Letters on the "War on Drugs" editorial. If you didn't see the story and resulting editorial, check out Skirmishes in the War on Drugs first.

• The result of government determining morals is probably one of the major causes of the moral decline in this country. So long as we can point to Uncle Sam and say that it's ok by his rules we will never learn to take responsibility for our own actions. I believe that is why the courts are so full of absurd legal cases as well. We are no longer held responsible for our own actions when the government makes all the rules and decisions for us in what they decide are our best interest. --Bob, Texas

I was astonished at the similarity of the case you describe, in which police burst into a home with a "no knock warrant" and shot the owner, to a case in Texas involving author Barbara Davis's son, Troy. In this case, police were given a "tip" (which proved to be false) that there were drugs on the premises and the police were so confident that they were going to take down some high-profile felon that they invited a local TV station along to film the raid. As per the tape that was shot, 1.8 seconds elapsed between the moment police broke the door down and the moment they started shooting. Police claimed that he had threatened them with a gun, and a gun was indeed found near his body. However, it didn't belong to him. Obviously I have no idea of the details of the Florida case, but would like to point out that anyone could have two ounces of marijuana in their house after they'd been shot by people with plenty of access to same. And we'll never know. And that's America today, where the criminals walk free and law-abiding citizens had better add a few more bolts to their doors. --David, Minnesota

Until I read this, it didn't even occur to me that the police in Florida could have planted the drugs they say they found. But quite a few other readers suggested that possibility too.

• It seems that the circumstance has produced a way to make the question about the war on drugs. But I think that the real issue is the "No-knock warrant". Of course it is a technique that is supposed to keep anyone from hiding the stash before the police enter. Now, on the theory that this could apply to almost anything they are searching for, stopping the war on drugs isn't going to prevent this situation from happening. It may reduce the exposure because of fewer warrants, but that is not the real problem. A citizen should have the right to defend himself, and if police act like criminals entering one's house, then you have to expect that this kind of thing is going to continue. Or another option is for criminals to act like the police entering the house. Who gets shot then? The police are not supposed to rob a person of due process and execute someone on the spot. When you set up the circumstances so that "police self defense" becomes the only option for the police, then what is wrong is the setup, not the reaction to the citizen. The priority is to protect the citizens, not catch someone red handed before they can hide the evidence. So in my opinion, the question is one of police procedure, not the War on Drugs. Making it anything else is confusing the issue at the least, and twisting it to justify and agenda at the most. From our exchanges in the past, I don't think it is the latter. --Mike, Missouri

• We agree that (some) drugs are bad to take, etc. You might be interested in some statistics stated by a U.S. District Court Judge in a speech to the Western Governors' Association back in 2000: "Drug prohibition doesn't work. In 1914 when drugs like cocaine were available on grocery shelves, 1.3% of the population was addicted. In 1979, before the so-called "War on Drugs" crackdown, the addiction rate was still 1.3%. Today, while billions of dollars are being spent to reduce drug use, the addiction rate is still 1.3%." (Source) When cocaine was freely available, people didn't rush to use it. Only those with a particular weakness for it abused it. The same would be true today. Most people who don't abuse narcotics would continue to not abuse narcotics. Neither you, nor I, nor most would abuse cocaine. --John, Ohio

That quote, by Senior Judge John L. Kane of the U.S. District Court of Denver, Colorado, from that same source, continues: "Yet America imprisons 100,000 more persons for drug offenses than the entire European Union imprisons for all offenses. The European Union has 100 million more citizens than the U.S." What's the cost of that?! And for what? To keep us at the natural (if you will) level of drug addiction? What a waste -- of money, of resources, of lives. "The land of the free" can do better than that.

• You are usually careful to report the facts clearly and evenhandedly, but you have apparently lost sight of this requirement in your zeal to make a point. You first say the victim in this case "was sitting in his ... home when suddenly someone broke down the door without any warning and rushed in. Diotaiuto, who has a gun permit, grabbed his gun to defend himself -- and was shot about 10 times by police doing a drug raid." You then say "officers identified themselves as police when they 'walked' into the home and ordered him to 'freeze,' said police spokesman Lt. Robert Voss. 'It was his choice not to follow orders.'" Which version is true? If they walked in, identified themselves, and ordered him to freeze, they did not also break down the door without warning, rush in, and shoot him down when he grabbed his gun. Did they identify themselves and warn him to freeze or rush in without any warning? If so, did he freeze or not follow orders? Don't you think it makes a difference? And why do you say not one word about whether they had probable cause for an offense sufficient to justify a no-knock raid, and yet rant about war on citizens? This is very irresponsible reporting and a bad way to present an issue for debate. I won't even get into the merits of your arguments about the war on drugs, which make no sense as presented either. You need to get your fervor back under control and play fair with your readers. --Steve, Illinois

There are three main points raised here, so I'll address them individually.

