I tried to remain silent on this issue; unfortunately it’s been eating away at my sensibilities with every new newspaper article on this issue.

Fort Wayne City Council has passed a ban on a perfectly legal product because it is being used by consumers in a manner inconsistent with the manufacturer’s labeling. This product is being used by consumers to get high by smoking it, even though it is not being sold as a smoking product. Apparently it contains absolutely no ingredients that are on any lists of controlled substances, or it would already be illegal to manufacture, distribute and sell. The product in question is just the latest in a long history of improvised substance abuse by consumers; in every instance the product in question is a legal product used inconsistently with the manufacturer’s labeling.

I could offer a long list of these types of products to make my point, but I think that sensationalizing those products in print may encourage their abuse by individuals who may not have been previously enlightened to their potential for abuse. Are we going to ban all these others as well? I think not.

Please make no mistake of my intentions of speaking out on this issue. I do not advocate substance abuse in any way, shape or form, but I do advocate civil liberties, personal freedoms and a personal understanding of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We as constituents to elected government simply cannot allow our leaders to react to hysteria by unilaterally (and unconstitutionally) banning legal products.

There is a system already in place (Food and Drug Administration) that decides what is a controlled substance and what is not, and I think that this is one of those issues that should be handled by that agency, or at least by state government and not in a piecemeal fashion that would change from city to city or county to county.

As I started off stating, I tried to remain silent because I did not want to appear pro-drug abuse. But I honestly believe the real issue here is local governments overstepping their constitutional boundaries with regard to prohibitions and bans, and if we allow it today, what will it be tomorrow? In closing I am including a quote from Daniel Webster: “It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.” I sincerely hope that no taxpayer money is used to defend this flawed legislation when it eventually makes its way though the court system. However, I am a realist and I know that lawsuits have shaped our political system just as much as our legislators ever have.

DONALD W. CORAH

Fort Wayne