OPIUM SENTENCE WRONG PRECEDENT

Dear Editor:

I am left slack-jawed at the ruling in the chocolate box opium
importer case (North Shore News, Aug. 31), and even more so by the
comments of this judge.

I am aghast at the reasoning given for allowing a convicted opium
smuggler to escape a jail sentence, and be given a grounding instead.
What really confuses me is that she even "scolded" him for bringing
shame on his family and to the Persian community. Why not give him a
stroke on his head, and maybe wipe away one of his well-acted tears?
After all, she was "disappointed that a refugee would betray the trust
of the Canadian people by smuggling drugs."

I thought that there was mandatory minimum sentencing in this type of
case. Smuggling opium for the purpose of trafficking represents an
extreme danger to society; telling the convicted trafficker that he
may not leave his home for the next 12 months, unless he is going to
work, school, counselling, medical emergencies or religious ceremonies
seems a rather weak response to the sentence of addiction to heroin
that others will surely suffer due to his activities. He should be
deported for having breached the terms of his acceptance into this
country.

Imagine the precedent this ruling makes. If you can demonstrate that
"the effect that jail would have on this particular person is
substantial," then the defendant should be allowed to stay at home,
unless he is going to work, school, etc. It's already widely believed
that drug offences in B.C. carry very little consequence for the
criminal, and this just reinforces that mindset.

I still remember the story of the convicted drug addict whose lawyer
argued, successfully, that his client should not go to jail because
drugs were available there and it wouldn't be a good place to recover.
The mind boggles.

GYULA HUSZAR

North Vancouver