As a student from England studying at Penn State for the last academic year, I have read your paper with interest and followed two consistent trends in reports regarding local police.

I am referring firstly to the tragic disappearance of Cindy Song in October, and the apparent inability of local police forces to find any clues to her whereabouts, let alone what has happened to her, or who may be responsible.

The other trend of local police forces is the success they have achieved in combating the trafficking and personal possession of soft drugs. It was reported in February that University Park campus ranked first among 6,269 colleges in drug-related arrests in 2000; and that 175 Penn State students were arrested or subject to university sanctions in that year due to drug violations. The vast majority of these arrests were for marijuana, universally recognized as less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco.

I am not suggesting there is a causal link between the success of the local police's drugs policy and their lack of success in regards to Cindy Song.

However, perhaps too many police resources are being directed towards a failed attempt to combat soft drug use, and not enough towards dealing with serious crimes. In England the government plans to heavily relax the police's attitude to marijuana, no longer arresting those found in possession of small amounts of the drug.

The purpose is solely a question of using police resources efficiently. Such a scheme has been piloted in an area of London, and saved 1,350 hours of police time, equivalent to two extra policemen.