Editor: John Weston's latest propaganda rag appearing in my mailbox (at our expense!) wants to know what I think, but the space allotted for comments is woefully inadequate - barely room for 30 words, much less 300. Hopefully he'll find out what I think by reading this newspaper. His latest flagship, National Prescription Drop-Off Day, insults the intelligence of Canadians by suggesting that so many adults are incapable of taking proper care of their drugs that their ineptitude requires government intervention. And a National Homeopathic Medicine Day might, perhaps, offer a more sensible solution to whatever problems actually exist in this regard. [continues 209 words]
Re: Legalizing marijuana is a halfbaked idea, Letters, May 3 Ted Cooper of Powell River asserts that "there was a dramatic reduction of documented alcohol-related morbidity and mortality during the Prohibition era." This differs quite radically from the report of the U. S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings on National Prohibition, 1926, which provides statistics indicating that, while deaths due to alcohol consumption in Cook County had declined substantially during the decade before the institution of alcohol prohibition, during Prohibition they rose to the highest level yet. [continues 84 words]
Editor: I was a bit surprised by the naivete displayed by Anne Watters (Coast Reporter letters, Feb. 5). It's hard to get a handle on the notion that she really believes that arranging an organized cheerleading event for the poor, the mentally ill and the dispossessed somehow makes their lives better. I spent a year working in the Downtown Eastside and, during that time, I never saw any residents exhibiting the slightest interest in "displaying pride" in anything other than their continuing survival under horrendous conditions. [continues 135 words]
Re: "Conservative government's $64-million anti-drug TV ads motivated more by politics than research, say some experts," (The Hill Times, June 9, p. 18). The media and other commentators have apparently failed to note the irony in this ad, that the most important slang terms parents should know-and should make sure their children know-"soft drugs" and "hard drugs," are not mentioned. It may be a desirable goal for young people to never start smoking marijuana, but not everyone is in agreement on this, as marijuana is widely regarded as a far less harmful recreational drug than alcohol. But surely we can all agree that it would be preferable for young people, or people of any age, to be using marijuana rather than heroin, cocaine, or crystal meth. [continues 70 words]
Letter-writer Angie Korkowski (Opinion, June 10) asks if she is the only one who knows that marijuana is a "gateway" drug. She is clearly unaware that the various studies available from the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse prove conclusively that it is not. These studies also confirm her assertion that everyone who battles addictions started out with marijuana is equally inaccurate. Gibsons [end]
To the editor: Re: No hope in fighting dope, June 4, 2008 Excellent editorial! One of the great ironies of the war on some drugs is that the government refers to drugs it refuses to regulate as "controlled substances." Gibsons, BC [end]
With respect to columnist Joey Thompson's criticism of lack of funding for autistic children, she forgot to add that every dollar spent on the obviously useless efforts to enforce drug prohibition "diverts a dollar away from treatment that could lead to full recovery." Anyway, things could be worse. At least it's not a criminal offence to be autistic. George Kosinski, Gibsons [end]
To the editor: Thank you for your excellent editorial on this matter. Kim Capri seems ignorant of, among other things, the fact that many of the rights she herself enjoys were won by the sacrifices of brave individuals engaging in civil disobedience. Ms. Capri, apparently not being well-read, would be well-advised to reflect on the meaning of the phrase, "Ignorance is no excuse for the law." As for John Winter's "perfect world," thanks but no thanks. George Kosinski, Gibsons, B.C. [end]
Re: your April 30 editorial, "Pot costs man shot at a liver": I'm a Libertarian, so I would be opposed to marijuana prohibition even if I had the same hostile attitude expressed by those who either benefit from its prohibition or are ignorant of its effects. But what system of values justifies a death sentence for using marijuana? I hope The Star will offer the University of Washington Medical Center an opportunity to answer this question. - -- George Kosinski, Gibsons, British Columbia, Canada [end]
Alan Ferguson's column on the Insite report is so off the mark that I can only assume he read what he thought the study should say rather than what it did say. Just to cite one misleading assertion, Ferguson opines that, since "only" five per cent of addicts use Insite, its effectiveness is questionable. He conveniently fails to point out that the five-per-cent figure constitutes an average of more than 600 visits per day. This is not only an astounding number, but suggests that the current facilities are woefully inadequate to meet the demand. Such services should be expanded rather than terminated. George Kosinski, Gibsons [end]
Re: Coping with the pain (spotlight, March 27, Sentinel-Review) Dr. M.L.D. Fernando, chief of psychiatry at Woodstock General Hospital, asserts he is against legalizing marijuana because it's a slippery slope that leads to cocaine and other things. He is, no doubt, anticipating most readers will be unaware the various studies available from the website of the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, among numerous other studies, prove conclusively that marijuana is not a gateway drug. Dr. Fernando also asserts marijuana causes paranoid psychosis, when the truth is that obscure meta-analyses of statistical data suggest marijuana may trigger psychotic episodes in pre-disposed individuals - not that it does, or even may, cause them. [continues 105 words]
