No light in Knight's views

Re: Leo Knight's column Oct. 3 "Dopey Solution to Drug Problem" column.

Firstly, it is the easiest thing in the world to criticize something or
someone. An intelligent treatment of the topic, conveying your own
thoughtful ideas and possible solutions is not for the cowardly.

If you think Vancouver-East MP Libby Davies suggestion of a safe house for
heroin addiction, is "dopey," then I suggest you provide some alternative
plan instead of devoting a whole article to banter.

I'm sorry that decriminalization of heroin is "an old tired argument" for
you; however, there has not been an effective attempt in Canada, to control,
rehabilitate and discourage drug use in a comprehensive program.

Criminalization of heroin doesn't work. Money is spent on bandaid ad
campaigns and small portions of budgets are devoted to the treatment of
addiction to illegal drugs.

I'm not suggesting full legalization of drugs to support an "alternative
life style," but perhaps to learn from others who are trying to address the
problem, or develop programs to control the negative effects on society of
drug abuse.

You are right and wrong: drug abuse is an individual responsibility, but it
is also a societal responsibility as well. You're right, no one forced
that needle into the junkie's arm. However, the fact remains there are
still junkies supporting their $500 to $1,000. per day habit, 365 days a
year, year after year. So as a society what do we do about it?

The cost to society is horrendous and unacceptable. Property crime committed
by junkies is estimated at over $300 million per year (Vancouver Police
statistic).

I suggest this is conservative, when you consider indirect costs increase
in insurance premiums, legal and court costs, lost days of work for the
victims of property crime, intrusion anxiety, etc.

To simply condemn Davies' "safe house" idea as lunacy, or blame the junkie
for sticking a needle in their arm is upholding the status quo.

I quote Mr Knight, "How will Davies' controlled "hit a day" lunacy deal with
those people (drug addicts)? They will still rob, cheat and steal to get the
extra drugs they need."

Your comment is off the mark. I draw your attention to the results of a
three-year Swiss study (19931996) experimenting with state distribution of
heroin to addicts.

The results were:

* significant improvements can be obtained in terms of health and lifestyle,
and these persist even after the end of treatment;

* a significant decline of criminal activities;

* economic benefit of heroinassisted treatment is considerable,
particularly due to the reduction in the cost of criminal procedures and
imprisonment and in terms of disease treatment.

Now, we can criticize this study as an isolated case, or unique to the
particulars of the Swiss society, or continue the hypocrisy of
fingerpointing. The mere thought of considering such an alternative angle
of the problem of heroin addiction is too much for our society.

What are you smoking, Leo?

Brett Humphreys
North Vancouver