Crispin Hull raises the vexed question of sentencing parity in drug-
related crimes (CT, December 2, pC1). His article illustrates what a
circular argument it all is.

Traditionally the courts have sentenced those charged with supplying
drugs more harshly than the user of those drugs when the user commits
the almost inevitable crimes to pay the suppliers.

The reasoning behind this is analogous to the higher penalties allowed
in the Crimes Act for the receivers of stolen property than for those
who stole it in the first place - if there was no-one to receive the
goods there would be no point in stealing them.

For drug-related crimes this translates to the logic that if there
were no drugs to buy there would be no crimes committed in order to
pay for them.

What is the answer to all this? Isn't it screamingly,
up-in-neon-lights obvious that the answer is to make heroin legal?
Provide heroin on prescription and the dealer's trade vanishes
overnight - and your video and television are safe and video stores
and supermarkets can send the security guards home.

The only people who do well out of the present prohibition are the
dealers.

JENNIFER SAUNDERS,
Canberra City