America's ''Disastrous'' Drug Policy

Thank you for having the courage to print ''To beat Colombia's guerrillas, legalize drugs in the U.S.'' (Economic Viewpoint, Mar. 13). Drug Czar Barry McCaffery has said we can't incarcerate our way out of our drug problem, but no one in the business of ''controlling'' drugs has had the intelligence or courage to complete the logic: If you want to destroy an industry, destroy the basis for its profitability.

The real question is why, in the most powerful capitalist country on the planet, are we unwilling to apply simple capitalist principles to solve this problem? A cynic might point out the millions of dollars that law-enforcement agencies receive from drug-related civil asset forfeiture, or the billions of dollars in income that our current strategy creates for companies in the prison and drug-testing industries, to name just a few. The drug cartels aren't the only ones that will suffer economically if we legalize drugs.

Alan Mason
Aguanga, Calif.

My compliments to Robert Barro for suggesting that we end the chaos in Colombia by decriminalizing drugs. The destruction of another country's economy and society is only one consequence of the drug war. There are others, equally serious and of more proximate interest to Americans: the overcrowding of our courts and prisons, the corruption of our law-enforcement officials, a frightening escalation of crime and violence, and the trampling of our constitutional rights, through:

-- Asset forfeiture (seizing Americans' property on merely the suspicion of a crime)

-- Threats to free speech (such as the government's recently revealed manipulation of TV scripts or its threat to arrest any doctor who even mentioned medical marijuana to a patient)

-- Gross violations of privacy, including the very kind of ''unwarranted search and seizure'' tactics that drove our founders to revolution.

No one wants kids using--or adults abusing--drugs. But there are viable and constructive alternatives to a policy that is clearly not working.

Alan M. Perlman
Highland Park, Ill.

What's behind the Exodus at AT&T

Not all managers at AT&T will receive stock options. According to an AT&T publication, only a select group of pre-identified managers will be afforded the opportunity to acquire them (''The talent drain at AT&T,'' Information Technology, Mar. 13).

Also, 53% of the folks at AT&T are not confident in AT&T management. If they were, the mass exodus would not be taking place. Not a workday goes by when I don't receive an e-mail saying another high-level management person has left.

The departures aren't confined to the upper echelons. Each day, I hear about lower-level management people leaving as well. With the departures, the work is being passed to those who have decided to stay. In sum, with the mass departures of many talented folks, the loss of key benefits and the increase in workload have not convinced several managers that CEO C. Michael Armstrong is taking AT&T in the right direction.

Terry Heiser
AT&T Manager
Livermore, Calif.

The California Primary Isn't What It Seems

''The case for open primaries'' (News: Analysis & Commentary, Mar. 13) was dead-on. As a relatively new California resident, I am appalled by the scam being perpetrated against the voters here. As author Lorraine Woellert points out, there are two rules working in concert to keep the election in the hands of the power brokers: The first is the pseudo-open primary, which isn't really open when you consider that only the votes of the party itself will be counted for selection of the candidate. And the second is the winner-take-all policy. With 162 delegates, that means it is feasible that Bush will walk away with at least 81 delegates who did not vote for him. If this doesn't smell of the old Chicago/Daley/party-boss politics, I don't know what does.

It's interesting that on this ballot there is also a proposal to put ''none of the above'' on California ballots in the future. Those in support of it say it will help decrease apathy and increase voter turnout. Before they go after new voters, how about making the ones who are voting count first?

Vernon E. Snyder
San Diego

Some Ads Could Put Lives at Risk

''Can Levi's be cool again?'' (The Corporation, Mar. 13) features the company, which, faced with sagging sales, is trying to lure a new generation to its products with a new ad campaign. You cite one TV commercial that features a shapely young blonde who removes her Levi's, drapes them over a set of railroad tracks, and waits for a passing train to transform them into cut-offs.

In December, after news of this ad leaked out through Advertising Age, Operation Lifesaver, the Lakewood (Ohio) PTA, and Representative Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio), who represents an area with heavy train traffic and high potential for tragedy, got in touch with Levi Strauss CEO Philip Marineau. They asked that the ads never see the light of day. Marineau responded that the campaign was under review and would not be shown during the Super Bowl, but he made no promises about the future.

