RESPONSIBILITY DISMISSED BY DRUGS AT TAXPAYERS' EXPENSE

In his letter on Aug. 20, George Pratt advocates giving drug users free
drugs at taxpayers' expense, claiming that this will reduce crime because
addicts will no longer have to steal or prostitute themselves in order to
buy the drugs they crave. But are they then going to become productive
tax-paying members of society? Or will they continue using drugs and expect
the rest of us to supply them with everything else they want?

If this does reduce crime, then what's the next step? If we want to reduce
car thefts, do we simply give cars to those who usually steal them? Are
banks, stores, gas stations, and so forth to leave packets of money near
the door so those who would normally steal can be relieved of that burden?
Are we to stop locking our doors so that robbers will be able to help
themselves without breaking the law?

How about alcoholics and nicotine addicts? Are we to provide them with free
alcohol and tobacco? They're as dependent on those substances as drug
addicts are to their drugs.

Is addiction a part of the human condition like breathing, drinking,
respiration and fatigue? Or is it something that a person chooses to do,
then can't or won't stop? If the former, then by all means they must be
helped. But if the latter, where does their responsibility begin? Is it our
responsibility to cater to and pay for their cravings and weaknesses?

If addicts really want to stop and are willing to enrol in a treatment
program, then I believe we should encourage them to do so and should help
financially if they or their families cannot afford the costs. But to
supply them with the drugs of their choice so they can continue with their
chosen addiction would be a mistake, and a costly one.

James Murray,

Abbotsford

Checked-by: Mike Gogulski