishes Chronicles).
Commentary on his and subsequent letters is done by mc-WFB. What
I say does not presume to be exactly what my colleagues would have
said, but I have endeavored to avoid any disharmony with their
Mr. Howard says that he is surprised by the "ignorance" of the
writers in respect of "the large body of scientific research which
contradicts their presuppositions and assertions. Bill Buckley denies
any serious concern about the impact of cocaine and marijuana upon
the millions of regular users because most of them continue their use
'without any observable distraction in their lives or careers.' Ethan
Nadelmann asserts, 'Most people can use drugs without doing much
harm to themselves or anyone else. The other authors seem to assume
the same benign character of drug use."
Mr. Howard goes on, "An international colloquium on the human
effects of cannabis consumption was held in Paris in 1992 under the
auspices of the French National Academy of Medicine. Professor
Henri Baylon, the President of the Academy, summarized the
conclusions of the meeting as follows:
"'1. The toxicity of cannabis is well established, experimentally
and clinically. The drug adversely affects the central nervous
system, the lungs, and the immunity and reproductive
"'2. Epidemiological studies have reported that the
use of "hard drugs" rarely occurs among subjects who have never
"'3. Consequently, the participants in this
colloquium rebut the distinction between "soft' and "hard"
"'4. The trivialization ("decriminalization") of cannabis
use, where it has occurred, has resulted in a considerable increase
of its consumption and of its subsequent damaging effects."'
What I wrote (page 36): "Professor Steven Duke of Yale Law
School, in his valuable book, America's Longest War: Rethinking Our
Tragic Crusade against Drugs, and scholarly essay, 'Drug
Prohibition: An Unnatural Disaster,' reminds us that it isn't the use
of illegal drugs that we have any business complaining about, it is
the abuse of such drugs. It is acknowledged that tens of millions of
Americans (I have seen the figure 85 million) have at one time or
another consumed, or exposed themselves to, an illegal drug. But
the estimate authorized by the federal agency charged with such
explorations is that there are not more than 1 million regular cocaine
users, defined as those who have used the drug at least once in the
preceding week. There arc (again, an informed estimate) 5 million
Americans who regularly use marijuana; and again, an estimated 70
million who once upon a time, or even twice upon a time, inhaled
marijuana. From the above we reasonably deduce that Americans who
abuse a drug, here defined as Americans who become addicted to it
or even habituated to it, are a very small percentage of those who
have experimented with a drug, or who continue to use a drug
without any observable distraction in their lives or careers."
One wonders why Mr. Howard wastes his time (and ours) by his
misreadings and irrelevancies. When the French National Academy of
Medicine reports that cannabis is "toxic" in that it "affects the
central nervous system," it is telling us nothing that is not obvious.
There is no other reason to use marijuana than that it affects the
nervous system. And any inhalation of tar affects the lungs. If
marijuana seriously affects the reproductive functions, one can only
wonder at the success of the Woodstock generation in reproducing
itself. To say that everyone who uses cocaine probably once used
marijuana is correct and meaningless. Everyone who rapes probably
once masturbated. Most excesses are progressive. To conclude that
there is no distinction between soft and hard drugs is simply to
ignore the discriminating capacity of our senses, to distinguish
between the man who has taken a glass of beer and the man who has
taken a half-dozen martinis. And this, of course, is the key
insight. Nothing the Academy says about cannabis or cocaine can't
be said about alcohol, which the United States finally decriminalized
after 13 ugly (and cheerless) years. It is especially curious that Mr.
Howard failed to grapple with the point, given that the sentence in
the NR issue immediately after the one he quoted above read: "About
such users [i.e., occasional marijuana and indeed cocaine users] one
might say that they are the equivalent of those Americans who drink
liquor but do not become alcoholics, or those Americans who smoke
cigarettes but do not suffer a shortened life span as a result."
