DRUGS - EVIDENCE CLEAR

Dear Editor,

Mr. Marsh wrote that I "distort the situation" by noting, "All the
evidence shows that crime and violence would decrease," if drugs were
legalized [Legalization results without proof, Oct. 1 Letters to the
Editor, Langley Advance News].

When alcohol was prohibited in the last century, there were people
robbing, assaulting, and killing each other for the big money, and for
alcohol, and committing violent and unlawful acts under the influence
of alcohol.

When prohibition was repealed, the problems decreased, but did not
disappear completely.

That is what I meant by "All the evidence."

If people had a place where they could get affordable, regulated, and
quality-controlled drugs - like the system we now have with alcohol -
the muggings, robberies, and associated gun-play surrounding illicit
drugs would likely decrease.

It would also be cheaper for the people footing the bill (taxpayers)
for the regulation system.

Mr. Marsh wrote, "There is no scientific way anyone can prove such a
claim without an exhaustive investigation that would take decades to
complete."

I agree. But after decades of the drug war, we know one thing
absolutely for sure: prohibition doesn't work.

Let's try my idea for 80 years, then tell me that prohibition is the
better policy.

There are lots of reasons people use drugs, not just the one cited by
Mr. Marsh. TV personality Montel Williams uses cannabis to combat pain
from his MS, not to escape stress and fear.

I use cannabis to combat the litany of symptoms of my fibromyalgia. I
don't use any other drug, not even caffeine.

Mr. Marsh should look at the evidence. Prohibition was repealed, and
the gun-toting rum-runners and boot-leggers, such as Al Capone, ended
up out of business or became taxpaying businessmen. That is what we
need now with drugs of all kinds.

I disagree that "we are already free to do as we please." I am not
free to purchase, possess, or use cannabis. I face the risk of arrest
every time I use the medicine that alleviates my medical condition. I
hardly call this freedom.

I think people should be free to disagree, but I think it is a wise
man who bases his opinions on facts, not conjecture.

The fact is, prohibition is almost a century old, and has failed
miserably. If it were going to work, it would have worked by now.

Russell Barth,

Ottawa