GOVERNMENT'S ANTI-DRUG TV ADS SHOULD DISTINGUISH BETWEEN SOFT AND
HARD DRUGS, SAYS ONE READER

Re: "Conservative government's $64-million anti-drug TV ads motivated
more by politics
than research, say some experts," (The Hill Times, June 9, p. 18).
The media and other
commentators have apparently failed to note the irony in this ad, that the most
important slang terms parents should know-and should make sure their
children know-"soft
drugs" and "hard drugs," are not mentioned.

It may be a desirable goal for young people to never start smoking
marijuana, but not everyone is in agreement on this, as marijuana is
widely regarded as a far less harmful recreational drug than alcohol.
But surely we can all agree that it would be preferable for young
people, or people of any age, to be using marijuana rather than
heroin, cocaine, or crystal meth.

Educating parents and their children about the significant differences
between soft drugs and hard drugs would, no doubt, be more effective
in reducing harmful drug use in our society than this Orwellian
anti-drug ad with its bleak colours, bleak music, and children
speaking in bleak tones, which suggest press releases from the
Ministry of Truth more than anything else.

George Kosinski

Gibsons, B.C.