ANTI-ECSTASY PROPOSALS MAKE THINGS WORSE

Re: "After ecstasy, more bad drugs," Jan. 5.

The editorial hugely misses the mark in advocating increased criminal
legislation and a standard "just say no" scare tactic to combat ecstasy deaths.

I am not writing as an advocate for the use of ecstasy, but rather as
a pragmatist who understands that both young and old, though young
more so, have always and will always experiment with mind-and
mood-altering substances.

The problem with ecstasy is very simple: Ecstasy is supposed to be
pure MDMA but due to its criminalization, it is left to the black
market to determine its contents and quality. As a result, what
should be a relatively safe drug to take in reasonable amounts is
commonly not truly MDMA but a cheaper, more dangerous substance.

While there are risks involved in consuming MDMA even if it's pure,
by far the bigger risk is due exclusively to prohibition. Our
government's plan to tighten regulations on the precursors of MDMA is
a typical move that makes for good copy and "tough on crime"
rhetoric, but the effect, if there is any at all, will be simply that
ecstasy producers use cheaper and more dangerous precursors, and more
will die as a result.

More laws and more cops are not the answer to sociological problems.

Whelm King

Victoria