NO EASY ANSWERS TO DECRIMINALISATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS

It was interesting to read Evan Thomas's letter (January 1) about the
decriminalisation of illicit drugs in Portugal.

The conclusion might also be interpreted in another manner. The
reduction in retail pricing resulted in increased drug use by adults.
The reduction in opiate-related deaths put a further burden on the
health system as more addicts survived to require ongoing treatment.

It is also noted that there was reduced drug use among "problematic"
drug users after 2003. Was this reduction only noted in the case of
"problematic" users or was it applicable to all users? As the word
"problematic" has entered the debate, it would be interesting to find
out if there has been an overall decrease, or, heaven help us, an
overall increase.

And what of the dealers and suppliers? Has there been a reduction in
their numbers or have they continued to thrive, untouched by laws that
were made to punish them for their illicit activities?

There have been many calls to decriminalise drug-taking but not one
that I have read has come up with any positive modus operandi. It's
all very well to proclaim it's a health issue, and not a criminal one,
but how is it proposed to be administered? Will drug takers have to be
registered and will they have to report for regular health check-ups
to ensure they haven't used any bad needles or will all drugs have to
be administered at government health clinics?

Will they be permitted to drive motor vehicles or operate mechanical
equipment at work and if so, how will they be policed in regard to
their capacity to drive or do their work?

It seems to me that decriminalisation would result in a huge increase
in health costs, a further burden on taxpayers for the benefit of
those who make the personal choice to take drugs. One day, we will
have to learn to take responsibility for our actions and that our
health and recreation choices should not be a burden on those who opt
to say no to drugs.

John Foster Burradoo