Bill Crawshaw, Fadden

Ross Gittins's opinion article "Cost of risk key to drug war" (Times2, December 3, p4) draws on community fears and overstates the cost of risk without considering solutions better than prohibition.

For example he makes the bold claim (without evidence) that far more people would be using if drugs weren't outlawed. But Portugal, which decriminalised personal use in 2002, has not seen an increase in use in the 12 years since. The measure should, however, not be how many people use but rather how many come to harm from use. Drug seizures do not always force prices up but if they do they only have a transient effect at the margins.

Higher prices relate only to those drugs seized and casual users are likely to switch to an alternative drug. But if the addicted do not have the money to pay, extra cash is often found by prostitution, stealing or dealing. Dealing ensures a continuation of demand as the addicted person buys for say 10 people, keeping one part for himself and finding nine others to supply. And the profit to be made from supplying at higher prices is an enticement for any looking for a quick buck.

The economics of prohibition omits many intangibles such as: the loss of future life chances of the addicted; imprisonment because of use; the emotional and financial costs to families and loved ones; the law enforcement cost and consequent funding forgone for treatment services; and, of course, the corruption, without which the prohibition system would not survive.

If there were a system with no increase in drug use or even a shift to less harmful drug use, treatment available for those addicted rather than imprisonment, and which caused a significant reduction in drug dealers and suppliers, why would we not give it full consideration? Such a system is possible if only we were not so afraid to consider it.

B. McConnell, president, Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform, Higgins

If Ron Frazer (Letters, December 8) thinks that Mr Fluffy owners are getting a good deal from the ACT government then perhaps he would like to swap houses. His assertion that we are getting a lifeline with little or no cost is completely erroneous, and cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.

Every Mr Fluffy homeowner is losing out. Our homes are being valued at a set date, but our re-entry to the housing market will be at a later date, when prices have risen. Already the effect of additional demand can be seen in the property market. It is also nearly impossible to purchase an "equivalent" home in the areas in which we currently live.

Add to this the emotional cost of having to move and have your home and garden demolished, the threat of future illness, and the financial penalty adds insult to injury. The out-of-pocket amount varies but many people are looking at hundreds of thousands of dollars. If Mr Frazer thinks this is a little cost then he obviously earns a lot more money than I do.

Mary McDonald, Spence

Australia, without much publicity, takes in more than 10 times as many immigrants each year as it does refugees, and probably closer to 40 times more – there were half a million immigrants to Australia last year and the current government is increasing the number. These people come from a variety of cultures and religions because the White Australia Policy is largely gone.

So J.W.Farrands' explanation (Letters, December 9) of people's "fear" of asylum seekers, simply doesn't fit the facts.

There is also something more sinister at work, when asylum seekers arriving by boat are demonised to a far greater extent than those who arrive by plane, who are usually in the majority.

Peter Marshall, Captains Flat, NSW

I confess to being somewhat gob-smacked by Arvi Solomon's personal attack (Letters, November 19) on my late grandfather who had both a distinguished military and public service career dating back to 1907, and is recognised by a street in Evatt being named after him. The reason my response to his letter is a little tardy is because I felt some research was needed in response to the comments of Mr Solomon. To set the scene, post World War II my grandfather served in Pretoria (1946), Shanghai for a year (1947-48 as consul-general), Nanking (1948 as charge d'affaires) thence to Israel (late 1948) as minister extraordinary and penipotentiary at the then Australian Legation to Israel before it became an embassy in 1949, whereupon he was appointed ambassador.

In all of the diplomatic positions he occupied (including Israel) he was responsible for reporting on issues and events, objectively and without "fear or favour".

The despatches I was privy to relating to his term in Israel reflected those principles with no suggestion of subjectivity, much less being anecdotal. Importantly, I also felt I needed to research Mr Solomon's claim that, based on my grandfather's "antipathy" to the Jews, he refused to issue visas to Jewish war refugees in Shanghai.

I can find no evidence that corroborates the actions of my grandfather on this matter, as suggested in a publication by Suzanne Rutland, Edge of the Diaspora, upon which Mr Solomon relies.

