DRUG ARGUMENT FLAWED

For an assistant professor of political science, Boris DeWiel has a pretty
shaky grasp of reality (The safer drug use is, the more attractive drugs
will be, Commentary, June 26). Without providing any hard data, he suggests
that protecting people from harm makes them more likely to engage in risky
behaviour, just because the risk is reduced.

In reality, the "moral hazard" created by fire insurance is the temptation
on the part of heavily insured property owners to burn their property down
to collect the insurance, not insurance-induced carelessness.

So how does all this sloppy thinking apply to safe injection sites and drug
use? It doesn't. To apply the "moral hazard" argument requires us to
believe people will begin to use hard drugs just so they can take advantage
of safe injection sites.

But more to the point, addicts don't use drugs because the drugs are low
risk; they use drugs because they are addicted. Kids won't begin to use
drugs just because there are safe injection sites. New users already have
"safe" injection sites (homes or cars). It's only after the addiction takes
hold and the cost of buying drugs leaves them destitute that addicts find
themselves on the Downtown Eastside in need of a safe place to shoot up.
Denying addicts a safe place won't stop a single kid from becoming an
addict. Kids don't turn to drugs after evaluating the risks and finding
them acceptable.

There are far better ways to keep our suburban kids off drugs than
punishing eastside addicts to set an example. We should set the example
ourselves.

Ken Wilson

Vancouver