DON'T LISTEN TO US PROPAGANDA

Dear editor:

Re: Cops Want Tougher Sentences For Repeat Drug (May 22, Chatham This Week).

One need only look south to the United States to find that handing out life
sentences for drug use or sales is not effective in curbing the drug trade.
People will use drugs, others will supply those drugs, increased penalties
only means greater profits for those willing to face the risks. It also
means greater violence and crime, that was the result of America's "get
tougher" policy, well that, and creating the worlds largest prison population.

The RCMP have been reading far to much propaganda from the United States,
but if Canadians want to make matters worse than they are now, by all
means, go ahead, get tough. But don't say you weren't warned.

Jim White, Oregon, Ohio

TOUGHER LAWS IN NEW YORK HAVEN'T MADE A DIFFERENCE

Dear editor:

Regarding your recent article, "Cops Want Tougher Sentences For Repeat Drug
Offenders", there is no evidence that harsh laws and long sentences deter
drug use. While "tough on crime" messages and proposals for harsher
sentences are usually well received, in practice they accomplish nothing
more than crowded prisons and inflated law enforcement budgets.

Here in New York State we have some of the harshest sentencing rules for
drug offenders in North America. Does this mean we have less of a problem
with drug dealing and drug-related violence? Unfortunately, no. The reason
- - drug prohibition has inflated the street prices of banned substances
thousands of times over. The potential profits are so great that for every
dealer convicted and every grow operation seized, two more will step in to
fill the void.

It is simply impossible to repeal the law of supply and demand.
Concentrating on supply reduction by seizing assets and locking offenders
away will never accomplish our goals. Honest education about the potential
dangers of drug use, however, can reduce demand and de-criminalizing
recreational drug use can significantly reduce drug-related violence and
drug sales to minors. The repeal of US alcohol prohibition should be all
the proof of this that we need.

Trying to solve drug-related problems by arresting more people and handing
out longer sentences is like hammering away at a nail that has bent and
can't be forced deeper. Progress is not possible until a fundamental change
in policy is made.

Alexandra Meyerson, Bayside, NY

NEWSPAPER A 'SYCOPHANT' BY BOOSTING WAR ON DRUGS

Dear editor:

Re: Major drug busts becoming common, May 15 Chatham This Week.

Lord God Almighty, save us all from the abiding ignorance of the press!

Let's get a few things straight about drugs.

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

Second, none of the reasons given by government spokespeople to justify
banning some drugs hold water.

It can't be to protect users because banning a drug always leads to more
deaths amongst users, not fewer. My wife and I became well acquainted with
that aspect of government policy when we lost our 19-year-old son to street
heroin in 1993. Besides, two of our more harmful drugs, alcohol and
tobacco, are legal.

It can't be to reduce the crime associated with drugs because banning a
drug always gives rise to more crime than when the drug is legally available.

So what is the reason governments ban some drugs? What else but to distract
the voters' attention away from more important issues by conducting a
Hitler-like pogrom, first to ostracize, and then to destroy, the innocent
few who ingest or sell certain drugs, with the additional "benefit" of
allowing our politicians and cops, along with their media sycophants, the
pleasure of strutting and swaggering before us as they promise to ride out
like St. George and slay the fearsome and deadly dragon of drugs while
sticking the taxpayer with the cost?

You should be ashamed of yourself for helping to grease the slope that is
propelling us all towards the establishment of a police state.

Alan Randell, Victoria, BC