BLAME PROHIBITION FOR INCREASING CRIME

Re "Theft victims post rewards" (Nov. 5):

Many years ago, I walked into my home, only to find valuable (at least
to me) contents stolen, but I will never forget the feeling. It drove
home the point that if people refused to purchase stolen goods, it
would be a much rarer crime.

But I also fail to comprehend why supposedly intelligent people cannot
see that the real culprit of drug-related crime is prohibition. There
are far, far more "drug addicts" in our communities known as
"alcoholics" than users of substances that can only be purchased on
the black market; yet how many of these "drug addicts" are breaking
into our homes to raise money for their next fix?

When we regulate and distribute all drugs that people choose to
ingest, at reasonable prices, will we finally see a substantial
decrease in property crime. Watch as the crime around tobacco grows as
the government tries to use price as a deterrent and money grab.

Absolutely no one wants to be victimized by property crime, whereas
only some want to stop the flow of some substances, so ending
prohibition will send a directive to police to track down what's left
of the property crime, instead of perpetuating the absurdity where the
vicitim/criminal are one in the same.

If God could not impose prohibition on two people, why does the
government and law enforcement think they can achieve such a lofty
goal of imposing it on an entire society?

Perhaps we missed the whole moral of the story.

Debra Harper,

Langford