FOULDS' HEAD MIRED IN CLOUD OF CONFUSION

Editor:

So KTW editor Christopher Foulds knows "countless people who treat
marijuana . . . as a social indulgence, one to be shared at a party
or consumed after a hard day at work" ('Not all drugs are equal: How
about legal pot?' Nov. 5).

His proximity to the countless people, the dozens of people he knows
enjoying their indulgence, does appear mind-altering.

Is there a possibility he is a victim of second-hand smoke? Perhaps.
Is he too close to his subject?

Perhaps. Are his opinions under an influence?

Perhaps.

Is he using his column to promote rather than inform? Absolutely. Is
he being irresponsible? Absolutely. Is he wrong? Absolutely.

To state that pot is not a gateway drug makes one wonder about the
content of the clouds in which Foulds has his head. The most recent
feedback from hard-drug users on Vancouver's downtown eastside is
that marijuana was the start of the trip to greater drug indulgence.

Foulds is asking the people at the wrong end of the spectrum.
Marijuana pals will all say it's harmless. But asks the pill and
needle users where it all began.

They have nothing more to lose for telling the truth.

To claim that legalization "would benefit society in at least two
areas" is really blowing smoke.

Removing the profit motive would not reduce the consumption of drugs.

Like any business, if the profit motive for marijuana were removed,
drug dealers would just introduce and promote a new or enhanced drug
to their product line. Introduction of replacement products would
mean legalization of marijuana would not free up any resources to
address the issue of the potency and destructive nature of the
various substances available for indulgence.

The unexpected consequence of legalization would be that price would
fall, consumption would increase, and an entry-level drug to the
stimulant world would be sanctioned.

Pot would not only be a gateway drug, it would be the gateway drug.

It is absurd to state one moment "that any teenager in Canada can get
a weekend's worth of illegal pot at the snap of a finger" and then
declare that "legalization would make it much more difficult for
minors to get their hands on a bag of weed."

Going anywhere where kids congregate will show no shortage of minors
indulging in a controlled substance, namely tobacco.

Are cigarettes difficult for them to get? No.

Black Press is doing this community a disservice when they sanction
an editor using its paper as a podium to preach legalizing pot indulgence.

There is a vast difference between having an opinion and using a
privileged circumstance to advocate a position.

A newspaper should be a broad window to the world, not hijacked by
any one person, as in this case, to encourage and counsel
acceptability of illegal drug consumption.

Bill Motiuk

Kamloops