Following the dark opening years of World War II, a couple of key events in late 1942 — a military setback for the Germans in North Africa and the promise of additional U.S. aid — offered the beleaguered British some hope. Winston Churchill uttered three sentences that made a little hope go a long way.

Those lines could well apply to where we stand now— nearly 55 years later — in our efforts to reform the drug laws. The idea of "the end of the beginning" accurately describes all that we reformers have accomplished and how far we have yet to go. The old order of drug control—sanctified by hoary myth and supported by governmental coercive power—is under the greatest, most effective series of attacks since March 1, 1915, when national prohibition went into effect.

DPF is proud of the role it played in helping to mount these attacks. DPF put its resources — intellectual and financial —behind the two initiative campaigns in Arizona and California last year. DPF financial support began the spring of 1995 with $25,000 from the Grant Program and grew to a total of about $328,000.

The foundation supported Propositions 200 and 215 because dedicated people in both states put together strong campaigns. It had been long past time to put these reform ideas to the political test. And DPF's contributions would not have been possible without the strong support of the DPF membership. Thank you all.

The history of the proposition campaigns is in this issue. Even though I agree with what the people in those states accomplished, these initiatives should not be held to be above criticism by reformers. To that end, we reprint here (p. 50) an article by a leading critic of medicalization —Dr. Thomas Szasz — for perspective.

The skirmishing over both the Arizona and California initiatives is bound to continue — and requires constant attention by those who care about the future of the country. In Arizona, the state government is intent on gutting the law put on the books by the voters in an open election. In California, the federal government seeks to perform the same destructive task. A hopeful sign is the preliminary injunction granted by federal judge Fern Smith preventing the DEA from revoking the prescription licenses of doctors who recommend marijuana. This was a great victory for all those who worked to protect California's doctors. However, as Rufus King points out (p. 33), the next step is to protect the patients who use the drug and those who actually provide it for them. That step will truly be a giant one.

Although The Drug Policy Letter routinely tackles controversial issues, the Fall Letter faltered by not adequately explaining the importance of a tobacco article. Many readers attacked Jacob Sullum's defense of Bob Dole's off-the-cuff tobacco remarks from last summer rDole's Unwelcome, but True, Views on Tobaccol .

That article was perhaps not the proper introduction to such a complicated issue. As I wrote in the last issue, I don't fully agree with Mr. Sullum's argument, but I recognize its importance to the dialogue.

It goes without saying that nicotine is addictive to many people, but I don't support cracking down on the tobacco industry because it largely refuses to acknowledge that point. There is no question that it can do a better job of keeping cigarettes out of the hands of young people. I believe — perhaps at odds with Mr. Sullum — that the tobacco industry's advertising should be severely restricted. That said, I do not believe in any other form of prohibition for adult smokers, nor do I advocate excessive taxation of tobacco.

I do believe, however, that smokers have to recognize that part of the cost of using a drug is paying for the self-inflicted harms.

The Letter's job is to bring out the differences among reformers in addition to pointing out where the drug warriors are wrong or mistaken. As can be seen by the letters that follow, we were chastised for publishing an article based in part on the assumption that publication equals agreement. I say, publication equals commitment to a rational debate.

On that score, we succeeded. Mr. Sullum set out his points in provocative prose and our readers responded in kind. Our cup runneth over. And we suspect that it will run over again, especially when they read some of the other articles critical of much that many drug policy reformers hold sacred. Our job is to keep a debate going not only in the larger society but within the society of reformers as well.