U.S. should keep fighting war on drugs

Cynthia Tucker's recent column (Star-Bulletin, June 28) asserting that the federal anti-drug effort is a costly failure is refuted by the facts. Anti-drug efforts of the 1980s and '90s have produced remarkable results.

In 1979, there were 25.4 million drug users in America. In 2000, this number had dropped to 14 million, a 45 percent decrease. Cocaine use in America declined from 4.7 million users in 1979 to 1.2 million users in 2000. Adolescent drug use in 2000 was almost half the level of 1979 (2.2 million youth, compared with 4.1 million). These numbers are still too high, but they show steady and significant progress.

Throughout most of our history, drug use has been confined to a small, deviant subculture. In the mid-1960s, the recreational use of drugs, particularly marijuana and hallucinogens, exploded into mainstream American culture. In the 1970s, there was a troubling outbreak of cocaine use in America. The drug epidemic in the United States peaked in the late 1970s and has declined sharply in the 1980s and '90s in response to community efforts and government-supported prevention, treatment and enforcement programs. The war on drugs can be won and should be supported by us all.

Ray Gagner
Kailua

Koreans aren't alone in wanting apology

I am disappointed that the Star-Bulletin would write such an uninformed article regarding the Korean antipathy toward Japan ("Koreans still find it difficult to be good sports about Japan," The Rising East, June 30). The author seems to be saying that Korea is so tightly knit that you can psychoanalyze the entire country.

Psychoanalyze this: It is not only Koreans who want a sincere apology and un-whitewashing of history. All of Asia is demanding a clear showing of regret by Japan for their World War II atrocities. Ask China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia or Malaysia. Ask them all before you feel you can psychoanalyze Korea.

Warren Kim

GOP, Lingle differ on campaign reform

The Republicans' cries of anguish over Governor Cayetano's veto of the campaign-spending bill seem to demonstrate a nice piece of hypocrisy.

If you go to the Web site of their leading contender for governor, Linda Lingle, you will find that she includes a Star-Bulletin article dated May 15, in which she states that recent state efforts to reform campaign spending are "naive" and would "tend to favor the incumbent."

In criticizing the bill, Lingle said that instead of campaign regulation, the best reform is to require full disclosure, so candidates would have to report who gives them money.

Now the Republicans, with crocodile tears and roars of outrage, are seeking a special session to override the veto of a campaign-spending bill that their leading contender claimed, on her own Web site, was "naive at best and dishonest at worst."

Rather than being a breath of fresh air, a more appropriate description of Lingle's campaign might be "doublespeak."

Richard S. Miller

---

How to write us The Star-Bulletin welcomes letters that are crisp and to the point (150 to 200 words). The Star-Bulletin reserves the right to edit letters for clarity and length. Please direct comments to the issues; personal attacks will not be published. Letters must be signed and include a daytime telephone number. Letter form: Online form, click here E-mail: letters@starbulletin.com Fax: (808) 529-4750 Mail: Letters to the Editor, Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 7 Waterfront Plaza, 500 Ala Moana, Suite 210, Honolulu, HI 96813