In response to a letter by me in opposition to drug prohibition which was
printed in the Daily Oklahoman, Mark Woodward wrote to defend current
policies. However, four individuals wrote in response to Mr. Woodard, and
their letters follow his here.

The Daily Oklahoman
Letter to the Editor
June 30th, 2005

Legalization of drugs is half-baked

Chris Powell (Your Views, June 23) suggested prohibition of drugs does
more harm than good. I wonder if Powell would feel the same if drugs were
legalized and all of the drug users, dealers and cooks were confined to
his neighborhood, free to cook meth next door to him or in a rent house he
owns, now legally allowed to drive a school bus, a train or fly an
aircraft with his family aboard. Would he still favor legalization if the
mechanics working on his car brakes, the electrician wiring his home or
the doctor performing his surgery were free to use drugs? I'd like to see
those favoring legalization try to explain to children living in meth lab
homes, crack houses and with heroin-addicted parents that we should
decriminalize drug use because it would do less harm than prohibition.

Mark Woodward,
Oklahoma City

Woodward is spokesman for the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous
Drugs Control.

The Daily Oklahoman
Letters to the Editor
July 6th, 2005

Less harmful than prohibition

Regarding Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control
spokesman Mark Woodward's listing of the horrible things he says would
happen if drugs were legalized (Your Views, June 30): First, there
wouldn't be drug dealers and meth labs in neighborhoods anymore. People
would simply go to the store and buy their drugs like they do alcohol and
tobacco. Next, drug legalization would no more legally allow people to
"drive a school bus, a train, or fly an aircraft" than legalized alcohol
allows drunks to do so now. As for mechanics, electricians and doctors
working while under the influence of drugs, I sure hope not. Just like I
hope they -- and police officers, firefighters, day-care workers,
bulldozer operators and lawmakers -- haven't slugged down a six-pack
before heading to their jobs. Finally, Mr. Woodward, as someone who favors
drug legalization, I'd be happy to explain to children or adults why drug
decriminalization would do far less harm than prohibition. You name the
time and place.

Clark Duffe,
Edmond

Straw man argument

I hope I'm not the only one who would expect less hyperbole and more
factual discussion from the spokesman for the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics
and Dangerous Drugs Control. Mark Woodward (Your Views, June 30) begins by
claiming that legalizing certain drugs would lead to black market
production. If drugs were legal to buy, this would cause companies to
produce and sell them, putting street dealers and producers out of
business. There is a reason Woodward doesn't see reports of illegal
alcohol operations being busted on the local news. For that reason, he
doesn't see people producing morphine or Tylenol in their bathtubs.

He confuses legal, responsible use with dangerous use. Perhaps if he
equated "bad" drugs with alcohol, one of the hundreds of drugs that are
perfectly legal for adults to use responsibly, he would better understand
the issue. No one wants children to be able to use these drugs. Certainly
no one is arguing for anyone to endanger other people's lives while under
the influence. Woodward has simply created a straw man to avoid talking
about the facts. Either that or he really believes in what he's saying.
I'm not sure which one is more disheartening.

Bryce Jones,
Moore

Scare tactic

If drugs were legalized tomorrow, would you use cocaine? Would your next-
door neighbor begin cooking meth? Mark Woodward (Your Views, June 30),
spokesman for the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs
Control, seems to be trying to scare us into thinking this would happen. I
wonder if he and his colleagues are afraid of losing their jobs? They need
not fear. If drugs were legalized and controlled, meth would be
manufactured in an OSHA-approved and inspected facility. Cocaine would be
sold in licensed drug stores. Bus, train and truck drivers and airline
pilots would be required to prove that their performance isn't degraded,
by submitting to performance tests. And just as parents teach their kids
not to play with dangerous household cleaning products, parents would be
teaching their children not to play with drugs. As for Woodard and most of
his comrades, they would merely have to turn in their guns and would
probably be reassigned to a different government agency.

Richard Prawdzienski,
Edmond

Absurd premise

Regarding the letter from Mark Woodward (Your Views, June 30): It's absurd
to think a school bus driver, train engineer, pilot, automobile
technician, electrician or surgeon would indulge in the use of any mind-
altering substance while in the performance of their duties if we altered
our punishment for drugs. I'm sure those persons would no more show up for
work high on drugs than they would show up drunk on alcohol. We shouldn't
be subjected to scare tactics of those in charge of enforcing the laws of
our state. Rather than trying to convince us that we should be so afraid
of those persons who abuse illegal drugs that we should throw them in
prison to keep them away from the rest of us, we should rationally try to
understand why they are self-medicating and work together to find a
solution to this problem. Why promote the incarceration of offenders and
then return them to our communities with the same addiction? I would
suggest that we all encourage our law enforcement officials to seek
increased participation in programs such as drug courts.

Emmit Tayloe,
Lawton

Back to oklp.org