LEGALIZATION NO ANSWER

In your "Letters" section (Saanich News, May 11), you printed a letter
written by Alan Randell of Saanich titled "Eliminate the need for meth."

I disagree strongly with the writer on the following:

1. In his opening remarks, Mr. Randell asserts that a number of people
appear to be lying about the adverse effects of other illegal drugs.

This statement is absurd! If this were true, how is it that studies of drug
consumption all over the world have resulted in the same findings: hopeless
addiction, escalating crime and corruption including murder, abstract
poverty, and in many cases death of the user.

2. His suggestion that to legalize hard and soft drugs would benefit
society as a whole, by reducing the costs of healthcare and policing as
well as the monetary cost of the substances, is equally half-baked.

Various approaches to curb illicit drug use were tried in The Netherlands
for several years in the 1970s, including a more liberated approach to
procurement and use.

Aside from being able to estimate the number of actual drug users (their
numbers appearing to escalate daily while this program was in effect),
studies concluded with essentially the same results: increased addiction
when drugs were made available at lower costs, increased crime and poverty,
a health system becoming overwhelmed in coping with chronic drug users
coupled with tremendous costs to society.

There were no "benefits." This "experiment" was a dismal failure!

I find Mr. Randell's reasoning regarding proliferation and use of these
harmful substances difficult to understand. I believe a more aggressive
approach to educating society on the harmful effects of drug use is needed.

Also, drug importation and its production at home needs to be dealt with
much more aggressively.

Legalizing use and/or production is not the answer.

Arthur Ooms, Saanich