LETTERS

JUST SAY WHAT?

"Shouldn't we have to explain to our kids not only why we used grass but also why we got drunk in college and why we still smoke cigarettes?" IGNACIO L. GOTZ Uniondale, New York

In the '70s, drug use among adolescents reached the highest levels in history [NATION, Dec. 9]. Alcohol and drugs killed so many teenagers that their life-span decreased while everyone else lived longer. To parents today we say, You can stop kids from going off the cliff. The prevention movement that we helped lead reduced regular drug use among a group of adolescents and young adults by two-thirds between 1979 and 1992. Your love and concern are the best things your kids have. Be loving but firm. Tell them you expect them not to use drugs or alcohol. Period. Band together with other parents to reinforce that expectation. Even though your kids will complain now (that's their job), they'll thank you when they grow up. And you'll thank yourself for having given them the chance to. SUE RUSCHE, Executive Director National Families in Action Atlanta

I am 16, and when I was 13, I started smoking pot almost every day. I did not stop until I got caught, on purpose, by my parents three months before I turned 15. I was in a daze during the seventh and eighth grades. Even though I have been clean for a year, I still cannot handle any sort of relationship with the opposite sex. I seem to have missed the time when all my friends were learning to do that. My advice to parents: don't tell your kids that you smoked pot, and question them if you are ever suspicious. If you tell them about your past drug use, it only helps them rationalize their own use. NAME WITHHELD ON REQUEST Mount Laurel, New Jersey

Teens in America today are nothing like the hippies of the '60s. I wish people would stop comparing the two. The kids of the '60s were concerned with protest and freedom, and they used drugs for intellectual pursuits and rebellion. Kids now are just selfish and need a quick fix for their problems. Some of the excuses you hear today are "I can't handle my parents" and "I am bored with school." Young people need to start thinking of others instead of themselves. TIMOTHY OLEKSIAK, age 16 Melvindale, Michigan

Here's a tip for those lost children of the baby boomers: Don't wait around for your parents to give you some profound advice. The boomers are afraid to discuss drug use among themselves, let alone with their kids. THOMAS BOWMAN Tinley Park, Illinois

Drug Strategies, a nonprofit research institute, released Making the Grade: A Guide to School Drug Prevention Programs last summer. It reviewed 47 of the most widely available programs and rated them in more than 10 categories. Only six programs earned an A in "program quality," the key rating. Most got a C, and six got a D. No wonder our children aren't learning the critically important prevention lessons that will help them resist drugs. MATHEA FALCO, President Drug Strategies Washington

We recently conducted the first ever survey of teens and parents from the same household on attitudes about substance abuse. The poll showed that 46% of boomer parents believe their kids will try illegal drugs, and 40% feel they have very little influence over their teens' decision about whether to use drugs. Teenagers who are aware that their parents used drugs are at higher risk. Teens with parents who are involved in their lives--who set curfews, know where they are on weekends and approve of their friends, who eat dinner with them five or more times a week and attend religious services with them--are at far lower risk. Parents--especially those who used drugs--need to send a clear message that drugs, including marijuana, are harmful and dangerous and that using them is wrong. Instead of blaming their teens' friends or society at large for their children's drug use, as the vast majority in our survey did, parents need to become involved in keeping their children drug free. ALYSE LYNN BOOTH Director of Communications The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse Columbia University New York City

If so few adults are ashamed of their "experiments" or even of their casual use of pot, are we teenagers really expected to be ashamed of the times we have smoked weed? As a sophomore in high school, I believe the adults of America are now paying for their own mistakes by having kids follow their example and not their dogma. SOREN HARWARD Montgomery, Ohio

My teenagers know that their parents smoked pot when they were young. When I advised my youngsters not to do the same thing, they wondered why. I had only to ask, "Do you want to end up like me?" NAME WITHHELD ON REQUEST Simi Valley, California

After 15 years of recreational marijuana use, I find myself in the uncomfortable position of declaring that, overall, pot has been a negative influence in my life. My short-term memory is very short term. Learning anything can be a true chore, and my apathy grows steadily. Do I regret having started? Yes, I do. But is it the government's place to tell me or any other adult what we can and cannot do to ourselves? Absolutely not. NAME WITHHELD ON REQUEST Somerville, New Jersey