First, there is no contradiction in the story. Of course the two scenarios you raise are both true! Here's how: They smash in the door, which would certainly surprise anyone anywhere in the house that is within hearing distance. Anyone's immediate thought would be "intruders" -- and coming in like that you can bet he thought "violent intruders"! Anyone with a gun would start thinking about retrieving it. Even with a no-knock warrant, police would start yelling things like "POLICE!" and "FREEZE!" as soon as -- but not before -- they are in the door. Good front doors don't drop with the first smash; it might take several hits with a battering ram to get in. One can easily be reaching for a gun in that time. I quoted the police on the "walked" bit for its hilarity value. Walked?! They walked in? No way: they rushed in. Seconds, at most, have passed. The homeowner is quite surprised, but he's reaching for a gun; the cops are not dumb, they're prepared: the second they see a gun the tension factor, already very high, escalates to extreme. They already have their guns in their hands; the result of several trained gunfighters at the ready against a surprised civilian is fairly easy to predict. The guy is dead long before he understands the intruders are police officers. The concept of "they're here legally, I must submit to them" is a long, long way away.

Second, I indeed did not report on the "probable cause" which allowed the police to get the warrant in the first place: the newspaper did a damn poor job on covering that angle. Without quoting him directly, they said the same police spokesman (and I'll quote the newspaper here -- the quotation marks are not in the source) told them "detectives had been observing people visiting his home" (my, isn't that suspicious! Warning: if you have a friend over for dinner, police might get a warrant to search your house!) and "an undercover investigator or informant had bought drugs from him." That, in my professional opinion, means the police spokesman has no idea what the PC was. "An undercover investigator or informant"?! You mean, he has no idea whether the PC was established by a professional police officer or a paid informant, who may well be a drug dealer himself?! Pathetic!

Third, you say my arguments "make no sense." Yet 95 percent of everyone else who wrote not only understood them just fine, they agree with them. I thus pretty much have to believe the problem in understanding them is yours.

• I agree totally with your position on the failed war on drugs. If our resources were redirected away from enforcement, adjudication, and incarceration toward education and treatment, the public and the drug users would be much better served. It is extremely unlikely that we will ever see such a shift because Americans are disturbingly susceptible to propaganda, becoming fearful of many mostly imagined evils. Example: we still get shivers when we hear the word "communist," and our media never misses a chance to use the word in reference to North Korea or Cuba. How we can be afraid of these two countries is beyond me, but it surely serves our government that we are. The propagandizers in the war on drugs are the people who most benefit from it: the police, the courts, the jailers, and the politicians. Basically, they need crime in order to survive. The result is that they've criminalized a whole class of activities and naturally occurring substances (which must be part of God's design) with the general support of the public facilitated by the fear instilled by their propaganda. It's really discouraging. --Alden, New York

• The so-called "war on drugs" often focuses too much on petty users like this and too little on those who are making a fortune selling drugs to kids. If the cops in this story had busted a meth lab, nobody would have thought a second thing about it. [Including me. -rc] Like you, I've never used drugs and I think people who do are just plain stupid. But I think all the hullabaloo over marijuana is a bunch of crap. There are plenty of other drug problems that are far more important and need the full attention of law enforcement. --Nick, Texas

• I didn't even realize that there was such a thing as "No-knock" warrant. I wondered if the State of Michigan had this so to Google I went. I found an interesting site with an court decision from 1994. I did not read it all, but one passage did stand out:

  This Court in Benefield explained the basis for the knock-and-announce requirement that has governed residential searches in our state: Entering one's home without legal authority and neglect to give the occupants notice have been condemned by the law and the common custom of this country and England from time immemorial. It was condemned by the yearbooks of Edward IV, before the discovery of this country by Columbus. Judge Prettyman for the Court of Appeals in Accarino v. United States, discussed the history and reasons for it. William Pitt categorized a man's home as his castle. Paraphrasing one of his speeches in which he apostrophized the home, it was said in about this fashion: The poorest pioneer in his log cabin may bid defiance to the forces of the crown. It may be located so far in the backwoods that the sun rises this side of it; it may be unsteady; the roof may leak; the wind may blow through it; the cold may penetrate it and his dog may sleep beneath the front steps, but it is his castle that the king may not enter and his men dare not cross the threshold without his permission. This sentiment has moulded our concept of the home as one's castle as well as the law to protect it. The law forbids the law enforcement officers of the state or the United States to enter before knocking at the door, giving his name and the purpose of his call. There is nothing more terrifying to the occupants than to be suddenly confronted in the privacy of their home by a police officer decorated with guns and the insignia of his office. This is why the law protects its entrance so rigidly. The law so interpreted is nothing more than another expression of the moral emphasis placed on liberty and the sanctity of the home in a free country. Liberty without virtue is much like a spirited horse, apt to go berserk on slight provocation if not restrained by a severe bit. Benefield v. State, 160 So.2d 706, 709 (Fla.1964) (citations omitted, emphasis added by the reader). --Lauri, Michigan

