PLEASE PROTECT OUR CHILDREN

THE heartbreaking stories from drug-affected people and their families
continue - and my family is one of them.

I concur with every wretched and hopeless scenario these families
experience or experienced. There is no help when your 18-year-old threatens
suicide and you go to your doctor begging for something, anything, to help
you help your child.

My son drove down south while on speed. We called the police and we were
told: "Sorry, until he breaks the law our hands are tied." The mental
health authority, too, was unwilling to intervene.

These kids won't admit their problem, but I'm an authority on my son and
yet I'm not allowed to admit there is a problem on his behalf - I'm not an
expert, according to the experts.

The anger, grief and family breakdowns are statistics to "the experts", but
they don't live it as we do.

All the time we're being told that there is nothing we can do, our kids
fall further into the abyss. Where have all our leaders gone? This scourge
is now becoming part of our primary school system and the education
department has the nerve to say there are no hard drugs in our primary
schools.

How well I remember years ago when marijuana use was a bit of a joke. It's
not such a joke now, is it?

Until there is the political will to deal harshly with drug dealers by
changing the pathetically inadequate laws, how can there be protection for
our children?

Until Professor Fiona Stanley's voice on the crisis affecting the
development of our young is heard and acted on and until parents' opinions
are acted on, nothing will change to protect our children.

NAMES and ADDRESS supplied.

IT'S MY CHOICE

YOUR correspondent who said the buck stops with the users has hit the nail
right on the head (Letters, 15/8).

I am 54 and I use drugs. Despite having left school at the end of Year 10
and never undertaking any further education, I regard myself as of slightly
above average intelligence, articulate and educated to a satisfactory
level. I have always been in employment and I have had some ripper jobs.

Although I am divorced, I have two great children and enjoy a very amiable
relationship with my former wife. Oh, and I am homosexual. At the age of 16
I began using tobacco and within a very short time I had to do this, on
average, 20 times a day and continued the practice for 31 years.

In the year I turned 23 I began using alcohol on a daily basis and still,
to this day, I use alcohol. When I was 36 I began using cannabis. I have
used this drug on a daily basis. However, I no longer find myself capable
of sustaining the practice because I find it makes decision-making
difficult. I still find it a very sociable thing to do with certain of my
friends.

I have twice used LSD, speed once and ecstasy twice. Apart from
prescription drugs, the usual stuff, this is the extent of my drug indulgence.

I will never use LSD or speed again and I have a horror of heroin and all
the other drugs that one reads about nowadays. I will certainly use ecstasy
again at some time.

These experiences have always taken place in a controlled environment and I
have never presented any threat to the public. I am not a criminal. Drug
use is at the discretion of the user and I have no idea how to tackle the
problem at hand.

COLIN WHITE, Highgate.

THE DRUG SUMMIT

I AM astounded at the number of correspondents who say they know "the only
way to handle the drug problem". Every man and his dog have suddenly become
an expert. How would they take it if there was a decree that everyone shall
watch the AFL and drink a certain brand of beer? It would be tough if you
happened to follow any other code and drank another brand of beer. What is
the difference with drug treatment? Because people are individuals, the
more types of treatment the better. I don't even have a problem with zero
tolerance as long as it isn't pushed as the only way. If it works for some
people, hallelujah, but let those for whom it doesn't work have the choice
for life on another pathway.

JAN STEELE, Dianella.

JUST a quick question. How can it be a viable option that heroin users be
provided with "safe havens" to administer their drugs while a
personal-use-only marijuana user, if caught by the police, will face a
court hearing and a hefty fine? Regardless of whether the use of softer
drugs, like dope, leads to the use of hard drugs, there is a big difference
between the two. If heroin addicts get police-free zones in which they can
enjoy being zonked out, it would be ludicrous if marijuana isn't, at the
very least, decriminalised within the next two years.

CARLA VINCIULLO, Kingsley.

IF ADDICTIVE drugs are legalised and boys are allowed to have homosexual
sex at 16, what would happen if someone contracts a disease from drugs or
gay sex? Could we expect a government to take full responsibility in the
litigation that may follow and pay out huge compensation payments, like the
tobacco companies?

BRIAN SUTTON, Golden Bay.

I THOUGHT Ted Wilkes' credibility had reached its low point when he went on
his infamous marron-fishing expedition. It looks as though it hasn't. It's
a shame that his negative, divisive and sometimes outlandish views and
actions get such prominent media coverage at the expense of the views and
actions of the members of our community who, through their views and
actions, are trying to improve living standards and the quality of life for
all of our community.

FRANK NIKOLETTI, Floreat.

NARCOTICS anonymous is a fellowship of men and women who share their
experiences, strengths and hopes with each other. Like Alcoholics
Anonymous, it is saving many lives around the world. It has brought me back
from the gates of hell and continues to restore my life to dignity and
self-respect. A pill does not produce the desire to swallow a pill, it
produces the symptoms that require that the pill be taken for relief.
Addiction is the only disease that needs to be diagnosed by the patient.

NAME and address supplied.

HOWARD'S WAY IS RIGHT

PRIME Minister John Howard is right not to support heroin trials. Once they
are started could they ever be stopped?

The beneficiaries of this publicly funded drug charity would rely on a
service that increases their level of addiction. What happens to these
addicts when a new administration finally realises that the trials are not
solving the problem and the dealers have continued finding more customers
to supply? They can't just be cut off and sent back to the street.

I am happy for my taxes to be spent on the fight against drugs, but give us
the chance to vote for the only real answer - the Singapore model. The
proposal that possession of a trafficable quantity of narcotics be
punishable by death should be put to a referendum. It's time for the public
to demand it for the sake of our children.

There have been too many young lives lost, too many home break-ins, too
much dislocation of society and now too much theorising by civil
libertarians at yet another public gabfest that will make little difference.

When political parties have shown they are bereft of ideas to solve the
drug problem why are we denied the right to vote for this option? Why are
politicians worried about such an idea when they know it would be
overwhelmingly supported?

PETER GILBERT, Shenton Park.