I am writing to comment on your article titled "Pot use sky-high" (Dec.
27). There seems to be no definition of addiction in this silly article,
which basically states the drug of choice for some users has been shifting
from alcohol to marijuana.
If that is the case, we can all be thankful that unlike alcohol, marijuana
doesn't cause brain and liver damage.
It is also non-addictive, so those who are truly "addicted" need to deal
with whatever psychological problem expressed by their addiction.
[continues 62 words]
I am writing to comment on a letter to the editor published Sat. 18 Nov.
titled "No Excuses":
Whether methamphetamine is dangerous or not (the writer cites no studies to
substantiate his claims), is not a matter for the government. It is the
decision of every human being what they want to put in their own body, not
the State's. The policy of "zero tolerance" of course, could be applied to
the real killers if we were interested in saving lives. In 1990 in the US,
39 percent of preventable deaths were due to tobacco, 28 percent to
diet/activity patterns (mostly heart disease, stroke, etc.), 9 percent to
alcohol, 8 percent to toxic agents, 6 percent to microbial agents, 3
percent to firearms, 3 percent to sexual behavior, 2 percent to motor
vehicles, and 1.9 percent due to use of illegal drugs (mostly overdose
deaths from drugs of unknown purity or adulterated drugs).
[continues 86 words]
I am writing to offer a counter to the blatantly self-interested Oct. 7
Viewpoints article by Donnie Marshall, "Drug war requires dual attack."
It should be obvious by now that the DEA is an unaccountable agency of the
U.S. government, which is totally interested in the continued prohibition
of some drugs while remaining relatively silent on others. Many billions of
dollars are spent chasing, prosecuting and incarcerating drug users and
sellers, while the chief problems of prohibition remain: adulterated,
expensive drugs, dead and diseased addicts, expanding crime syndicates
(shouldn't this remind us of something?) and massive numbers of people,
particularly blacks, in prison on silly charges less justifiable than those
leveled at the Salem "witches."
It is time to start questioning the right of unaccountable bureaucracies to
persecute and prosecute their citizens for victimless "crimes"; in
particular, the draconian prohibition laws and political funding that allow
these agencies to carry out their putrid wars.
JASON LALANCETTE, Saanich, British Columbia
In your editorial on Sept. 20 about marijuana, you says, "But we just
don't know. Through our ignorance and unwillingness to think beyond
conventional terms, we've managed as a society to relegate too many
useful herbs and plants to the trash heap of potential."
I would argue that it is not "we" who are unwilling to study these
herbs, but Health Canada, which has deliberately forced any studies of
marijuana to focus on the negative effects, by refusing to provide
cannabis to any study which could find politically "incorrect" results.
[continues 67 words]
Why are our tax dollars being spent to fund these vicious practices,
when they could be diverted to health care, education, social
services, etc.? Is it anyone's business what plants people grow in
their back yards?
Comment: headline by newshawk
ANDREW SEYMOUR writes typical unquestioning propaganda in his article "Drug
officers weed out pot" (Saturday Sun, Sept. 30) He doesn't mention the
human costs of the war on drugs, only the apparent glee of officers as they
steal private property and kill living plants, destroying lives in the
process. How many real criminals get away while the OPP spends money and
time pulling up plants and arresting growers? Why are our tax dollars being
spent to fund these vicious practices, when they could be diverted to
health care, education, social services, etc.? Is it anyone's business what
plants people grow in their back yards?
(It is, until they change the law)
On Jim Munn's column titled "Dampening Demand for Drugs:"
You mistake the effects of prohibition for those of drugs themselves, and
believe that somehow "demand" must be reduced.
People always have and always will use drugs, whether they are labelled
legal or illegal. If there is no legal route to obtain illegal drugs, then
illegal routes will be followed by definition.
In fact, there is a legitimate excuse for the demand for illegal drugs:
they are safer than legal ones, such as alcohol and tobacco. Just look at
the fatalities, and their causes.
[continues 179 words]
Mr. Miles and Mr. Mangham, of course, have an interest in maintaining
the status quo because prohibition is an efficient way of maximizing
harm, thus feeding the drug "treatment" industry, which has shamefully
poor rates of success. Isn't it about time the government stopped
telling us what we can ingest and focus on real crime?