SPEND CASH ON HELPING ADDICTS

Re: "Solving the city's policing problems," Jan. 8. Do we really need
an expensive independent review of current police staffing problems?
How about something far more reasonable, affording more allocations
to actually address the concerns?

The editorial states that about 90 per cent of crimes are
drug-related, "petty but costly ones committed by addicts," and that
"the effective way to deal with them is to attack addictions, rather
than simply deal with the same crimes over and over."

But if the city ever did something effective about addictions, we
wouldn't need an increased police force. In fact, the city could
forgo the additional $3.9 million requested, and reduce existing
costs, by first allocating the portion wasted on policing and putting
that 90 per cent toward permanent housing, treatment and education
for the target group primarily responsible for the crime.

Which can we presume will be considered more important to
politicians? The appearance of addressing policing problems or
enacting real solutions for a far less respectable group? My guess is
the police will get what they ask at a much higher cost to society
than mere taxes.

Dismantling an existing flawed system takes more guts and
perseverance than most politicians can muster. We no longer expect
such leadership, but is the mandate of responsible bookkeeping to be
trumped by the appearance of urban control?

Natalia Kuzmyn

Saanich