And a factual point. Mr. Howard: "Robert Sweet does urge the
acceptance of 'the recommendations of President Nixon's commission
on drug law to end the criminalization of marijuana.' That would seem
to support his view, except it is flatly untrue. That commission
recommended that marijuana remain contraband, subject to
confiscation by law-enforcement officials."
The National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse (The "Nixon
Marijuana Commission") found in 1972 that "there is little proven
danger of physical or psychological harm from the experimental or
intermittent use" of marijuana. On the question of law enforcement,
the panel recommended a "decriminalization" of possession of
marijuana for personal use on both the state and the federal levels.
Specifically, it recommended that:
"-Federal and state laws be changed to no longer make it a crime to
possess marijuana for private use. "-The distribution in private of
small amounts of marijuana for no remuneration or for insignificant
amounts should no longer be an offense. "-State laws should make
the public use of marijuana a criminal offense punishable by a $100
fine. Under federal law, marijuana smoked in public would merely be
subject to seizure."
Most of the letters received fall into one or another of the
categories enumerated below.
- The Demands of the Natural Law
' . . in most arenas (the suicide business, abortion, others) you
make reference to natural law, but in the isolated area of drug
legalization you seem to discount the possibility of any higher
guidance and use expediency as the rationale.' - Dr. T. P. Collins,
No such thing was intended. But laws do not for the most part
instruct us whether to engage in particular activities. Of the seven
deadly sins (gluttony, avarice, sloth, pride, lust, envy, wrath) only
two are also proscribed by statute law, and even they, only
marginally. Jimmy Carter confessed to lust in his heart, but the
policeman materializes only when lust activates aggression. Wrath is
okay (in fact it is even encouraged, in times of war) except when it
causes you to kill or maim innocents.
- Personal Responsibility
Much indignation is expressed over the tacit position of many
anti-prohibitionists that the addicted class is free to become a public
"Several years ago, our Congress chose to follow the leadership of
American liberals by deciding that taking illegal drugs was a
'disease.' In reality, the use of drugs describes a behavior. The
result? The illegal drug-takers are 'rehabilitated' to the point where
they no longer need to work to make their way in life; they simply
hand the tab to the taxpayer. " -Jack W. Pace, Lincoln, Rhode
But surely it is not plausible that anyone well and persuasively
instructed in the tortures of addiction would think to take up drugs
merely as a means of effecting a personal welfare program? What
several symposium contributors stressed was different, namely that
the dollar spent on instruction and therapy effects a higher return
than the dollar spent on detection, trial, and imprisonment.
- Can Anyone Function With Drugs?
Some viewers of the Firing Line programs aired in February
featuring contributors to the NR drug symposium were astonished to
hear (from Mr. Nadelmann and Dr. Szasz) that indeed some drug
users can and do lead apparently normal lives.
"'On Saturday morning, you sat there and countenanced the
proposition that heroin was less dangerous than alcohol . . .
-Especially appalling was the suggestion that the addict could
'function' if he or she were freed from the problem of obtaining
enough money to fund an illegal habit. The idea that an addict can
function is almost as insane as the addict's substance abuse is
insane. How do you define 'function'? Does it mean to lead a
responsible, productive life? Does it mean simply to be able to feed
and dress oneself. Does it mean to live and not be a threat to other
people? How much self-reliance and safety do you include in your
definition?" -Louise H Perret, Rye, New York
It is established that some people can "function" even after
ingesting cocaine. Dr. Szasz has written on the matter in several of
his books. He is arguing two positions. The first is that the
"abuse" of drugs is a variable. Even as we know those who can
tolerate five drinks, and those who can't tolerate one, it is evidently
so with cocaine. This is hardly to recommend the use of it, since for
the overwhelming majority it is immobilizing. Dr. Szasz makes the
point that it is clinically incorrect to assume that everyone is equally
affected. His other point is that to impose legal sanctions against
someone merely because it is established that he has used the drug is
an encroachment on human rights.
- Is Drug Legalization Analogous to Choice in Abortion?
