SUPERVISED SITES ARE BETTER FOR ADDICTS

Dear editor:

I found Mr. Fletcher's article concerning Shoot-up sites not helping
addicts" made good points why the present system of illicit drug
control is not working.

I believe he makes a good argument why legalization of certain
illegal drugs should be considered. Anyone who deals with addictions
knows how difficult it is for those who are addicted to break the
habit. In the long run the success rate of treatment centres is not high.

I believe that these sites are not to try and get those afflicted
with addictions off their addiction but to provide a safer
environment, which is supervised.

These sites are a much better place than on some side street where
these addicts become vulnerable to a more dangerous and potentially
fatal environment.

The millions if not billions of public dollars that are spent on
enforcing the present laws on drug control in my opinion are a waste
of taxpayers' money.

Despite the increased expenditures the problem, as Mr. Fletcher says,
is not better but worse.

If other attempts were made to change the situation, for example
legalizing these drugs, the criminal element would be greatly reduced
if not eliminated. There would be more controls over the dispensation of drugs.

Addictions may not be eliminated but at least better controlled and
those addicted would be in safer environments and lead a more dignified life.

The public money that is presently being spent to no avail could be
used for treatment programs that could possibly reduce the number of
addictions and police time could be spent in other much-needed areas.

I believe this is what the European program is trying to accomplish.

I personally believe that these "shoot-up sites" are a good thing and
we need more of them but this is just a beginning of taking control
of a present chaotic system.

Rev. Howard Jacques

Port McNeill