CANADIANS SPEND LARGER PROPORTION OF DRUG CONTROL BUDGET ON LAW ENFORCEMENT
THAN WE DO

In response to your question, "Have our neighbors to the north completely
given up on the war against drugs?" (editorial in July 6 edition) The answer
is no. We spend a larger proportion of our drug control budget on law
enforcement than you do.

However, based on experience and a large body of research, including
experiences and research from your country, we are considering different
strategies for achieving the same objectives. Specifically, a European
system called the "four pillars" approach, where equal resources are
allocated to prevention, treatment, law enforcement and harm reduction.

The harm reduction pillar includes innovations shown to reduce the harm
associated with drug use without increasing drug use, such as methadone
maintenance, needle exchange programs and supervised consumption sites.

When the U.S. repealed alcohol prohibition, did you completely give up on
fighting alcoholism? Of course not, but you do have supervised drinking
sites, known as bars, saloons and nightclubs, where drinkers and alcoholics
are provided with clean glasses.

Call me immoral, but if one of my children became addicted to drugs, I would
rather find them alive in a supervised consumption site, a gateway to
support and treatment, than dead in an alleyway. Call Canadians immoral, but
perhaps you should investigate whether or not the four pillars approach
works before concluding it must be avoided.

Matthew M. Elrod
Victoria, B.C., Canada