The recent furor over remarks by Jocelyn Elders pertaining to the legalization of drugs may lead to some concrete answers to long-standing questions. As I recall, Dr. Elders did no more than to suggest that we might begin to study the example of European countries where moderate policies of legalization and-or tolerance have resulted in significant reduction of violent crime with no increase in the rate of addiction. …

Why is it something we should not even consider? Because, we are told, legalization would lead to skyrocketing violence and addiction. Because, we are told, the legalization of drugs would be tantamount to legalization of rape, murder and so forth. Because, we are told, the legalization of drugs would “send the wrong message” to children.

I would be more credulous of such explanations if they were not contradicted by the practical example of countries that have chosen not to pursue policies of prohibition. In those countries, the streets are safer to walk at night, children of all economic classes (whatever “messages” they have received) are raised in an atmosphere of greater security and productivity, and addicts seeking recovery are able to find treatment not as criminals, but as patients. Moreover, vast resources otherwise allotted to the enforcement of prohibition have been directed to health care, education, housing and other pressing budgetary responsibilities.

The real question raised by Dr. Elders’ call for further study of the issue is not whether tolerant drug policies are effective when carried out elsewhere, for the evidence that they are is irrefutable. The real question is why such policies would not be effective right here in the United States. I would be delighted to hear any government official — municipal, state or federal, elected or appointed, Democrat or Republican — supply a coherent answer to this question.

If we cannot begin to consider alternatives to the escalation of our present, ludicrously unsuccessful programs for dealing with drug abuse and violent crime, what, may I ask, are we permitted to consider? Michael Fournier Orono