DRUGS: PROHIBITION DOESN'T PROTECT USERS

Dear Editor,

Someone should remind our Solicitor General that drug prohibition has
nothing to do with protecting users from the effects of harmful drugs
[Courts need anti-pot push, Jan. 31, Langley Advance News].

It was initiated at the beginning of the 20th Century to protect virtuous
white Christian women from the seductive wiles of blacks (marijuana),
Mexicans (marijuana), and Chinese (opium).

In these supposedly more tolerant times, the police are happy to make use of
this evil law to harass and control all those whose lifestyle or appearance
offends them.

First, no government has the right to punish anyone for ingesting anything,
however harmful.

Second, the consequences of prohibition are worse than anything that
preceded it: more user deaths because of adulterated drugs, much more crime,
explosions and fires in illegal drug labs, electricity thefts, accelerated
spread of infectious diseases, skyrocketing law enforcement costs, police
corruption, disrespect for the law, easier access for children (because
drugs are often sold at school by classmates), more difficulty for parents
and children to communicate honestly about drugs, etc.

Third, some say the state has the right to ban harmful drugs, but even if
that were true, our drug laws still make no sense, because two of our more
harmful recreational drugs, alcohol and tobacco, are not banned, and
marijuana is banned even though it is less harmful than either.

The purpose of drug prohibition remains the same as it was a century ago: to
distract and entertain the majority by persecuting an innocent minority.

Alan Randell

Victoria