Readers Want a Singapore Solution for Canada
15 Dec 2003
It wasn’t the usual Christmas column, I agree. But I was tired of reading about brain damaged babies born to mothers on crack cocaine, safe injection sites for addicts, gun deaths in shopping malls and drug traffickers flaunting the law in broad daylight. How the billions of dollars it costs this country could be better used to treat patients. So I asked readers what they thought about Singapore’s tough laws for criminals. I’ve received a ton of letters and E-mails, many asking for a summary of the response.
From Halifax; "Any person with a half-brain could see that their law is not as harsh as a law that allows drug dealers to continue to destroy human beings. It was good to read the morning newspaper and finally see some common sense in print."
A woman from Saskatoon replied, "What do we have to lose by trying out the Singapore solution. Just drug dealers living off other people’s misery. Big deal."
A reader from Charlottetown. "Right on! Now if only the politicians would wake up and smell the coffee."
From Peterborough; "I couldn’t kill any animal, but I could sure drop the Guillotine on Clifford Olsen."
Another from Medicine Hat asked, "Why do we have to spend $100,000 to keep criminals in jail. Surely these funds could be better used to save our health care system."
An E-mail from St Catharines; "I’m for the lash. Bleeding hearts will cry it’s inhumane, but isn’t it inhumane to damage babies with crack cocaine. I’m appalled at the weak verdicts and wonder why there’s not a huge public outcry against it."
From Toronto; "I agree with you. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Sociologists, psychologists and plain meat-heads who can’t see the evidence when it strikes them in the face. Your column is always a bright spot and I hope you have many more years left to write."
FR E-mailed, "Talking tough at this time of the year is the right time. You would think Canada and the U.S would be more advanced in cleaning up our drug problem compared to Singapore. Reading the newspaper is sickening when criminals are just let off with a slap in the face. I could go on and on. Please continue your good write."
But not everyone tossed roses. The Liberterian Party gave me Holly hell, such a going over that it’s too long to publish.
A lawyer in Sault Ste Marie wrote, "I love your column and applauded your efforts to legalize heroin for terminal cancer patients. But your branching out into law is rather tragic. Remember every dictator has tried that route and facts show that tough laws do not deter crime."
Another said, "What a glorious Nirvana you would create on earth! Just kill them all. Why not get rid of everyone who disagrees with us. You’re not only preaching a slippery slope argument, it’s a free fall with no parachute. And why don’t you just babble about health."
I find it interesting that when I discuss either abortion or euthanasia readers are split evenly on these issues. But in this instance 95 percent wanted to import some form of tough solution for out-of-control crime. Most said they felt helpless, not knowing how to convince politicians to stop being politically correct and following the path of least resistance. Some mentioned sending the column to their politicians. Others thanked me for allowing them a way to vent their anger and frustration.
So you can see your responses provided interesting reading over the holiday. But one thing is certain. I’m not going to sell the farm and enter politics as several people urged. I wouldn’t last a day!
Now what about 2003? I promise to babble about health most of the time. But for the first two columns I want to tell you about the madness of terminal sedation. Then a column about a recent death I witnessed. And why a Living Will is so important. If you have suggestions for columns this year send them along.
