I got some of those angry letters.

Using a variety of words, my ticked-off correspondents all said the same thing: Pot and liquor both hurt a lot of people. They're right. What's more, the rest of us rely on the cops and the counselors to clean up the damaged lives, and sometimes the damaged bodies, that result from drug and alcohol abuse.

The question isn't whether some people are going to be hurt by pot or by booze, because obviously, some people are. The real question to ask is when should the government make rules and when should families make rules. In the case of pot, the right answer is a lot more family and a little less government.

Most of us who have a drink enjoy it. We don't hurt ourselves and we don't hurt anyone else. So as a society, we've decided that using alcohol is pretty much an individual choice. Together, we've decided that alcohol should be legal - even though we acknowledge that some people can't handle it.

Marijuana should be treated the same way. People smoke pot because they enjoy it. Most users can handle pot without becoming dope fiends and without hurting anyone else. Just as with alcohol the government ought to make marijuana legal, even though we acknowledge that some people can't handle it.

One of my objections to the criminal treatment of marijuana is that it breeds disrespect for other anti-drug laws. When a hard drug hurts the vast majority of users, there's a good argument for the government stepping in. The government should regulate hard drugs because these drugs hurt most users, relatively few escaping harm.

In contrast, families should decide about pot and liquor, which hurt few users, most escaping harm. But in all cases, when a drug user endangers others we should throw the book at him. So by all means ban crack and raid meth labs. And tighten up on drunk driving.

Not long ago, Washington lowered the DUI blood alcohol limit from .10 to .08. If it were up to me we'd do what the Norwegians do and set the limit at .02 -- and enforce it. In Norway, you don't drive after more than one drink. In fact, the accepted custom is that if you're driving you don't drink at all.

But if the government is going to lighten up on drug regulation, families had better tighten up. As a father, let me tell you what I've learned from my daughters, one in high school and one in college. First, kids can get their hands on anything they want. If you think the school, police, or anyone else is keeping your kids from getting drugs or liquor, then you're the one in la-la land. Kids need the internal fortitude to keep themselves out of trouble.

Second, at least at college, the dominant drug abuse problem is booze. The problem isn't college kids having a little too much to drink. The problem is college kids getting every-weekend-plastered, vomiting-in-the-halls, rushed-to-the-emergency-room drunk. If you have a young adult going off to college -- University of Washington, Ivy League, doesn't matter where -- they're going to see lots of binge drinking and feel peer pressure to join in.

Our family's policy has had two parts. We've told the girls that there's zero tolerance for combining alcohol or any other drug with automobiles, whether driving or as a passenger. That means the girls know that we'll pick them up anywhere/anytime if they're in an uncomfortable situation.

The other side of the policy is that as the girls become older teenagers we sometimes share a glass of wine as a family. We don't think that setting up alcohol as the proverbial "forbidden fruit" is healthy.

Enjoying a taste of a good Washington state merlot is a pleasure to be shared with family -- in moderation -- at home.

###

Dick Startz is Castor Professor of Economics and Davis Distinguished Scholar at the University of Washington. He can be reached at econcol@u.washington.edu.