COPS, EX-ADDICTS AREN'T DRUG 'EXPERTS'

Editor, The News:

Re: 'Harm reduction,' needle exchange don't work, experts say" (May 18).

Contrary to popular myth, police officers are not scientific experts when
it comes to drugs. Let's see an actual study, made by doctors and
scientists, instead of anecdotal evidence from law enforcement agents and
former addicts.

Ari Elias-Bachrach, St. Louis, Missouri

Editor, The News:

For future reference, "beat cops" are not "experts" on harm reduction.

Publishing the opinions of a small group of police officers without calling
attention to the contrary opinions of real public health experts and
associations does a disservice to the community.

Contrary to the anecdotes of police officers Al Arsenault, Toby Hinton and
Chuck Doucette, Health Canada, the U.S. Surgeon General, the World Health
Organization, the U.S. National Institute of Health, the National Academy
of Sciences, the American Public Health Association and the U.S. Center for
Disease Control are unanimous in the opinion that needle exchange programs
reduce the spread of infectious disease without encouraging drug use. The
peer-reviewed research on which public health institutions base their
position is as readily available as illicit drugs.

The next time you publish an article on harm reduction, I suggest you take
the time to review the scientific literature and consult with real experts
on the subject, such as Dr. Martin Schechter at the B.C. Centre for
Excellence in HIV/AIDS.

Matthew M. Elrod, Victoria

Editor, The News:

Before blindly accepting the word of any self-proclaimed expert on drug
policy, any thinking citizen should consider the source's potential biases.

On May 25, the News reported that three law-enforcement officials and an
ex-junkie who runs treatment programs were in town recently to argue
against harm reduction and needle exchanges. We should ask ourselves: does
being a cop does necessarily qualify someone as an expert on addiction or
public health? And is a pay-to-play treatment provider whose business
depends on a steady supply of addicts really interested in presenting us
with the full story?

Here in the U.S., an extensive and prestigious list of authorities have
lined up to present findings and express opinions that differ radically
from those of the Rotary Clubs' recent guests. Major studies from the
Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Science, former Surgeon
General David Satcher, the National Institutes of Health Consensus Panel,
the National Research Council, the Office of Technology Assessment and
General Accounting Office of the U.S. Congress, the University of
California, and the National Commission on AIDS all support the conclusion
that needle exchanges improve public health without leading to increased
drug abuse.

Former U.S. Surgeons General Joycelyn Elders and C. Everett Koop agree with
this assessment as well, and the American Medical Association and American
Public Health Association (along with a host of other major medical, legal,
and social groups) have publically expressed their support for such programs.

I hope that the Rotary Clubs will do a better job in the future of
presenting a more balanced program, and that the Maple Ridge News will be
there for provide more balanced coverage.

Ethan Straffin, Palo Alto, California

Editor, The News:

"They need the cure, not the poison..." says Billy Weselowski.

So what is the cure? Prison, rehabilitation programs, methadone, a stern
"talking to" perhaps?

The only cure for addiction comes from inside the addict. Needle exchange
doesn't do anything to prevent or cure addiction and I don't think anyone's
claiming that it will. Prison and drug rehabilitation programs have little
success in reducing recidivism. Jail doesn't help prisoners in any respect.
It's designed to protect society but often reinforces a criminal lifestyle
for those jailed. Drug use alone shouldn't turn a citizen into a criminal.

Needle exchange is designed to decrease the spread of needle sharing
disease, decrease the incidence of used needles laying around public spaces
and provide a focal point where addicts can receive communication about
programs to help them quit.

It won't create more addicts, or less. It will bring them out of the
shadows for a moment and decrease the spread of disease. That should be
enough to justify such programs.

Those who are against harm reduction are moralizing against drug use and
ignoring the realities. If they're really worried about youth, spend more
time with them when they're children. A loving family and honest
information do more to protect children than criminal laws and scare tactic
drug education.

What sort of cure are they offering?

Mack Mcleod, Thornhill, Ont.