News (Media Awareness Project) - CN BC: PUB LTE(3): Showing The White Flag In Drug Wars |
| Title: | CN BC: PUB LTE(3): Showing The White Flag In Drug Wars |
| Published On: | 2000-09-20 |
| Source: | Vancouver Sun (CN BC) |
| Fetched On: | 2008-09-03 08:12:18 |
SHOWING THE WHITE FLAG IN DRUG WARS
I agree that legalizing drugs would eliminate some of the crime involved in the high price of obtaining illegal substances for personal use (Trashing rights won't stop organized crime, Editorial, Sept. 15). It would also give back responsibility for personal actions to those who need to shoulder it: drug users themselves instead of law enforcement agencies.
It would also save millions in medical costs because addicts regularly use the system to obtain drugs to sell on the street. Perhaps we would also have money left to fund top-notch drug rehabilitation programs.
I don't think legalization would fly, however, because organized crime has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. It has more political clout than the average citizen realizes. Even if it were not so, the U.S. would not allow Canada to legalize drug use.
Carole White
Langley
Jim Miles and Colin Mangham attempt to shift the debate away from the most important issue, basic human rights (Taking drugs is a choice -- a bad one, Letters, Sept. 14). Whether drug use is good or bad for the individual concerned has no relevance when questions of "crime" are asked. Can a person commit a "crime" by doing themselves harm (drinking, smoking, overeating)? Shall we arrest and force into treatment the 10 to 15 per cent of alcohol users who are addicts, or the 90 per cent of tobacco users?
Mr. Miles and Mr. Mangham, of course, have an interest in maintaining the status quo because prohibition is an efficient way of maximizing harm, thus feeding the drug "treatment" industry, which has shamefully poor rates of success. Isn't it about time the government stopped telling us what we can ingest and focus on real crime?
Jason Lalancette
Saanich
Drug abstinence education, as with that of sexuality, does nothing to help the children who, inevitably, do not listen. Should they all be offered as sacrificial lambs for not accepting society's proscription?
Do "bad choices" have to include the risk of death so the moralists among us can egotistically proclaim, "I told you so " and give high-fives all around the churchyard?
If the plain and simple truth isn't enough to turn people against the drug war, the cold-hearted zealots who bask in the glory of victory at every user's death should be enough to do the job.
Christopher A. Joseph
Parma, Ohio
I agree that legalizing drugs would eliminate some of the crime involved in the high price of obtaining illegal substances for personal use (Trashing rights won't stop organized crime, Editorial, Sept. 15). It would also give back responsibility for personal actions to those who need to shoulder it: drug users themselves instead of law enforcement agencies.
It would also save millions in medical costs because addicts regularly use the system to obtain drugs to sell on the street. Perhaps we would also have money left to fund top-notch drug rehabilitation programs.
I don't think legalization would fly, however, because organized crime has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. It has more political clout than the average citizen realizes. Even if it were not so, the U.S. would not allow Canada to legalize drug use.
Carole White
Langley
Jim Miles and Colin Mangham attempt to shift the debate away from the most important issue, basic human rights (Taking drugs is a choice -- a bad one, Letters, Sept. 14). Whether drug use is good or bad for the individual concerned has no relevance when questions of "crime" are asked. Can a person commit a "crime" by doing themselves harm (drinking, smoking, overeating)? Shall we arrest and force into treatment the 10 to 15 per cent of alcohol users who are addicts, or the 90 per cent of tobacco users?
Mr. Miles and Mr. Mangham, of course, have an interest in maintaining the status quo because prohibition is an efficient way of maximizing harm, thus feeding the drug "treatment" industry, which has shamefully poor rates of success. Isn't it about time the government stopped telling us what we can ingest and focus on real crime?
Jason Lalancette
Saanich
Drug abstinence education, as with that of sexuality, does nothing to help the children who, inevitably, do not listen. Should they all be offered as sacrificial lambs for not accepting society's proscription?
Do "bad choices" have to include the risk of death so the moralists among us can egotistically proclaim, "I told you so " and give high-fives all around the churchyard?
If the plain and simple truth isn't enough to turn people against the drug war, the cold-hearted zealots who bask in the glory of victory at every user's death should be enough to do the job.
Christopher A. Joseph
Parma, Ohio
Member Comments |
No member comments available...
