LEGALIZATION WON'T SOLVE DRUG PROBLEMS

Editor:

I am writing in response to Travis Erbacher's letter 'Legalize drugs
and gangs will go away,' (Langley Times, March 5).

The suggestion by Mr. Erbacher to simply legalize all drugs is one
that should be carefully reconsidered.

In his letter, Mr. Erbacher proposes that prohibition increases the
prices of substances and thus increases the violence of gang
rivalries. While this may be true, the high prices of these
substances may also discourage experimentation among young adults.

This avoidance in experimentation would lead to fewer drug addictions
in the future.

Eliminating prohibition in order to decrease gang violence is a
wishful thought, but is not realistic. The removal of prohibition on
these substances does not mean an eradication of black market and
violent crime.

As much as illegal substances, such as drugs, contribute to gang
violence, illegal firearms and turf wars also contribute to a large
part of the violence, thus still giving gangs something to fight over.

Mr. Erbacher also proposes that it is the money from the sale of
drugs that the gangs are fighting over, and that this money is a
direct cause of the recent number of innocent deaths.

He proposes that the legalization of all drugs would rid the gangs of
money and would therefore eliminate the violence. This is too simply
put, as legalization would just make drugs more readily available to
users and other people who have never used them before.

It is most likely that due to the increased availability of drugs
that we would see an increase in crimes such as driving under the
influence. This too can put innocent lives at stake.

The legalization of drugs would not come without a catch.

Some laws would still be required against giving these drugs away to
minors or women who are pregnant.

This would leave room for a black market that would cater to these
people. What's more, the reality of the government legalizing drugs
such as LSD, crack cocaine or heroin is very unlikely, due to their
adverse effects.

This, as well, would leave an open market for these drugs to be sold
illegally, and would therefore not decrease the amount of gang
violence in the future.

Mr. Erbacher goes on to state that prohibition is a failed policy. To
this, I propose a look at Sweden's drug-control policy as it is an
excellent example of the efficiency of prohibition in a well-working
system. Drug use in Sweden is only a third of the European average.

The efficiency of Sweden's drug control program is due to its strict
enforcement by police and necessary rehabilitation centres providing
support for current drug users.

It is clear that rather than eliminating prohibition, there needs to
be an improvement in our current system. Getting rid of the
prohibition of substances is not the answer.

Improvements in law enforcement, treatment and rehabilitation
opportunities are needed in our system to combat the ever-increasing
drug and gan problems in our communities.

Keisha O'Hagan

Langley