Re: "Drug war is a trillion dollar failure" (Letters, April 5) by Myron Von Hollingsworth. In an off-handed remark following Von Hollingsworth's fine letter about the failed war on drugs, you stated: "Where in the constitution does it say people should have access to heroin or crack?" More to the point: Where in the constitution does it say people shouldn't have access to heroin or crack? The Charter of Rights clearly states that freedom of thought is a fundamental freedom. Would it then not be the right of a citizen to choose to ingest chemicals that might affect thought? Neil MacNaughton (Wow, man, that's a profound thought. Maybe you should try taking it to the Supreme Court.) [end]
Dear Editor: Re: Your editorial - Bad Apples - Feb. 28, 2002 "If we didn't have grow operations in Summerland, our police would be able to put more energy into other crime areas." If we legalized marijuana, Summerland's grow-ops would be a thing of the past. We would save $500 million per year in law enforcement, not to mention court and incarceration costs. In April 1998, through expert witness testimony in the B.C. Appeal Court, Judge Francine Howard presented the following as findings of fact: [continues 391 words]
Dear Editor: I hope the North Shore Task Force (NSN: Task force says drugs a health issue, Jan. 23) adds drug testing kits to their list of harm reduction tools. Testing kits allow drug users to know whether or not the drugs they are buying are what they're supposed to be. Black marketeers sometimes dilute their product with other chemicals to increase their profit margin. Drug use has its inherent dangers, but added impurities make it far more dangerous. Pure heroin is far less problematic when unadulterated. Addicts sometimes get used to low-purity heroin, then happen to purchase some higher purity product. If the user doesn't know about the change in quality and takes his or her usual dose, he or she will get too much and may suffer serious consequences. A test kit will allow a heroin user to ensure his drug's purity and will lead to fewer overdose deaths. [continues 90 words]
The Langley Advance News continues to be deluged by letters from all sides of the drug issue. Dear Editor: Isn't Canada a great place to live? Only in a country as free and diverse as ours could people have such opposing views as those of Lila Stanford (Drug debate continues on, Advance News, Jan 8, 2002) and myself. Let me detail just a few. Rather than removing funding from public education, we should be supporting our schools and universities wholly. Education should not be a privilege for those who can afford it, but a right that everyone should be able to access. [continues 342 words]
Regarding pot and other illegal drugs, both Jeff Outhit and Liz Monteiro reported last week on stories about illegal drugs: dealers driving away customers in downtown areas and dangerous wiring practices causing a fire in a marijuana grow house. These events and thousands like them are caused by our prohibition method of drug regulation. Senator Edward Lawson, a member of the Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs, recently suggested we sell cocaine and heroin in liquor stores. Two serious problems would be immediately solved. No longer would drugs be sold on the streets. What alcohol user would prefer to buy booze on the street instead of from a liquor store? [continues 213 words]
RE: "CHASING potheads called waste of time," Nov. 5. Alliance MP Keith Martin misses the point. Decriminalizing small-scale marijuana possession will do little to free police resources and will actually help criminal organizations, including terrorists, by increasing their revenues. Already, police spend little time focusing on minor possession. Charges most often occur as a result of arrest for other reasons (i.e. a person is pulled over for speeding and, subsequently, marijuana is found in the vehicle.) Since police rarely lay marijuana possession charges in isolation, decriminalization will do little to save money. [continues 161 words]
Editor, The Leader: Thank you for publishing Dr. Hepburn's lighthearted look at medical marijuana (Leader, Sept. 28). I'm glad he and your readers were enlightened as to the professional attitude and essential services offered by marijuana compassion clubs. Dr. Hepburn managed to expose common fears and then dispel them (i.e. the club is a "clinical" environment, not a pothead haven.) I appreciate Hepburn's medical opinion regarding marijuana and the compassion clubs that supply it. I am less comfortable with the doctor using his medical credentials to lend support to a moral stance on a societal issue. "Marijuana, like Valium and Demerol and even cigarettes should not be used recreationally." The position of the medical community on the recreational use of drugs should go no further than stating the drugs' effects and possible interactions. It is up to the rest of society - or the individual - to use that information in deciding whether or not to condone the recreational - often called non-medical - use of drugs. So long as a drug is deemed to hold little medical risk, I believe it should be up to the individual to decide whether or not to use it for non-medical reasons. [continues 68 words]
