Editor, The News: Re: 'Yes' to homeless shelter (Letters, Sept. 9). All I can say is "no" to the 'drug shelter.' It has nothing to do with helping the non-addicted homeless. The proposed structure has little to do with helping the 'homeless' and everything to do with providing housing, transitional housing, and treatment opportunities for drug addicts and people with severe mental disorders ... Drug addicts and those with severe mental disorders are not required to seek, or accept, help, live by any rules except their own or to change their lifestyle in any way. We are simply making their lives more comfortable while they are permitted more time to find ways to secure the drugs they crave, regardless of the affect on neighbors, local business, or the city ... Until the courts can demonstrate that the rights and security of society are more important than the rights of drug addicts to continue living their lives of destruction without any accountability for their acts, my answer will always be "no." Graham Mowatt Maple Ridge [end]
Editor, The News: Re: Prohibition created gangs (Letters, Nov. 14). The idea that the gang situation will go away if, "drugs were a medical issue," as suggested by Dan Banov, is simplistic at best. Is he suggesting that children of 10 should be permitted to have access to cocaine and crystal meth? Gangs will not go away, they will simply move onto some other field to exploit. As far as using a big stick not working, this too is far from reality. Police can catch gang members. The problem is the legal system releases them, or at worse, prohibits police from removing them from society to begin with. How many times do we hear or read "known to police" when issues of violence are made public? [continues 239 words]
