In your column on the "Abortion Arugment we Missed" (Dec 1st), you state that the right to privacy would invalidate many state statutes that were in effect when the 14th Amendment was adopted, "even (those against) drug use."

In fact, there were no laws against drug use in this era. During the 19th century, the right to use drugs was commonly accepted. In my own grandparents' time, opium, morphine, cannabis, and other narcotics were available over the counter. Local laws against Chinese smoking opium did begin to appear in the late 19th century, beginning with the San Francisco Opium Den Ordinance of 1875. However, these laws were directed at commercial dens, not private use. Not until the 20th century, when laws against possession began to be enacted, did state laws target users.

The right to use drugs was recognized as late as 1887 in a California Supreme Court decision (In re Sic) striking down a Stockton anti-opium ordinance: "To prohibit vice is not ordinarily considered within the police power of the state. A crime is a trespass upon some right, public or private. The object of the police power is to protect rights from the assaults of others, not to banish sin from the world or make men moral"

In short, the perception that laws against private use of drugs are necessary is a 20th century conceit. Our Victorian ancestors managed well enough without them. It is testimony to Americans' lack of historical memory that we assume drugs must have always been illegal. An objective look at the record will show that our ancestors handled drugs far better than we do today.

Dale Gieringer

Drug Policy Forum of California

2215-R Market St. #278, San Francisco CA 94114