Ald. Ric McIver opines that "making drug paraphernalia available to young people is not serving any higher purpose in society." If this were the criterion for criminalizing popular behaviour, most of the things we enjoy would be illegal, including coffee, alcohol, tobacco and 90% of television shows. Imagining that criminalizing cannabis paraphernalia would reduce cannabis use makes about as much sense as imagining that preventing someone from purchasing glasses would reduce his alcohol consumption. Imagining the availability of paraphernalia encourages cannabis use makes about as much sense as asserting that the availability of glasses encourages alcohol consumption. (We'll drink to that.) [end]
Re: Prince of Pot case obscured by smoke and mirrors, Voice of the People, Jan. 15 Letter writer Pam Shaw asserts that, for a taste of reality, Marc Emery should "talk to the parent of a child whose experimenting with marijuana led to cocaine/heroin/crystal meth addiction." The various studies on drug-use patterns in Canada available from the website of the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, among numerous other studies, prove conclusively that marijuana is not a gateway drug. So continuing to insist that it is -- using the logic of guilt by association -- is nothing more than wishful thinking designed, perhaps, to justify otherwise insupportable hostility toward marijuana. [continues 66 words]
In her letter criticizing the distribution of free crack-pipe mouthpieces to addicts, Debbie McKinnon asked if the government will hand out free beer next. This illustrates how drug hysteria can damage our ability to reason logically. She emphasizes the high cost of treating hepatitis C, while at the same time condemning a policy that is guaranteed to reduce the incidence of that disease. A more appropriate beer analogy would entail distributing free glasses, not free beer -- not to mention that beer drinking has no connection with the spread of communicable diseases. George Kosinski, Gibsons [end]
In 1905 the murder rate in the U.S. was two victims per 100,000 people. In 1923, thanks to alcohol prohibition, the murder rate was four times higher and climbing. It peaked just before the repeal of alcohol prohibition, after which it plummeted dramatically until rising to prohibition-era levels and higher, roughly in concert with former president Richard Nixon's declaration of war on marijuana, while keeping pace with the ever-increasing federal budget for the war on drugs. [continues 73 words]
On Parliament Hill in Ottawa, there is a plaque commemorating 729 police officers who died in the line of duty. The plaque states, "They are our heroes. We shall not forget them." It politely refrains from emphasizing that, while they may be heroes, these officers lost their lives doing their job. Nor does it indicate how many of these officers died trying to prevent someone from using, purchasing, selling, or producing one of the few illegal drugs out of the hundreds or thousands on the market. [continues 106 words]
Letter-writer Jerry Kroll asks: "If athletes can be tested, why not ferry crews?" If ferry workers were offered multimillion-dollar contracts, as athletes are, I'm sure they would be willing to sacrifice some of their civil rights in exchange. There's a reason why we don't see wealthy athletes complaining about random drug testing. If ferry workers really are smoking marijuana on duty, it may be a side-effect of marijuana prohibition. When you're not allowed to smoke it anywhere, you might as well smoke it anywhere. Imagine what our society would be like if there were no pubs and it was illegal to have a drink, even in your own home. Actually, you don't have to imagine it, just google "alcohol prohibition." George Kosinski, Gibsons [end]
Editor, The News: Re: 18 months for selling pot to cops (The News, Oct. 13). Mayor Gordy Robson has apparently spent most of his life in a cave. He stated: "Selling drugs through a retail outlet is not a good thing." The reality, of course, is that is exactly how most drugs are sold and Maple Ridge, no doubt, has at least one retail outlet with the word "drugs" prominently displayed as part of the store's name or description. Finishing the mayor's thought highlights the absurdity of his assertion that "Selling drugs through a retail outlet is not a good thing," it is much better to sell them on the street. George Kosinski Gibsons, B.C. [end]
Dear Editor: People who think that Harper's "anti-drug strategy" is about winning the so-called war on drugs are sadly misinformed. He may be a fascist, but he's certainly not stupid. He knows that his plan will have no effect on reducing use of illegal drugs. No evidence is required beyond the blatant lies and deceptions he used in his speech. You commented on one example, his assertion that "illegal drugs are directly involved in the death of thousands of Canadian men and women." [continues 376 words]
Re: Sept. 12 editorial, "Driving them out." The notion that indoor grow ops are so dangerous that special legislation is required to deal with them is just another red herring designed to gain public acquiescence for a further violation of the civil rights of unauthorized gardeners; and leaving 350 out of 1,000 grow ops still running is nothing to crow about. There are only two ways to eliminate grow ops. One is to create a totalitarian society where police are conducting door-to-door searches. The other is to legalize growing a few plants for personal use, since prohibition is entirely responsible for the proliferation of grow ops. And, speaking of grow ops, isn't it about time we grew up and started facing the reality that marijuana prohibition causes far more harm than marijuana? George Kosinski Gibsons [end]
