"HARD" AND "SOFT" DRUGS ARE DEBATABLE

Editor:

In his letter to the editor of Nov. 23, Robin Sharpe states that the
answer to keeping marijuana out of the hands of children is a
"regulated market with age controls."

Oh please! There are already regulated markets with age controls for
alcohol and tobacco, and we all know how effective these are at
keeping their respective products out of the hands of minors.

Mr. Sharpe then states that "separating the hard and soft drug markets
is critical."

The problem with this position is that 'hard' and 'soft' are
subjective terms, often relying more on social values than scientific
data. After all, beer or whiskey taken to chronic excess can have the
same devastating results, but the last I heard it was only the latter
that was considered 'hard' liquor.

The fact is, at one time marijuana was considered a hard drug - have
you seen Reefer Madness lately? The movie is hysterical paranoia of
course, but it reflects the attitudes of the time. All that has
changed since then to warrant moving 'B.C. Bud' from the 'hard' to
'soft' category is society.

This becomes ironic when you consider that the current version of
marijuana is now substantially more potent than it was when it was
considered 'hard.'

So who gets to decide that marijuana should be considered a soft drug,
and therefore should be treated differently? And where does the
slippery slope of "drug abuse problems are bad, but some are less bad
than others" lead us to? What is considered a hard drug today that
people with self-serving interests like Mr. Sharpe are going to be
lobbying for a softer stance on tomorrow?

What I do know is that, while I struggle to give my children positive
messages about substance abuse (including alcohol and tobacco), there
is a dedicated group of people attempting to legitimize one form.

I find it hypocritical that, while concerned groups are attempting to
eradicate cigarette smoking from the planet, other groups are saying
"but lighting up a joint should be okay." It's ludicrous that our
government officials (who are also preaching the evils of tobacco)
seem poised to become a part of the hypocrisy.

Personally, I don't use tobacco and I don't use marijuana, and I
resent the smell and intrusion to my lungs from people that do. But
frankly, while I may not know if my neighbour is lighting up a
cigarette, I (and my ever impressionable children) can tell to the
point of nausea that teenagers are once again using the bushes a
couple of hundred feet away from me to light up some of those 'soft'
drugs Mr. Sharpe is so fond of.

Substance abuse of any kind, including alcohol, is a terrible social
problem. Semi-legitimizing one form is not going to solve that
problem, and ultimately it only plays to the agenda of the abusers.

Terry Nielsen

Maple Ridge