ABOUT THE KIDS AT NEW TRIER

Your story on drug use at New Trier High School [NATION, Dec. 9] quoted a juvenile officer for the Glencoe, Illinois, police as saying, "We've got judges who live in this area. They'll explore every avenue before sending a suburban kid" to Cook County jail. As the presiding judge for the second municipal district, which covers New Trier High, I wish to respond to that charge. In this district and throughout Cook County, each criminal case, no matter who the defendant may be, is handled on an individual basis and with the goal of administering justice in a fair and evenhanded manner. The youthful drug offender, whether a "suburban kid" or a city kid, is of special concern to the judges. They wish to impose sentences that will address issues of abuse and addiction, serve as a deterrent to future criminal action and penalize the defendant. Anyone who thinks an offender will be treated more favorably by the court because of his or her socioeconomic status or attendance at a particular school is mistaken. HAROLD W. SULLIVAN, Presiding Judge Second Municipal District Circuit Court of Cook County Skokie, Illinois

I am a drug-free student at New Trier High. I acknowledge the use of marijuana by New Trier students but not in the numbers stated in your article, which said three-fifths of the student body "smoke pot." New Trier's student drug problem is in no way as great as you portrayed it. SHAWN SOCOLOFF Glencoe, Illinois

We should have said three-fifths of New Trier students have smoked pot at least once.

TWO VIEWS ON MARIJUANA USE

Beautiful! By baring their hearts in a mother-daughter discussion on the difficult issue of using marijuana [NATION, Dec. 9], Margaret and Courtney Carlson have given more powerful testimony of what parents and kids face than statistics or analysis can. And, above all, their stories show how things can work out O.K. when there is the proper mix of a clear sense of right and wrong, authority, love and discipline. RONALD NELSON Hettinger, North Dakota

LIBERALISM LIVES

Michael Kinsley is probably right in saying America is moving to the left on issues like marijuana and gay rights [VIEWPOINT, Dec. 9]. However, the fact that the country is moving to the left does not mean it is doing so intentionally, motivated by enlightened ideological considerations. Some people may have become more tolerant of the vices of others because they want their own vices to be tolerated in return. "You can have your vice if you will let me keep mine" is the philosophy underlying America's leftward shift. It is a benighted movement away from the light of any moral standard, the impulse of a nation that no longer has the courage to call others to account for their actions for fear it will be judged by the same standard. GIUSEPPE BUTERA Washington

Kinsley tries to tie together the fortunes of liberalism and libertarianism. That is a fatal flaw in his argument. Liberalism views marijuana use and gay rights as morally equivalent, while libertarian thought does not attach any morality to either of them. JON ACKER Tuscaloosa, Alabama

CAN ANXIETY BE GENETIC?

Oedipus, schmoedipus. Scientists have found "a significant correlation between the presence of the short gene and... neurosis" [BEHAVIOR, Dec. 9]. Are they talking about a life of dread-filled consternation, apprehension, psychic tension, imagined sin, constant self-recrimination and a fear-based view of life? All this is the result of the short gene's inability to promote an adequate amount of "the molecules that facilitate serotonin reabsorption"? After years of psychotherapy, ingesting the serotonin-producing drug Prozac and beating up on myself for being so "weak," I now learn that science is suggesting I am perhaps no more responsible for being anxious than is the hemophiliac for his medical condition. The fault is not mine; it's in the genes. Not a character flaw but a genetic predisposition. What a blessed, redemptive relief! But now I am worried. How can they be sure? JUDITH M. FITTGE New Orleans

The second headline on your story, "The fault, dear Sigmund, may be in our genes," took a potshot at Sigmund Freud. You should not have implied that Freud omitted constitutional factors as a cause of neuroses. Nothing could be further from the truth. Over and over, Freud cited the individual's constitution as an important factor disposing to neurosis. Further, it is misleading to ascribe the label neurotic to everyone who might be carrying this newly discovered short gene. So-called normal people can also be anxious and worried. GAIL S. REED New York City

WASHINGTON'S "SOCIAL CALLS"

In her column referring to Indonesian billionaire James Riady [NOTEBOOK, Dec. 16], Margaret Carlson misstated a New York Times news article and confused it with an editorial. The facts of our article are indisputable: before the election, the White House ignored the advice of two of its lawyers, Jane Sherburne and Mark Fabiani, and withheld from the public information about President Clinton's meetings with Riady. On advice of Bruce Lindsey, the President's aide and good friend, the meetings, which included discussions of foreign policy, were simply called "social calls." Clinton's spokesman, Michael McCurry, has since acknowledged that "social calls" was inaccurate.