"I'm surprised no one has thought of the parallel between the
legalization of drugs and the legalization of abortion. The same
arguments ... could easily be used to legalize drugs. Right to
privacy, freedom to do what one wishes with one's body, even the
threat that if abortion were illegal women would have to resort to the
back-alley butcher. Just change this last one to read back-alley
pusher and the two are identical. " -Frank F. Bellotti, Seattle,
The parallel is of limited use, surely, inasmuch as opposition to
abortion springs from the belief that there is an aggrieved party,
with human rights.
- Would Legalization Bring More Government?
"Another almost certain consequence [of decriminalization] would
be the creation of a Federal Drug Control bureaucracy that would
make the current Drug War machine seem trivial ... Another worry
concerning the legalization of drugs is its probable effect on the
workplace. Today, we employers can fire drugged-up employees.
But, with legalization, I can imagine that employers will be forced to
continue the employment of worthless workers under the Americans
with Disabilities Act.' John F. Brinson, Allentown, Pennsylvania
Surely implausible? There was less government, in respect of
alcohol, affecting individual lives after Prohibition than during it.
Besides, it must by no means be taken for granted that all the
contributors to NR's symposium favor diminished social and economic
sanctions, were legalization to come. It is not inconsistent to favor
legalization alongside an intensification of these other sanctions.
The columnist Nicholas von Hoffman lists what society is in a
position to do to make its point. The taking of drugs ought to be
legislated as a civil offense. What then might a drug consumer
expect? To begin with, everyone would have to submit to periodic
blood testing. "Anyone testing positive for drug use would be
subject to the revocation of a huge army of privileges, ranging from
temporary to permanent loss of driver's license, the revocation of
one's license to practice law, operate a barber shop, work as an
electrician, practice medicine or be a plumber, rent property, buy
and sell securities. Civil penalties for drug use could also include
cancellation of eligibility for every kind of government loan
insurance, loss of eligibility for welfare, student grants in aid,
subsidies, and government payments of any kind, large or small.
Persons found selling would be subject to cancellation of medical
insurance, Social Security, up to and including refused admission to
hospitals or hospices. No criminal penalties, no long trials, no Lee
Blundermouths, or Whirling Dershowitzes. Civil society, through
quick, essentially unappealable administrative tribunals would turn
its back on such people for a greater or lesser period of time."
The promulgation of the Hoffman Protocols would require fiddling
with the Constitution. But can it be said that Mr. Hoffman is soft on
drugs, though he advocates legalization?
- The Federalist Implications
"We tend to speak of the 'legalization' of drugs, when we really
referring to the repeal of national drug legislation. . . . "Why should
the conservative coalition split itself apart in arguments whether
Government' ought [to] act aggressively against production and
consumption, or adapt a libertarian unconcern let the market proceed
to do its work? The issue cuts too deeply. Where are we likely to find
a better opportunity to educate the American people about
federalism? The remanding of policy to the states would dramatically
illustrate the futility and destructiveness of much meddlesome federal
administration. " -Scott Rutledge, Richardson, Texas
State-bounded experiments lifting criminal sanctions against
marijuana use have been attempted in a dozen states. But of course,
drugs being light and unbulky, it would require an extraordinary
mobilization of state constabulary to prevent border crossings. But
yes, it would be prudent to ???al the federal law against marijuana
use, leaving it to the to define laws of their own. The distinguished
neuroscientist Professor Michael Gazzaniga, writing in NR (February
5, 1990), advocated a federal drugstore in which drugs were
clearly -- even dramatically labeled, detailing toxicity and
possible/probable side effects. Such drugs would be available at a
cost low enough to eliminate a black market.
- How to Measure Social Unacceptability?
Several correspondents see a difficulty in any proposition to the
effect that general disobedience of a law, as with drug consumption
in America, should lead to the law's abrogation.
