Bad drugs

Mireille Silcott's cover article on drugs in clubs, ironically entitled "Safety Dance" [Nov. 20], is a perfect example of the kind of negative influence journalists can have on youth. Silcott claims that since people are going to do drugs, we might as well inform them of what's what and which drugs are dangerous when combined. This would be admirable were the article to be one which spoke out against drugs. But Silcott's prose is anything but cautionary. It is written with an almost tongue-in-cheek tolerance. She is convinced that people won't stop doing drugs. And in a way her prophecy is a self-fulfilling one. For as long as we continue believing that there is no way that we can stop our youth from frying their brains in the name of "fun," we will not find either the personal or public resolve to put an end to drug consumption.

The Mirror and other supposedly liberal proponents of "safe" drug consumption create an impression in their readers that there is a way of ingesting these substances without long-term damage to the nervous system. They adopt the feeble defence that the mainstream population is on tranquilizers, as if one dysfunction would cancel out another.

The lot of the safety warnings published in this article could have been contained in a one column piece entitled: "Dangerous Drugs." By embedding this information in an "entertaining" article, the Mirror has legitimized drug use. While some lives may be saved in clubs due to the information provided, many more will be deflected from reality.

­Benet Davetian

Global warming is real, so deal with it

In a recent Media Circus column ["Teenage girls in bondage!", Oct. 30], Alastair Sutherland mentioned the discrepancies between a Gazette interview with David Suzuki and an article by Laura Jones in the same issue, both about global warming but giving opposite messages.

I have no doubt that one can always find a "scientist" (usually elderly, benign looking, and preferably the mother of three children) who will say whatever a specific interest group wants, if enough money is paid. It would very much interest me to know more about people who say, in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary, that actions to avert a possible disaster for the whole world should not be taken because they are inconvenient to specific economic interest groups--including the Canadian Government.

By the way, I notice that Laura Jones is not alone in her opinions. A recent editorial in the Suburban hinted in a similar direction: toward playing down the warnings of ecologists and other scientists with the observation that, since dire catastrophes have not happened so far, then why worry?

­Wolfgang Bottenberg

Villeneuve crazy, but not trivial

In response to Charles Quenneville's letter ["Hey, anglos! Get over it," (e)Mail, Nov. 13]: I don't know what world you live in, but in this one, uttering death threats toward people because you happen to dislike their political position is not okay.

As you cleverly point out in your letter, Villeneuve is a crackpot. Duh. Is that supposed to make us feel safer? As he is indeed a crackpot, I feel no certainty that he won't carry out his threats. He's been a terrorist before. The only reason he hasn't been arrested is because the P.Q. government is pleased as punch that someone is frightening the partitionists into submission. As you are, no doubt.

If people outside of Quebec are following this news, I assure you their main thought is, "Why hasn't this guy been arrested?" The fact that you believe otherwise just shows how clued out you are about how the rest of the world sees the goings-on in Quebec. Nobody normal would see an ex-terrorist uttering death threats as a triviality. Get your head examined.

­Vivian Unger

The end of restaurants

I'm a waitress who would like to tell Premier Lucien Bouchard what will happen if he implements his government's new tip rules.

Most students will not be able to pay off their loans. This will make them angry and desperate, which will result in more drug abuse and more crime. May I remind you that these crimes are "under the table."

The restaurant business will become a total "family affair." Non-family members will be fired. This will create lots of unemployed voters. You will be out of a job.

Unlike politicians, many customers do not tip 15 per cent. Maybe that's because they do not have expense accounts. Waiters and owners will be declaring bankruptcy.

Every waiter and waitress will develop sore backs and bunions. They will demand compensation and will be prepared to show you their feet.

Every time you step in a restaurant, get one of your bodyguards to assist the waiter because he definitely will spit in your food.

­Katherine Kandyba