PAUL BOWLER,
Sir, - Andre Lyder (July 23rd), in comparing drug use to murder, rape, etc., misses the point I attempted to make - i.e., for a crime to take place there must be a victim. Crimes such as tax evasion, pollution and physical assaults all have victims. Alcohol, tobacco and other drugs victimise only the user.
Making some drugs illegal creates criminals - the grower, the smuggler, the distributor - and also leads to the creation of other victims: the user who must resort to prostitution, the old lady who is mugged, the communities terrorised by crime lords and paramilitaries funded by drug money. There are those who would argue that the woman battered by a drunken husband is a victim of alcohol, but that is to diminish the responsibility of the individual. He is the criminal, not alcohol.
Drugs are about self-indulgence and self-harm, neither of which is illegal. There are other pursuits equally as stupid, equally as dangerous and equally as enjoyable - bungee jumping, the Bull Run of Pamplona, parachuting, etc. Yet we continue to regard chemical indulgence differently from a man jumping from an aeroplane thousands of feet in the air.
Finally, what constitutes crime is not immutable. Time and culture inform us as to what is and what is not crime. We once hanged men for stealing; other cultures would still cut a man's hand off. We now strive not to send children to prison. We only recently recognised marital rape as a crime. Homosexuality was until recently considered an abomin-ation. Now some of our most prominent citizens are openly gay. We no longer even execute murderers.
I regard these developments as progress. But for these advancements to be made, the values and attitudes that were thought irrefutable needed to be examined and eventually rejected. We enjoy as individuals more personal freedom than ever before, but with freedom comes responsibility. There cannot be one without the other. - Yours, etc.,
PAUL BOWLER, Grosvenor Park, Dublin 6.