It amazes me that Dr. Amesh Adalja and others feel that the decriminalization of drugs would end violence in the drug trade. Let's explore that.

What is meant by decriminalization — having the government sell drugs or taking the punishment associated with drug trafficking away (neither of which would reduce the current amount of drugs on the street nor the associated violence)?

Drug dealers would have two choices: Stop dealing drugs and get a job at McDonald's to pay for their lavish lifestyle, or increase their distribution area to make up for the lost profits that legalization would entail.

Turf wars and the associated violence between dealers, and innocent bystanders, would escalate as they sought to increase their distribution areas and profit margin as the price of drugs was going down. It's simple economics.

How many jobs would be lost as people quit work to try to "get rich fast" by selling drugs? Drug dealers would need to seek more buyers to make the same amount of profit they were used to getting. They would need to entice younger buyers, in order to increase their sales.

There was a survey done many years ago that asked people what the biggest reason was for them deciding not to try drugs. The overwhelming answer was their fear of arrest.

Since we are a nation of excess, once that fear is taken away, everyone would be trying drugs — from doctors to airline pilots to bus drivers transporting children to school.

The amount of DUI accidents and arrests would triple. That would increase the cost of law enforcement, insurance and other related elements.

Who is going to pay for the greatly increased health care costs associated with increased drug use/addiction and the medical accidents associated with drug use? Is this cost something that the non-drug users should be responsible for?

Decriminalization would protect the drug dealer. But some poor users who would get high and bust up local bars or beat up their spouse would go to jail.

Having the government sell drugs is not the answer either. As anything the government gets involved in, there would be a billion-dollar agency responsible for the administration — and the budget probably would double every year.

Limits on the amount of drugs the government could distribute would have to be enacted for liability and medical reasons, to keep addicts and others from suing the government because of an overdose, or actions they took against others while high on drugs.

And what if someone who currently is using a certain amount of cocaine per day would be told by the government that he or she would be allowed to receive only half that amount? It's back out on the street, robbing and stealing to get the money needed to buy the extra amount.

Drug law enforcement would have to exist to prevent non-government-issued drugs from flooding the market.

Where would we be today if it wasn't for the gallant efforts of law enforcement in seizing tons and tons of drugs every year? How many more people would be addicted today if these drugs had not been interdicted and, instead, had entered this country?

I also need to remind people like Adalja that prescription drug abuse far exceeds cocaine and heroin abuse combined. The recent rash of pharmacy robberies attests to the fact that there is violence associated with prescription abuse.

The answer is a simple "Just say no" — no demand, no supply, simple economics.