• I had to write about the comments you received from Greg. No-knock warrants were upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Banks and therefore apply to police in all 50 states. Also, there are definitely no-knock warrants in Tennessee as evidenced in the case STATE OF TENNESSEE v. FRAZIER FASHUN PERRY. I am skeptical of Greg's police status, and if he is a police officer -- Yikes! I am a 2nd year law student with one class in criminal procedure knew about no-knock warrants. --Tracey, Texas

Just because every state is eligible to perform them doesn't mean every state -- nor every jurisdiction in every state -- does use them. Indeed, many have likely decided not to because they're simply too dangerous, as case after case has proven.

• While I am decidedly pro-police, the "War on Drugs" leaves me terrified sometimes. As you pointed out, this "war" harks back to the days of prohibition and all it's failures and terrors. Like tobacco and alcohol, recreational drugs should be legalized, controlled, and taxed. Not only will this remove the obscene and illegal profits, the crime associated with those activities will largely disappear. Several years back (I don't remember where), some poor individual had his house invaded by the police doing a no-knock warrant. His house was thrashed, and he was arrested and booked before the cops realized they were at the wrong address. Nothing illegal was found. The talk show host G. Gordon Liddy was asked live on-the-air how someone who is innocent should respond to an unannounced barging in of the police; Liddy gave a curt response: "I recommend head shots." Of course Mr. Liddy was vilified by law enforcement for several weeks for his statements. He continues to stand by them. His opinion -- and mine -- is that unless there is grave and immediate danger to someone, the police have no special immunity when crashing in unannounced on anyone, and that they had better be on their toes when doing so. --Bill, (no location noted)

It's tragically sad that a law-abiding, "pro-police" citizen is terrified that he could become the victim of misinformed, over-zealous police officers. But that's a rational reaction to a "war" being fought by our own government against its own citizens.

• I've long been fascinated by the war on drugs. I'm Dutch by birth, but lived in the U.S. from ages 6 to 19, and have now been living in the Netherlands for about 12 years again. I agree completely with your point on making drug (ab)use a legal problem. The Netherlands has long had a policy of tolerating drug use (while technically illegal) and a few years ago, 'soft' drugs like marijuana and hashish were legalised completely. Like prostitution, drugs should be viewed as a social or medical 'problem'. Once you make this step, you can manage drug use much better because you're no longer forcing it underground. Dutch drug addicts can get free needles, methadone, counselling and the like without trouble. Legalising (or tolerating) the drug trade has also meant that the quality is better (e.g. rarely are there dangerous 'additives' in the drugs). And, of course, our drug-related crime is very low. --Edwin, the Netherlands

• I've moved more toward a position of legalizing drugs, despite my strong Christian convictions. However, your question, "should the government really be trying to force moral issues into the legal arena?" is not as simple as it sounds. First, how would you define "moral"? Most people would consider murder a "moral" issue. Respectfully, I'd suggest "moral" might not be the right word. --Oscar, Alabama

Interestingly, quite a few have brought this up, while many others grasp it immediately. Virtually all who have a problem with it identify themselves as Christians. When I was a speaker at a conference put on by the Skeptics Society, one of the panelists was a minister who talked about the morality of atheism, and he talked about how one had to believe in God to be moral. That raised the hackles of quite a few people: several got up to indignantly refute that concept: they were extremely moral people even though they were atheists. More moral than many Christians, I'd dare say, when you consider the types I've dubbed the "American Taliban" (and a follow-up here).

I'm not an expert in the philosophical discussion of morality, but here is how I see it: Murder is not a "moral" issue, it's a "rights" issue. If you murder me, then you've infringed on my rights, as well as my family's. If you smoke pot in your home (and don't drive, etc.), then you have not infringed on my rights. Yet people say you "shouldn't" do it anyway because it's "wrong" -- a moral issue. I hope you can see that's a big, big difference.

• Two comments: First, one of the more insidious aspects of the "war on drugs" is that it has often been used as a war on minorities. Historical information about this can be found here. I've seen various forms of evidence that Nixon especially used the war on drugs as a politically acceptable replacement for more overt racial discrimination against blacks. The book Smoke and Mirrors explores this issue in depth. The second thing I find funny is that you felt the need to explain that you have never taken any illegal drugs. Not that there is anything wrong with that -- I too have never taken any illegal drugs (even when I was in countries where they were legal!). The funny part is that not ever having taken any drugs is so uncommon as to have become remarkable! What does this alone say about the failure of the war on drugs? What does that say about our country when we have laws that consider the vast majority of our citizens to be dangerous lawbreakers, who can have our front doors broken down without warning by the police? Not to mention our government itself, as the CIA has been known to sell illegal drugs to finance its operations. --William, Oregon