DuPont and Voth's defense of the status quo in drug policy [1] begs for some response. The selective use of statistics, especially those derived from a private source, is unconvincing. The insinuation that persons who disagree with current policy do so because of a personal drug habit is pejorative, cannot be clearly evaluated, and sidesteps the issues. In fact, several large groups have strong incentives to assert a need to maintain the current system, including persons making a living on the government side of the current "war on drugs" and those who profit by supplying drugs in the current price-supported environment.

The decrease in the number of deaths from cirrhosis during prohibition is interesting, but, for many of us, the real question is "was it a better society in which to live?" Were people happier, more free to achieve their dreams? Medical facts may inform the discussion of sociopolitical problems, but the medical model seems inadequate to resolve fundamental issues of power, freedom, and benevolence.

The assertion of a "war on drugs" is a misrepresentation of reality. War is not waged against the inanimate. It is waged against people—people who disagree for whatever reasons.

The attitude that most human problems have political solutions has been deeply ingrained in U.S. society in this century's construction of a welfare state. Seldom has open discussion addressed the fact that politics is largely the consideration of how and where to use legalized violence in human society. Political solutions ultimately rely on force (violence) for their implementation, except in the uninteresting and irrelevant case of consensus.

Most illicit drugs are bad for most human bodies, and I would not use them myself even if they were legal and free; however, the question is larger than that. It seems that the illegal drug trade is the major source of the money that buys soldiers and guns on the street, corrupts law enforcement, and leads to a declining respect for government.

Because there are other ways of coping with these problems, I urge that equal space be given to other views. No human sociopolitical arrangement is ideal; all are compromises. We are mortals, not gods, and in our politics we should not risk that role.