My LTE in the Langley Advance Newspaper

Drugs: Legalization reduces crime

Dear Editor,

Ms. Huziak [Legal drugs would add crime, Oct. 27 Letters, Langley Advance], who took anti-prohibitionist Mr. Harvey [Law puts money in thungs’ pockets, Oct. 16 Letters, Langley Advance] to task for “fallacious” statements, needs to look in the mirror and give her head a shake. Her letter was filled with myths, assumptions, and outright falsehoods.

Drugs – all of them – were legal prior to prohibition, just like alcohol. Plus, like it or not, the desire for drugs exists now, despite (and maybe in part because of) prohibition. There is absolutely no evidence that ending prohibition will increase usage. Indeed, usage of cannabis in the Netherlands, where it is legal, is significantly lower than here where it is illegal. [Editor’s note: In fact, cannabis is not technically legal in the Netherlands, but laws prohibiting its use are not enforced.]

Peer-reviewed studies demonstrate that use rates exist independently of legality. We have been successful in reducing alcohol-impaired driving through public education and changing mores, not through criminalization and incarceration.

The idea that there will be more illegal dealers post-prohibition is laughable. Right now, high school students report that it is much easier to obtain illegal drugs than alcohol. And teenage tobacco use is down, not up. Again, this is due to public education and changing mores, not criminalization and incarceration.

There will be no increase in crime if drugs were made legal. Just the opposite. Where legal heroin trials have been tried, for example, drug-seeking crime by addicts was reduced dramatically. That’s scientific fact. And you don’t see alcohol sellers shooting each other over booze turf, because it is a regulated market. They used to, however, during prohibition.

Finally, drugs are illegal because of racist and hysterical policies enacted 100 years ago, not because of an honest assessment of harm. The hysteria is echoed by Ms. Huziak, who apparently thinks that people struggling with addiction – a disease – are “drug-crazed addicts” instead of human beings. And if she thinks addiction doesn’t exist in her neighbourhood, she needs to drop her class bias and wake up to reality.

Addiction is not a disease affecting only the DTES.

Kirk Tousaw, Vancouver



  1. Anonymous on

    So-Person whom doesn’t believe in the end of drug prohibition is my enemy because you actively allow drug money fueled terrorism to bomb innocent people across the world. You too shall be destroyed with all of those whom fail to see my facts –to allow you to live is to allow a world of terror-and I have every legal right to protect myself from you and your terrorist ideology-better you to be destroyed than one more drug money trained makeshift pilot crash a mega-jet into a building once again. To stand there and say ‘prohibition –stay in tack’ is giving those whom will-permission to use the easy to sell in Asia and Europe -opium and hashish grown in Afghanistan to be sold for money- why not outlaw all currency to save lives based on the fact that currency is used to fuel terror or legalize drugs and get the blood money out of their hands-if you don’t change your mind-then something may have to mush your brains so your thoughts will be forced to change-sadly, most mind changing operations are 100% lethal-a fate you openly choose-since I’m the one whom fought for you so Canada or America wouldn’t be hurt by terrorist with a violent agenda. Sometimes killing bad people to rid the world of their violence or tolerated violence is the medicine that I have a legal and moral right to do –unlike you whom endorses torture of Taliban victims (do you know what a woman is? Do you know what an Islamic woman is? Do you know what the Taliban does to women with their drug money power?). You don’t know anything about earning a paycheck until you’ve been to war and have witnessed first hand the destructive power of drug money (Pablo Escobar and his plane bombing as well-you endorsed by letting them profit and use such money to buy and create weapons that go boom and cause planes to go down –or even fly into buildings). You are not a peaceful person like me. I actively tried to stop the bombings of the 08’ Olympics that threatened to kill so many more than they did (drug money) and you put my friends lives at risk when they were in Paris in December of 08’ with the mega destructive and multi-bomb scare at Printemps –a little over a week before Christmas-That means you are actively trying to subdue my freedom of Religion (Christmas) since it occurred during a religious holiday. More lives are at risk from drug money blood shed than those risked by Overdosing and Drug driving and Drug induced/wanting murders made by the users. It is a sad day if you cannot be punished-why did you send me to Iraq? You know that America would have never done that if we hadn’t gotten all caught up in 9/11 revenge. I’ve seen soldiers whom you have killed. If we destroy all money and bartering –then drug money fueled terrorism will be abolished –or we can legalize it. Either way –you already deserve to die for your part or lack of cooperation when doing what is the real right thing –What happens when a good person fails to stop violence –they become guilty. And you too will be punished. But I will grant you mercy if you simply will admit that I am right. Just see what will happed to people like you if you don’t budge in the right direction. If I am wrong –then Hitler was right. Are you that monstrous to have your actions state that Hitler was right? I’m giving you a chance for Mercy cause I’m tired of bloodshed- but I have to go after people like you to save the world. I’m terribly sorry if you die-its self-defense –nothing more and nothing less. I enjoy doing unto others as I would have them do unto myself and I would personally want to be destroyed if I allowed bad things to happen to good people or if I was myself doing the bad things. It is not revenge but proper punishment or 1 + 1 does not equal 2. Are you going to deny logic and math and history?

  2. Anonymous on

    Apparently you haven’t studied prohibition much or taken anything that is reiterated on numerous sites like this with more than a grain of sand.

    Hypothetical question- would you run down to the store and buy smack and persue the lifestyle of a junkie the second it became legal? Probably not, and anyone who has been properly educated on the affects of addictive substances wouldnt either. Studies have shown this. At any social setting you next attend, ask the room that same question and see what you get. Ask it at many events, you’d be surprised.

    How many eighteen year olds ran to the store and started chain smoking the second they second they were legally allowed?
    How come studies show declines in tobacco use followed by the educational campaigns we all have seen in the general public for the last decade despite the substance being available in just about every America store?
    How many chose this persuit by illegal methods before they turned legally allowed?
    How many would say that it was harder to get there supply due to licensing and regulation than to go get anything off the unregulated, unsafe black market?

    Why would you assume that the troubles we face now with addiction related crime or just people being high on narcotics would in anyway decrease by the method we have been using these past numerous decades, backed by statistical information showing ever increasing addiction rates from the start of prohibition to present day?

    I think there is some confusion and evidently lack of education here. No one is encouraging hooking the world on dependant substances, but arguing we lock up people in substance abuse centers (much like a prison system) while keeping an unsafe, unregulated market free to fund evil violent criminals seems a bit.. well.. tried?

    Abuse centers are great. Public education is great. However, some people will use drugs regardless, and no treatment will ever help if they haven’t made the choice to change lifestyles…

    MEANWHILE, safe injection sites dramatically cut back on infecting poulations with AIDs and other serious diseases. That affects us ALL friend.

    Safe drug regulation gaurantees less chance of drug overdose from impure substances and provides reliable potency rates, ensuring the user KNOWS what dose and how much of something he is using.

    I think you have completely failed in seeing that legalization is in fact a means to LOWER addictions and the harms that are associated with them, many caused by the laws inplace NOW. Wirh eighty years of propaganda shoved down our throats it is an easy thing to do.

    Get as many people off hard drugs, alcohol and tobacco included? Absolutely. Doing it by caging society….?

  3. David on

    I don’t see how letting junkies use their drug legally benefits society. We should be trying to get as many people off of hard drugs as we can. Not legalizing them. I’d rather see junkies sentenced to rehab than put those deadly drugs in stores for people to use as they wish.