The Buckley corollary seems to be that if the enforcement of a
criminal law measured by an unspecified ratio of persons of the crime
to those engaged in the conduct criminalized is too low, then the
conduct should be legalized. I would like to have your views on
whether, for example, you believe laws making homicide criminal
should bc repealed if it became apparent that most homicides were
unsolved. " -Walter S. Lewis, Princeville, Hawaii
The point is argumentatively interesting, but collapses under
scrutiny. Many sometime laws withered away with the separation of
church and state, and sluggish observance. Attendance at Sunday
services was theoretically compulsory in some localities even after the
Constitution was ratified. Such laws gradually disappeared, as also,
almost two centuries later, laws against commerce on the Lord's Day.
What looms is greater emphasis on the distinction between victimless
crimes and other crimes. Laws against sodomy are de facto relics of
another age, although they are still on the books in some states.
Laws against suicide are formalistic, inasmuch as prosecution is, in
the nature of the case, impossible.
To be sure, the term "victimless" is used glibly. Isn't a
prostitute, even if she engages in her profession voluntarily, in some
real sense a victim? The drug consumer can, by his habit, victimize
his family, but then so can the wage earner who dissipates his salary
at the race track. It is preposterous to argue that the drug
consumer does no damage, but my colleagues in the symposium are
agreed that the sum of human damage done by the drug laws is
greater than would be done without them, and that the primary-and
sometimes only-victim in the latter case would be the drug user. The
murderer's victim is someone whose rights are theoretically
guaranteed by the Constitution; and the promiscuity of homicide is,
up to a point, evidence of the delinquency of law enforcers. There is
no evidence, the contributors to the drug symposium are agreed,
that increasing the severity of prison sentences, or the density of
patrolmen on our frontiers, would so successfully interdict drug
traffic as to make the war on drugs victorious.
- Isn't It a Matter of Law Enforcement?
On this point - law enforcement - many correspondents dwelled.
Blame for the ineffectiveness of the drug laws is laid on the
shoulders of politicians, judges, police officers, lawyers, jurors,
educators, parents, and doctors.
"I do not believe that the drug war has been lost; it has not yet
been fought. "what we have had up to this point have been ploys
designed by politicians to appease as many of the various segments of
the voting public as possible. A law that is not vigorously enforced
it's no deterrent. It is not the existence of a law that is the
deterrent, it is the enforcement of the law. . . . " -Howard K Jeter,
North Huntingdon, Pennsylvania
Arriving at a different conclusion, in our symposium, were Joseph
McNamara, who has served as police chief in two major U.S. cities;
Judge Robert Sweet of New York, who, called upon to implement the
Rockefeller drug laws, has seen the tumbrils pass by, en route to
twenty years' imprisonment; and Mayor Kurt Schmoke of Baltimore,
who has presided for nine years over the government of a drug-torn
city. Federal money appropriated to prosecute drug traffic and drug
use rose by 1,000 per cent between Nixon and Clinton. We have seen
oscillations in drug use, especially a sharp diminution in cocaine
consumption, but these have little bearing on the intensity of the
drug war. It is for that reason that the panelists join in concluding
that, this side of draconian punishment (flogging?) (hanging?)
(public?), the drug war cannot claim victory.
- Where Do You Draw the Line?
' . . How do you make the decision which is which? You did not
distinguish among drugs. Are there no drugs that should be
banned, and if some should be, how is the line drawn?' -Francis S.
Webster III, Austin, Texas
The text on the cover of the drug issue read,
THE WAR ON DRUGS IS LOST
- Kill it -Go for Legalization -Free up Police, Courts -Reduce Crime
The panelists were not asked to draw the line. But in order to
accomplish the stated objectives (free up police, courts; reduce
crime), the profit from the merchandising of drugs would need to be
all but abolished. This means, clearly, legal access to the most
popular drug (marijuana) and the runner-up (cocaine). For most
users, soft drugs are preferred over the most toxic, even as beer
and wine are preferred over 200-proof alcohol. Crack cocaine is of
course readily deduced as a (now) cheap byproduct of cocaine.
