LEGALIZING DRUGS WOULD INCREASE DEMAND FOR THEM

Re: Prohibitive justice, July 28.

I have two problems with writer Dan Gardner's thesis.

First, I believe the laws dealing with drug suppliers were enacted to
reduce addiction to drugs that can harm the bodies and lives of
people. Mr. Gardner refers to the fact that during Prohibition people
continued to buy alcoholic beverages and implies that legalizing
alcohol didn't affect consumption.

To me, the crucial question is under which regime were there more
alcoholics? Or, if such data are not available, under which regime was
more alcohol sold? A comparison of deaths from drunk driving before
and after Prohibition would also be of interest.

Second, Mr. Gardner assumes that demand has an independent and
immutable existence. He ignores the impact of marketing. Present
marketing is surreptitious, promoting drugs by infiltrating schools
and using addicts desperate for money to entice their peers to join
them in addiction.

With legalization there would be the sort of mass marketing that we
have for alcoholic beverages. Demand could expand massively. The act
of legalizing drugs would itself be a massive marketing coup, as it
would send the signal that the government believes that drugs are not
harmful. Even people who respect the law now might then be tempted to
try them.

While implementing Mr. Gardner's ideas would probably decrease the
price of drugs, the damage to people's bodies and lives would greatly
increase.

Roslyn Frankl,

Ottawa