POLICE SHOULD FOCUS ON PROVEN BAD DRUGS

I don't see the logic in the article, Salvia's quick high worries
police (Aug. 27). It seems like just random fear-mongering to me.

First, where's the evidence that this drug is bad? Are people
supposed to stand behind the banning of something that sounds less
harmful than alcohol (alcohol's effects lasting hours, leading to
drunk driving; salvia's effects lasting minutes)?

Where are the priorities here?

Are we supposed to ban it so London police can focus on fighting a
war on it when they haven't won the war on current street drugs such
as crack, meth or heroin? Are we supposed to make illegal a drug
that, by the account of the mystery woman in the story, was a
one-time high? Imagine if that woman had tried crack or some other
street drug. I'm sure she wouldn't say the same thing.

According to The Free Press, the drug causes a "zombie-like state."

That doesn't sound like someone who'd be going for a stroll or
driving, unlike say, someone who has a couple of beers.

I think London police and The London Free Press need to focus on
dealing with our current drug problems rather than tackling new and,
by all accounts, minimally threatening ones. We should worry about
drugs that have wrecked lives and will continue to wreck lives if
kept on the streets. Deal with the real problems before making new ones.

Luis Leal

London