I write to congratulate you on your excellent editorial Debate pot legalization (July 7). Many newspaper reports on the medicinal cannabinoid studies mistakenly concluded they were a blow to medicinal marijuana claims. Your editorial rightly demonstrated that prohibition is causing scientists to focus on marijuana extracts and derivatives instead of the real thing. It is marijuana in its whole form that helps "relieve pain, nausea and suppression of appetite for those who are ill, or undergoing medical therapy." Decriminalization does nothing to combat crime. It may help small-time users avoid a damaging criminal record, but it perpetuates the black market and the criminal organizations that supply it. I fully support the legalization and regulation of this "relatively harmless" drug. Thank you for writing such an informed and sensible article. Neil Macnaughton Oakville, Ont. [end]
The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration has no place within Canadian borders. Our citizens should have nothing to do with America's war on drugs. It is a failure in all aspects of the word and Canada should have no part of it. The U.S. government can't solve its drug problems at home, so it takes its war to other nations. And whenever it does this, disaster ensues. What is the American government and its DEA going to do in British Columbia and the rest of Canada? Let's not find out. DEA go home! Neil MacNaughton, Oakville, Ont. [end]
In response to the June 26 article, Pot Growers Were A Team, do the people of Waterloo Region support marijuana prohibition? Do they know this means they also support the black market and organized crime? Marijuana use dates back thousands of years. Its effects are sufficiently desirable that demand for it will never go away. In 1923, we prohibited the legal sale of marijuana. This immediately created the black market. In effect, we chose to let organized crime meet the demand. [continues 105 words]
To the Editor, Re: City Mountie faces fight from suspect with syringe - June 11. Want a solution? Legalize drugs. What would that accomplish? Let's think about it. A user who can purchase his drug at a pharmacy will receive a clean needle and unadulterated drugs. A clean needle supply will keep him free from disease caused by needle sharing, a problem caused by prohibition. He will not commit crimes to support his habit because he will easily be able to afford his drugs. [continues 158 words]
Letter writer Edward Sugden pleads with us not to "unleash" marijuana. ("Don't unleash the marijuana monster," May 21). But compared to "such a monster as alcohol," marijuana is more like a mouse. Both alcohol and marijuana are mood-altering drugs. Alcohol will make you silly, sloppy and sometimes violent. Marijuana will make you silly, then sleepy. Rather than leading to violence, marijuana is a pacifier. Rather than leading to depression, marijuana is a mood lifter -- hence the term "high." Our government needs to withdraw from the war on drugs. It needs to stop imposing morals upon its citizens. Studies show that marijuana users are not a societal risk. Our own Canadian Medical Association Journal says moderate marijuana use is not a significant health risk. Marijuana should be legalized and regulated. Anything less is unjustifiable. Neil MacNaughton Oakville [end]
I write regarding Brad Oswald's article, Why I can't watch Ally McBeal anymore, (May 14). Although I join in his lament of the downfall of the man, Robert Downey Jr., and the show, Ally McBeal, I feel it necessary to make an observation about such cases that isn't often enough considered: If the drugs were legal, there would be no problem. Here we have a man with a tremendous talent. He is a star and deservedly so. (Check out his skills in Chaplin, if you need confirmation.) This man also happens to use drugs. There's nothing peculiar about that. I use drugs too -- caffeine, alcohol, aspirin, cough syrup, allergy pills, and so on. The only difference is that, for reasons of politics, the drugs I use are legal and the ones Mr. Downey uses are not. [continues 79 words]
