In my Apr. 21 presentation at the Fraser Institute's forum,
Sensible Solutions to the Urban Drug Problem, I expressed concern over
spokespeople who readily contradict scholarly analyses with smear
tactics and conjecture.

While not surprised at similar attacks upon my own efforts, I was
disappointed to find Const. Mark Tonner's May 8 column being used as
the vehicle.

Although I can't claim the prestige of a regular newspaper column,
it's offensive to have one's long history of work characterized as
manifestos. I guess referenced research papers for professional
journals and royal commisions don't measure up to gossip for the
morning tab.

Far from biting the hand that feeds me, I've never forgotten that it
is the citizenry that pays our way and who require essential
information upon which they and their elected representatives base
informed decisions.A paramilitary code of silence should be no more
acceptable in my case than any other.

Despite Mack's opinion that summary dismissal would be appropriate for
a private sector employee, police are not only public servants, but
holders of an office defined in law. His proprietary perspective is,
however, certainly consistant with the theme of my presentation on
drug enforcement.

My concern for the reputation of the department is reflected in the
fact that I solicited editorial advice from numerous experts and
colleagues, including officers of the union and employer. I'm not the
issue, and it's disturbing to see the fear of discussing ethics cloud
a crucial public debate. After reading Mark's column, however, I am
beginning to understand why.

Gil Puder
Vancouver