DRUG PROSECUTION IS JUST ABOUT MORAL PERSECUTION

Re: Pot keeps cops in fighting shape, July 18. Instead of just standing
there with their tape recorders running and their minds anything but, why
didn't your reporters ask the police officers a few pertinent questions
like these?

1. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms seems to imply that citizens have the
right to pursue their own form of happiness so long as they hurt no one
else. Thus, it seems Canadians have the right to ingest any drug, however
harmful. Why does the government feel it has the right to punish
individuals for what they choose to ingest into their own bodies?

2. If drugs are banned because they are harmful to users, why, then, are
tobacco and alcohol not banned? Doesn't this seem unfair to those who
prefer illegal drugs? If we ban one harmful drug, shouldn't we ban all
harmful drugs?

3. The 1973 Le Dain Commission concluded, "There appears to be little
permanent physiological damage from chronic use of pure opiate narcotics."
Why, then, ban heroin?

4. If prohibition is so great, why did America give up on prohibition?

5. I've been told that police officers support laws like our drug laws
because they increase crime and hence police budgets and police power. In
fact, I'm told they would be in seventh heaven if tobacco and/or alcohol
were banned. Would you care to comment?

6. Is it your position that the police are duty bound to enforce any law no
matter how unjust? Perhaps I should remind you that Adolph Eichmann
protested he was simply following orders when he assisted in implementing
Hitler's Final Solution for the Jews, but the Israelis hung him anyway. Did
Eichmann get a raw deal in your estimation?

For what it's worth, here is my position on drug prohibition. There is no
more reason to punish drug users and dealers today than there was in the
past to hang witches, lynch blacks or gas Jews.

By Alan Randell, Saanich