PROHIBITION OF DRUGS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HEALTH

The Editor,

When we consider the adverse effects of a drug on an individual and a
community, a distinction must be made between the effects of the
actual drug and the effects brought on by prohibition of the drug.

The use of any particular drug will have some side effects such as
brain damage, lung damage or maybe a rash; these are all symptoms of
the actual drug. Things like theft, gang violence, the spread of
disease and organized crime are all results of prohibition.

The fact still remains that no one wants their child using drugs and
many people feel that prohibition lowers drug use. I am not going to
claim I understand the forces governing drug use but in the U.S.,
which has an extremely strict drug policy, the lifetime prevalence of
marijuana use in 2002 was 36.9 per cent. When this is compared to the
Netherlands, which has legalized marijuana, they achieve only a
lifetime prevalence of 17 per cent. So considering the two ends of
the drug enforcement spectrum it seems that legality has little to do
with frequency of use.

Drugs aren't made illegal because of their consequences on health;
historically, illegalization has almost exclusively occurred because
of social and political pressures. This is illustrated by our current
tobacco laws and the devastating effect tobacco has on health.

I want, as everyone does, what is best for our community and I do not
believe that our current system is anywhere near achieving this.
Legalization has many different forms, several of which can be seen
in the current regulation of drugs from caffeine and alcohol to
morphine. No matter what route legalization would take, one of the
most beneficial outcomes would be that gangs would no longer be
profiting from these substances and would have no reason to continue
pushing them on our children.

Jeff Harrison, Surrey