ating this as a criminal justice problem, our range of solutions has been sharply limited" (p. 11). In other words, we have cut ourselves off from social policies that might actually reduce the problem.
             Hutchinson (2003) states, "...it seems counterintuitive that a small but vocal minority is working to create a society in which there is free access to the chemicals that we know are dangerous to individuals and society" (p. 10). This is really an unfair shot at the small minority of people who have the courage to speak out in a political climate where it is disastrous to be perceived as "soft on drugs." Hutchinson implies that anybody in favor of decriminalization is also in favor of drug use, which just isn't so. Neither does decriminalizing drugs imply "giving up" on the problem. On the contrary decriminalization would allow our society to seek other more productive alternatives to controlling drug use. Unfortunately, there will always be poor farmers in third world countries for whom growing drug crops is a way to escape from poverty, and as long as there are alienated people, there will be a demand for their products here.
             Hutchinson (2002) states, "A single airplane pilot, train engineer, or eighteen-wheel truck driver doing her job while impaired by a mind-or personality-altering drug poses a much greater danger to public safety than one who is drug free" (p. 10). True, but we already control alcohol use by these people-drug use would be subject to the same controls. To claim that responsible people would suddenly act irresponsibly because drugs were legal flies in the face of common sense. The same people who do NOT drive when they are drinking would abstain from driving when under the influence of some substance other than alcohol.
             Hutchinson uses fear in all his claims about the dire effects of treating the problem some other way because he's part of...