PROOF THAT ANTI-DRUGS CAMPAIGNS DO NOT WORK

Why does the government give the impression that it is content with the
status quo regarding illegal drugs? JG Wishart (Letters, 14 January) is
right to raise the issue of drug-related crime, and the fact that many
people live in fear of becoming victims of such crime.

The news that Prince Harry has experimented with soft drugs should surprise
no-one. It is surely further proof, if any were needed, that anti-drugs
campaigns simply do not work. The decision of his father to send him to a
drugs clinic to meet heroin addicts can only be described as using a
sledgehammer to crack a nut.

As an under-age drinker, supping his cherry brandy, did Prince Charles
become an alcoholic, downing a bottle of brandy a day? Of course not. So,
why assume that someone who tries cannabis will end up as a heroin addict?
Such reasoning is laughable.

COLIN BERTRAM
The Stackyard
Kingsbarns, Fife

Kevin Williamson's article (Opinion, 9 January), in support of Dutch- style
cannabis cafes, was right on target. There is a big difference between
condoning cannabis use, and protecting children from drugs.

Decriminalisation acknowledges the social reality of cannabis use, and
frees users from the stigma of life-shattering criminal records. What is
really needed is a regulated market with enforceable age controls.

At the moment, children have an easier time buying cannabis than beer.
Separating the hard and soft drug markets is especially critical.

As long as distribution of the most popular illicit drug remains in the
hands of organised crime, consumers will continue to come into contact with
sellers of hard drugs like cocaine.

ROBERT SHARPE
Wisconsin Avenue
Washington, DC, USA