I think it reasonable, given the duration of my grandfather's postings to China was no longer than two years in total and they coincided with the rise of communism and the upheavals that this involved, including my grandfather having to leave Shanghai and then Nanking on very short notice, to draw upon the comment by Ms Rutland that "there was no basis for these allegations".

John Fuhrman, Kambah

Amin Saikal's article on the Israel-Palestine conflict ("World losing patience with intransigent Israel", Forum December 6, p7) appears short-sighted and superficial. How can the Western World guarantee safety to Israeli citizens when it is surrounded by Islamic conflict? Itwas the Palestinians who, quite understandably, refused to accept the two-state solution adopted by theUnited Nations General Assembly in 1947.

Israel has survived since then by becoming a fortress, its people living with the ever-present threat of terrorism. The fact that they have elected hard-line prime ministers inrecent years reflects this reality.

Saikal implies that Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories was expansionist, rather than a reflection of the inadequacy of the original borders that left Israel vulnerable to attack. It was the Islamist group Hamas that started the latest attack by firing rockets from Gaza into Israel. This could be seen as a clever tactic, provoking an over-the-top response from Israel, which has left Westerners feeling uncomfortable and generally fed up with this long-running sore.

This problem seems beyond man's capacity to solve. Saikal is right in highlighting that this has stimulated anti-Western sentiment in the Muslim world, but there has been wrong on both sides. Unfortunately, peace initiatives have come to nothing in the past. There is too much bad history between these two peoples. Reconciliation depends on the participation by both sides and the willingness of both to reach a settlement.

R.I. Boxall, Hawker

Turkish president Recep Erdogan has surprised many with his statements about women and men not being equal. Men are apparently superior because they can't be mothers or breastfeed, etc. Is he suggesting that, all appearances to the contrary, women are one species and men another? Or is he implying that equality can only exist in species that do not procreate sexually?

It's nice that he recognises equality in lichen, bacteria, hydra, etc, not that they care. Confusingly, the Republic of Turkey's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has a copy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights appearing on its website. Perhaps Mr Erdogan has not read Article 1 yet, namely: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another inaspirit of brotherhood."

I have read through all the articles and have failed to find any suggestion that because a person has the potential to become a mother, rather than a father, this somehow makes that person less equal. In fact, Article 16 (1) says: "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as tomarriage, during marriage and atits dissolution."

M. Aken, Holder

Bruce Haigh presented a pessimistic and blinkered view in his review of Sri Lanka's Secrets ("Chronicle of a nation's genocide", Panorama, December 6, p25). As an Australian journalist born on that beautiful island and speaking the language, Itake exception to Haigh's "oh the horror, the horror" review that does not do justice to the positive picture of a nation coming together in relief and reconciliation, symbolically captured by the January visit of PopeFrancis to Madhu, the heart ofChristian Sri Lanka.

The picture that illustrates the review says it all: the smiling Tamil women were indeed returning to their homes (hence their smiles), after being forced to move by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and used, like many civilians in the north, as human shields in a last-stand battle that cost many lives.

Haigh also quotes the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, a Tamil and perhaps not the best choice topronounce on the Sri Lankan situation. Another woman whose motives should be under scrutiny by the UNHCR is Adele Balasingham, the British-born Australian theoretician, whose LTTE involvement centred on persuading underage girls, the Freedom Birds, totrain as suicide bombers.

There is no mention, I gather, of her role in the book. Sri Lanka has endured almost three decades of war. It is now regaining its place as one of the most beautiful and historical places in the world. It is indeed a pity that Haigh, the "retired diplomat", does not plan to visit the island and see the changes that are taking place for people of all ethnicities.

Tina Faulk, Swinger Hill

David Stephens' letter (December 4) was a good one, but it was the quotations that resonated with me.

The Minister for the Anzac Centenary called for children tocarry forward the "torch of remembrance". Also, the War Memorial's Dr Nelson, in referring toAnzac, said that "every nation has a story to tell – this is our story".

In the 50-year period after the Australian colony was founded, more Australian Aboriginal people died defending their sovereign nations against the settlers than the total number of Australians killed in World War I. Yes, Dr Nelson, we have a story to tell. We just have not told it. We just do not seem to have the courage to tell it. This was war by any definition. It is a difficult story to tell, but it must be told if we are to reach true maturity. The Germans have been able to face up to the Holocaust and are better for it. We should be able to do the same.

