`Teeth' in drug regs bite usage

The Chronicle editorial board opined that to narrow the 100to1
crack vs. powder cocaine sentencing gap, we should raise the
penalty for powder, not lower the penalty for crack ("Cracked;
Don't close cocaine sentencing gap by paring crack penalty,"
Editorial page, July 26).

To justify that position, the editorial says that powder
cocaine's "cultivation, distribution and sale have corrupted
governments, sparked the assassination of numerous Latin American
judges and cost the United States billions in drug treatment,
lost productivity and massive interdiction operations. Strong
laws are crucial for curbing cocaine trafficking and usage and
for ending the sale and abuse of all illegal drugs."

It's the Chronicle's logic that is really cracked. "Strong laws"
are precisely the root of the problems cited. Nature abhors a
vacuum and as long as there is demand for any substance, there
will be a supply.

It would be much more prudent for government to regulate the
supply instead of leaving it up to the incredibly vast,
unregulated, taxfree criminal enterprise that has "zero" concern
for the good of the public.

Prohibition of any substance is an attempt by government to
repeal the law of supply and demand, no less futile than if it
were trying to repeal the law of gravity. It is government
stupidity in its most grotesque form, aided and abetted by well
meaning but misguided editorial boards aplenty.

The irony is that "strong laws" are in reality very weak much
weaker than government regulation would be. Unlike during
Prohibition, today, when we purchase alcohol, at least we must
prove our age and sales are strictly regulated as to locations
and hours and who can sell it. Now that the quality of the
product is regulated to be unadulterated, alcoholrelated crime
and corruption of the '20s are sad memories.

Our nation repealed its ineffective "strong laws" in favor of
stronger, much more prudent regulatory ones. Laws with teeth
not heads buried in sand.

Art Smart,
Houston