BOGUS LEGAL PRETEXT

It was good to see Judge John L. Kane come out with so many detailed points
about why the War on Drugs creates far more problems than it solves
("America in a fix," April 27). But he still believes that the "importing
of unauthorized drugs should continue to be a federal crime . . ." This is
precisely the bogus legal pretext on which the War on Drugs is now waged.

Kane does not discuss the much deeper point that the powers of the federal
government are enumerated. The power to "authorize" some drugs and
criminalize others is not one of them. The only authority it has is to tax
them. He also ignores that there are only three federal crimes -- piracy,
counterfeiting and treason. Drug use is not one of them.

Why did alcohol prohibition require a constitutional amendment, but not
drug prohibition? On what basis, then, does Kane and the rest of the
federal judiciary continue to sanction the blatantly unconstitutional War
on Drugs?

Lee Smith

Loveland