There is some evidence that crack cocaine can induce violent
conduct. How, then, to handle the hypothetical buyer who enters a
federal drugstore and asks for crack cocaine? Perhaps as was for so
many years required in New Zealand of customers for beer-that they
consume it on the premises.... But on such specifics, the panelists
were not questioned. Dr. Szasz is, on the subject, a libertarian
absolute. My sense of it is that most of the others would move step
by step provided the profit in drugs were hugely reduced. A
beginning might be the legalization of marijuana.
- Alcohol and Drugs
' . .you make the ludicrous mistake of comparing alcohol with
drugs. With alcohol, you may bare a hangover, but you will never
experience a 'snapback' to full and complete intoxication. Take a visit
to a drug hospital. You will see people wandering around like
mind-numbed robots, oblivious to the world around them. "
-Oliver A. Rockwog, La Puente, California
To compare drugs and alcohol is not to equate them. An analogy,
by definition, marks similarities on the understanding that there are
also dissimilarities. Marijuana, cocaine, and whisky are all
psychotropic drugs. Of the three, only marijuana can't kill-there is
no record of death from overdose. Alcohol is responsible for an
estimated 100,000 premature deaths every year. And alcohol is the
most common wrecker of personal and professional lives, and by far
the most common inducement to crime and mayhem. The damage done
by drugs to the human body similarly varies. There are the
cocaine-induced zombies, some of whom will never recover, and the
alcoholics who suffer from more than a hangover because when they
wake they turn again to the bottle. The primary distinction is that
alcohol is a happy part of Western culture, and there is the
presumptive case against introducing another species of
psychotropic drug into that culture. But the panelists, in the issue
under discussion, weren't arguing in favor of a supplementary drug.
We were addressing the question: What do we do under present
circumstances?-having failed to stop drug traffic, and become
progressively accustomed to privations caused by the endless war
- Hard-Drug Users Are Criminals To Begin With
'As a 22-year prosecutor in a small rural area, I believe I have a
better view of the everyday criminal than does a big-city
prosecutor... Marijuana is a fairly harmless substance that could be
legalized without any real effect on the crime problem in general
Marijuana is a substance whose effects on the lives of those who take
it are similar to alcohol, and people who use it have the ability to be
normally functioning members of society.
'On the level of everyday street crime, however, the drug laws are
a major advantage to law enforcement. Most of the '50 per cent' of
criminals in prison for drug offenses are not there because they are
major dealers or dealers at all. They are there because they have a
long history of criminality prior to being caught with drugs.
Possession of drugs is both easy to prove and very inexpensive to
prosecute. But when you send these people to prison, you prevent
innumerable thefts and acts of violence. Only very rarely is violence
by drug addicts directly related to drugs themselves. " -Fred
Schroeder, Marysville, California
The point plays on a theme widely distracting. Some students of
the drug question believe that drug traffic is, as here suggested,
merely a convenient vehicle for criminal energies that will find
another outlet should the profit in drugs come to an end. What
percentage of the drug-related prison population falls into this
category (Category #I) is of course unknown. But it is known that
many non-criminally-inclined Americans have experimented with
drugs (we have used the figure 70 million). Some of these, caught in
the act, are in )????'all (Category #2). And then there are those
who become addicted and, in order to satisfy their craving, engage
in criminal activity they'd never have engaged in but for their
addiction and the high price of drugs. They are in jail either
because they were detected in theft, or because they were caught
consuming or trafficking in drugs (Category #3). The argument that
in order to expedite the imprisonment of Category #1 we should not
object to the imprisonment of Categories #2 and #3 is not persuasive.
- 'I Saw What Happened . . .' "l saw what happened
to promising young men and women in the late Sixties and
Seventies when drugs were popularized. I had to raise four children
under peer pressure . . . I saw the 'burnouts' and the dropouts. It
would tear you to pieces. I saw friends of my sons go off to the
University of Michigan clean and come back hopelessly on drugs. I
saw families spending themselves into bankruptcy trying to dry them
out." -Lawrence E. Flora, Stuart, Florida
Who "popularized" drugs? An indulgent lifestyle. You write of the
burnouts you have seen. How do you propose to diminish their
number? They are there notwithstanding our war on drugs. What do
you propose? Longer prison terms?