Carlson quotes anonymous sources as saying that Sherburne "never felt she had been overruled or lied to by Lindsey and that the Times had torqued up a conflict." The article did not say that Sherburne had been "overruled" by Lindsey. The editorial did. Our article did quote Sherburne on the record. She confirmed the accuracy of the quotations before we published. Carlson also asserts that the other lawyer, Mark Fabiani, "has never confirmed the account." This is not true, according to White House officials. Carlson made no serious attempt to get the Times's side of the story. ANDREW ROSENTHAL, Washington Editor The New York Times Washington

The Times news story never said that Sherburne and Fabiani were lied to or overruled by Lindsey. It said they were ignored. It was a Times editorial that used the word overruled. Fabiani says he was not overruled. Sherburne confirms that she also feels she was not overruled.

WHO HAS THE POWER?

Charles Krauthammer's commentary on the California Civil Rights Initiative [ESSAY, Dec. 9], which makes affirmative action illegal in the state, was notable for what it failed to mention, namely that white males hold 95% of management positions; that affirmative action already existing in the form of preferences benefiting whites, veterans and women is not being questioned; and that those who want differences treated with equality are pursuing what should be the American ideal. Krauthammer's most glaring omission, however, is his failure to propose any alternative to eliminating racial discrimination in the workplace. Declaring that such discrimination is illegal naively assumes that the institutionalized and dangerously covert racist attitudes that made affirmative action necessary in the first place can be legislated away. It fails to ask the bottom-line question, Who has the power here? DANIEL A. MILLS Portland, Oregon

If Alabama had held a referendum on segregation in the 1950s or on slavery in the 1850s, wickedness would have won each time. Krauthammer calls it "democracy" when a numerically stronger group (whites) forces the numerically weaker group (blacks) to do its will. Enlightened men call it tyranny. JONATHAN FARLEY Berkeley, California

MICKEY'S NO MOUSE

Disney brought joy to my childhood. I am grateful for that. Now the company's standing up to China's reactionary position on the film Kundun [BUSINESS, Dec. 9] dignifies my everyday life. There is no higher satisfaction than seeing a company make money by following its ideals. MARIA GLOVER Las Vegas

NOT SO GOOFY

It was completely insensitive of you to say President Clinton looked "goofy" wearing various outfits on his visit to the Pacific Rim [NOTEBOOK, Dec. 9]. You showed him wearing the barong tagalog, which is the traditional formal wear of Filipinos. As a Filipino American, I am proud whenever I wear my barong, and I certainly don't think I look goofy. FRANK LOPEZ Atlanta

I think you're jealous. Not only is Clinton one of the smartest, most capable, most likable Presidents we have ever had, he is also the most photogenic. It doesn't matter what he wears; he still looks like a million. Eat your heart out! EMMA LOU DIEMER Santa Barbara, California

JB OXFORD RESPONDS

Your report on [discount brokerage company] JB Oxford is replete with erroneous inferences and inaccuracies [BUSINESS, Dec. 9]. Extensive information provided to your reporter by the company was simply omitted from the story. You referred to [JB Oxford consultant] Irving Kott as "the power behind" the firm who wants "to stay out of sight." The fact is that not the board, management or Kott would describe himself as "the power behind" our company.

As I told your reporter, Kott cannot make policy, hire, fire or otherwise commit the company. Kott's role as a consultant has been written about, with the company's cooperation, in a number of major news and business publications since 1993 as well as disclosed to regulators.

Your story also indicates that Oxford "hotly denied" allegations that our firm was engaging in dubious practices associated with Kott. But we were not asked about any specific incidents. We now see in the story vague references to complaints from three customers about "price-manipulation schemes," but since we were not given details, it was virtually impossible to respond. Suffice it to say, we have not received complaints or inquiries that purport to suggest price manipulation at JB Oxford. Your reporter's allegation is false. Our company executes or clears approximately 3 million trades per year, as you noted, and our sales and trading practices are in line with industry standards.

Finally, the implication that I am acting as a "front man" for Kott is false and insulting to me, both professionally and personally. I have spent more than 25 years building a professional reputation, and despite what anonymous ex-employees may have told your reporter, I would not do anything to put that reputation at risk. JB Oxford's cooperation with your reporter included a four-hour interview, written responses to numerous questions, provision of extensive detail on the progress made over the past two years in turning our company around, and discussion of our future plans. But you chose to publish little of this information. The obvious bias in your report did a disservice to our company's 300-plus employees, approximately 20,000 discount customers and over 1,000 shareholders. STEPHEN RUBENSTEIN Chairman and CEO JB Oxford Holdings, Inc. Beverly Hills, California