PERHAPS THE LEGALIZATION OF ALL DRUGS WOULD DO MORE GOOD

Re: Arrest the potheads, by Kurtis Doerfing, Mail Bag, March 19.

I am writing this letter in response to Kurtis Doerfing's remarks.

Kurtis' argument stated that our judicial system is not hard enough on
people who smoke marijuana for recreational purposes. I, however, do not
share this view.

The reason there is a lack of will for police to arrest marijuana smokers
is practical. The B.C. marijuana trade has grown out of control. The police
despite their efforts just simply cannot keep up with the grow-ops, let
alone the individual smoker. Add to this the desire by the federal
government to legalize small amounts of marijuana, and it almost seems
pointless to arrest some kid in a park over smoking marijuana.

Why should we waste court time and jail cells for people who in a year
could be practising a legal activity? lt just does not make sense,
especially to taxpayers.

Drug violence stems mostly from gang-related conflicts. This is not to say
that individuals under the influence of drugs do not commit crimes, but
rather, not on the same level or consistency as gang violence. Drive-by
shootings, knifings and other brutally-violent acts are carried out by
rival gangs in order to gain monopolies of trade and to keep their feudal
system intact.

I, like Kurtis, do not stand for these horrific acts, but arresting the
marijuana smokers at the bottom of this black market is not going to solve
the problem. The police have been trying to fight back against these crime
barons but to little success. To end the violence, one must ask if maybe
simple economics can stop this problem.

Instead of arresting drug users, perhaps the legalization of all drugs
would do more good. It would take away the market from crime lords and put
it into the hands of the state. Tax revenue made off the sales could go to
drug rehabilitation and awareness programs.

Are drugs good? No, but this is not a problem that is going to go away in a
heartbeat. Education and support programs will be needed to help those who
are addicted.

From a social standpoint, this is more of a solution to the problem than
simply arresting the consumers at the bottom while more and more kids are
shot and killed doing the dealings for those who are too high up the ladder
(gang leaders ... dare I say, politicians?).

One might state that, by arresting the consumers at the bottom, it would
take away the market from the drug baron. This will not work, as we have
seen during the days of prohibition. Even jail time will not discourage
people from purchasing the product. Also, individuals who do hard drugs at
present, seem to be little worried about jail time as well. The point is
that the demand will not go away simply by arresting the consumer.

Kurtis states we as citizens, should be prepared to stop these potheads by
force if we have to. I do not see how this solves the problem. If you're
mad at someone breaking the law, does it make sense to break the law
yourself to solve the problem? You would be just as guilty as the original
criminal. This is why those six cops in Vancouver have met their fate. By
beating six helpless men, they have become more criminal than the drug users.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Finally, I would like to say that the country song used to portray justice
seemed a bit ironic. Kurtis is making a statement about drugs and yet, in
the song, it promotes alcohol. It may not be against the law to drink
booze, but the social impact is just the same as that of any illegal drug.
As a society, we must be willing to look into our problems to find a
solution. To simply sweep the dirt under the carpet will not solve
anything. Arresting recreational drug users will be avoiding the bigger
problem that society faces - the drug trade itself.

Josh Johnston