- It's Simple: It's Wrong
"I started using marijuana at age 14, speed at 15, mescaline and
LSD at 16, THC at 17, cocaine at 18, and freebasing cocaine at 22. I
know from first-hand experience what the use of illegal drugs can
do.... I started doing drugs at age 14 and continued until I reached
the age of 27, when I overdosed on cocaine. I believe that I am a
better expert than any pundit who has ever read a paper, done a
test, or contributed to any article. I know why drugs should never
be legalized.- to use drugs is wrong. Simple, isn't it? But that is
where we must all begin to answer the question involved here.
"Drug use is wrong; to consciously ingest any substance for the
purpose of changing or altering your mood is wrong. The effects of
long-term drug use are clearly proven; to be involved in drug use
while young affects the mind while growing up; it shapes the
emotions of the pubescent who is going through the normal growing
pains that all must go through, yet doesn't allow the teenager to view
life through a normal viewpoint. I know. I have had to learn how to
deal with people all over again since coming clean. It cannot be
repeated enough: the use of drugs for the purpose of enjoyment is
"I know. I have done drugs in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Delaware,
Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, California,
Washington, Vancouver, B.C., Hawaii, Guam, Philippines, Thailand,
Sri Lanka, Mombasa Kenya, and Singapore. I have done drugs at
Paris Island during boot camp; Cherry Point, North Carolina;
Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii; 29 Palms, California; on board the USS
LaMoore County, USS Okinawa, and USS Belleau Wood. It's wrong.'
We agree, it's wrong. And your experiences certainly document
that the war against drugs has failed.... You were wise to leave
Singapore. If caught, you would not have completed your itinerary.
But we don't want to bring Singapore to America.
- The View From Abroad
'As a career Foreign Service Officer, I have served in
drug-producing countries and seen the disastrous effects our policy
has on those nations and bow it benefits our enemies. We have
created new sources of funds for politicos and caps already disposed
to corruption. We risk the lives of brave American agents in a fight
in which our 'allies' have no interest and see, rightly, as our
problem, not theirs. We have huge bureaucracies in the State
Department, Pentagon, CLI, DEA, FBI, AID, and Justice and legions
of Beltway bandits thriving on the 'war' and its programs,
conferences, etc. But the drugs still come; prices still drop;
availability still rises-and the body count in our streets doesn't stop.
The war is a massive fraud with incalculable negative effects at home
and abroad. " -Name Withheld by Request
"The most embarrassing aspect of the articles was that Steven 'l
am-not-a-conservative' Duke was the only person to recognize what
we should do: devolve the matter to the states. Let Utah maintain its
prohibition, let the People's Republic of New York legalize... and let
NR stop searching for a national solution." -Steven C. Russell,
- If It Isn't Illegal ...
'Tell me something, Mr. Buckley, if you can't educate someone on
the dangers of drug use when it is illegal, how are you going to do so
after it is legalized? I have two sons who are alcoholics. One of my
uncles and my older brother both drank themselves to death. I
shudder to think of the additional tragedies we would have bad to
deal with if drugs were legal. Our laws against drug use are
important, Mr. Buckley. May God help you to see that and to engage
the enemies of right behavior.
'What are my credentials? I am a janitor who has more sense than a
fistful of intellectuals that write articles for magazines. ' -Jerry G.
Allen, St. Louis, Missouri
Were the people who, 63 years ago, ended Prohibition responsible
for the tragedies experienced by your family? The argument would
appear to be saying exactly that.
We are grateful to our readers, as ever; and regret we can't, for
obvious reasons, publish all that you wrote. The argument goes on.
You have contributed to the public understanding, and to my own.