By trying to capture the youth market with ''edgy'' ads like this, Levi Strauss has gone too far. The ad says it's O.K. to play around tracks and trains. This is pure fantasy. The reality is that every year, nearly 1,000 pedestrians are killed or severely injured while trespassing on railroad tracks and property. The Federal Railroad Administration's statistics for 1998 reveal that 29% of all trespasser fatalities were between the ages of 1 and 25.

With these facts in hand, it is irresponsible for a well-respected company to use images in their marketing that could result in copycat behavior by impressionable youths, unwittingly risking their lives for a pair of cut-offs.

Gerri L. Hall
President
Operation Lifesaver Inc.
Alexandria, Va.

Editor's note: Levi Strauss says it modified the ad after objections were raised.

Why Citizens Feel They Can't Relate to Washington

Your review of The Paradox of American Democracy by John Judis reports that public cynicism is at an all-time high, but that citizens haven't actually lost control of their democracy (''When good elites go bad,'' Books, Mar. 13). Ordinary Americans may still have a say in what happens in Washington, but they don't think they do, and this perception of powerlessness is the important reality of politics.

One of the major causes of the public's lack of interest is the fact that most people can't relate to the representatives elected to Congress. Women, for instance, have virtually nothing in common with the older men's club running our government. Yet it is women who need Social Security the most, who take care of sick kids, who have to face abortion choices, and who attend college in the highest numbers. It makes you wonder why women, and men, don't start a political party dedicated to gender equality in government.

George A. Dean
Southport, Conn.

Immigrants' Contribution to America

''Ease the way for skilled immigrants'' (Editorials, Mar. 6) argues that the way to increase the number of ''skilled immigrants'' is to reduce the number of immigrants admitted on the basis of family ties. But immigration need not be a zero-sum game. Instead, we should recognize the contribution immigrants of all skill levels make to America's extraordinary prosperity. And Congress should liberalize all categories of immigration in order to sustain it.

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has spoken repeatedly about the contributions of both skilled and unskilled immigrants. He has advised Congress to ''open up our immigration rolls significantly'' in order to ward off higher inflation and higher interest rates. Similarly, hotel, restaurant, and health-care employers, along with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, say the shortage of low-wage ''essential workers'' is an emergency that is causing companies to curtail expansion. They argue that ''when companies cannot fill jobs with U.S. workers, hiring foreign nationals should be a viable alternative.'' And organized labor is calling for a revision of immigration laws to give low-wage immigrants without legal status the right to stay permanently.

Finally, you argue that the U.S. should limit family reunification, to use those slots for ''immigrants with valuable skills.'' Recent studies by Rand Corp. and the Bureau of Economic Research found that legal immigrants, most of whom get in on family ties, have higher educational levels and more labor skills than the native born.

In effect, you argue that the U.S. should change current policy in order to admit immigrants who are educated and skilled, when currently policy already does so. Instead, you should stand with Greenspan, employers, and labor and argue for liberalizing immigration across the board. This will ensure that this nation of immigrants remains a nation of prosperity.

Frank Sharry
Executive Director
National Immigration Forum
Washington

Ohio University Plugs in All Its Students

''How wired is that campus?'' (Lifestyle, Mar. 13) fails to mention that a few universities have taken the next step: Not only are the dormitories wired, but computers are provided. Here at Ohio University, your dorm room comes complete with a network connection and free access, along with a Gateway Inc. computer to access that network. Basic software (Microsoft Office, browser, virus-protection, etc.) is provided, along with an Oki Data LED printer.

You mention that colleges are ''strongly suggesting that students have their own computers.'' But there are many students who cannot easily afford their own computers--and at Ohio University, they don't have to.

Mary Patacca
Athens, Ohio

Who's Worrying About People with Allergies?

Using the milk protein lactoferrin to neutralize microbes that infect beef is a wonderful idea--unless you are allergic to cow's milk products (''Keeping the bugs off the beef,'' News: Analysis & Commentary, Mar. 6). As the mother of a young daughter with allergies to cow's milk, peanuts, tree nuts, soy protein, and garlic, I already have a terrible time just keeping her safe from allergens. Giving her a balanced diet is an additional challenge. Will the Agriculture Dept. give any consideration to the effects of lactoferrin on those with food allergies before approving the substance?

For our family, the safer option is irradiation. But will consumers get a choice in this matter, or will lactoferrin be quietly added to the food supply, as was done with genetically modified corn and soybeans?

Laura Shioli
San Jose, Calif.