We have to recognise that the wars Aboriginal Australians fought against colonial expansion existed.

We then have to understand, in David Stephens' words, "what [this] war has done to us". There is, indeed, a "torch of remembrance" to be carried forward, but it is not only for wars fought overseas but for all of our wars and how they shape the nation's psyche.

Digby Habel, Cook

The weekend BOSS magazine in the Australian Financial Review featured an item on the under-utilised talents of the recently elected member for Hume, Angus Taylor.

One can sympathise with Mr Taylor, entombed as he is in a party now so locked in ideology that it is virtually incapable any longer of governing.

I say "any longer" as there was a time when a moderate, yet progressive and fiscally responsible Liberal Party governed Australia successfully for decades at a time.

Perhaps if the federal government focused more on the practical, achievable work of governing, rather than on tying itself up in ideological knots, it might survive.

A focus more on outcomes, rather than on philosophical positions could be the way forward. Moderate liberal reform has been Australia's usual political course – not ideologically driven revolution from either the left or the right.

James Harker-Mortlock, Yass, NSW

Go and see the new Aussie film Love is Now, starring Claire van der Boom, Anna Torv, Eamon Farren, Chris Haywood and Rodger Corser, showing at Hoyts. I found the music

spellbinding to listen to as I watched this very enjoyable movie, with scenery from the Hunter Valley to be seen. I would have liked to have seen more of Rhys Muldoon, who is a top actor in my opinion and only played a small part in this film. If you like love stories you will like this Aussie movie. Ignore the cash-for-comment critics, who have heaped scorn on it, go and see the movie and support the Aussie film industry. I give it five stars .

Richard Ryan, Summerland Point, NSW

PM HAS NOT DELIVERED

Tony Abbott claims his government has "delivered". Dismantling, destroying and dithering does not amount to delivery.

Helen Bacon, Griffith

A problem shared is a problem halved, or so the saying goes. Except for Tony Abbott, that is, who, having inserted himself so thoroughly into the horrible federal government budget, must share any pain coming Joe Hockey's way, to be fair.

Annie Lang, Kambah

I think we can all rest assured that the invisible man, Bill Shorten, had no hand in the current race positions. Abbott is simply doing a great job of running backward ("Abbott takes a beating in new poll", December8, p1).

Joe Murphy, Bonython

A BETTER QUESTION

Graham O'Loghlin (Letters, December5) argues persuasively that it is not too late to institute a "selective" tender process for new submarines. He points out that the government has not specified what it wants and suggests inviting offers against structured specifications. Perhaps it is not too late also to invite advice on the fundamental question whether we need these submarines at all.

Ernst Willheim, Forrest

MACKSVILLE MOURNS

Karen Hardy always writes a good article, so much so that it is usually the first thing I read on Saturday. However, she really goofed with "Famous or not, it's never right for a mother to bury a son" (Forum, December 6, p3). Please tell her it was Macksville not Marrickville where the funeral was held. And just to rub it in, is Orange a town or a fruit?

Jim Crane, Monash

BEAUTIFUL AND FUNNY

Alas, our beautiful and funny Stella Young will not be hosting this year's ACT Chief Minister's Inclusion Awards. Instead, she will be wheeling her way around the traps in heaven lobbying God, St Peter and anyone else she thinks can help the cause of our disabled people. Vale, Stella. We will always remember you with a smile on our face.

John Rodriguez, Florey

TIME FOR A SURVEY

Does the law discriminate against indigenous people, as some assert? Test this theory: have an independent commission scrutinise a meaningful random sample (say, 1000 cases) of indigenous brushes with the law over six months or a year. Matching the nature of the offences and sentences with a similar non-indigenous batch would surely shed light on the accuracy or otherwise of this claim.

Olle Ziege, Kambah

Email: letters.editor@canberratimes.com.au. Send from the message field, not as an attached file. Fax: 6280 2282. Mail: Letters to the Editor, The Canberra Times, PO Box 7155, Canberra Mail Centre, ACT 2610.

Keep your letter to 250 words or less. References to Canberra Times reports should include date and page number. Letters may be edited. Provide phone number and full home address (suburb only published).