FURTHER to my letter (Letters, 17/6): I was walking with my wife on the foreshore near the pilot station when two young men approached us on push bikes. I recognised one of the bikes to be the one I had stolen from me. As I watched this young man circle me his immediate response was one of aggression. I asked to look closer at the bike, he then spoke to us in the most vile way, it took us by surprise that a young person would speak to an older person in such a filthy and disgusting manner. I replied to him that his "your mother would be so proud" the whole time he was just out of reach. The stolen bike here is not the issue; the issue is, it is due to our surmounting drug problem of which the police and our society are fighting a losing battle. Why instead of the court system slapping these offenders on the wrist, we put them on a bus and send them for 12 months in the armed forces, straighten them out, teach them a trade and then just maybe we can make real humans beings of them?

HERE we go again, this government opening up that can of worms regarding pill testing at concerts. Regardless of these idiots that can't go out and enjoy themselves without numbing their brains with drugs or alcohol, how about duty of care to our dedicated hospital workers and response personnel, ambos and police? These people are subjected to these drug induced-inconsiderates every day. Why would a government condone drug use? You may as well get rid of RBT and RDT as well, tell me are all drivers leaving these concerts tested? How fair dinkum are we about reducing drug use in Australia? What example are we setting for our children? I'm not understanding this new wave of adopting drug use, are we to approve drug smugglers and their large haul of drugs captured every day as long as they pass this pill testing criteria? Wake up Australia, if you druggies wish to get your rocks off, go somewhere else, Bali for instance, and face their laws. Have you ever experienced a friend or family member who has succumbed to drug consumption, it's heart wrenching and the most degrading illness you will ever experience.

I HEARD author Zac Quinn speak at the Newcastle launch of his novel Sanlundia on Monday. Sanlunida is loosely based on his experiences working in an offshore immigration detention prison. Mr Quinn said of his experiences "the government hides from the public the crimes it has committed, under the guise of national security". He said many of those who worked in the camp were traumatised. Many of them came back damaged: "I'm one of them. Now I'm on medication." Those workers are not permitted to talk to each other, and even talking to a health professional exposes them to the risk of prosecution under the non-disclosure agreement they have to sign. Strange times that we live in, when the government presents fiction as truth, and witnesses have to present the truth as fiction. Because if you tell the truth, they'll come after you.

REALLY, is that the best that climate change deniers can come up with (Letters, 18/6)? Robin Hopps quotes some guy from 30 years ago who seems to have said "scary" future scenarios are required to convince people of future climate dangers. With the "scary" scenarios already coming true, the criticism seems a bit lame. What scary scenario, you ask? Look up 'global warming fire chiefs' for just one example. And Raymond Parkes urges people to read a book by Ian Plimer. I looked into Mr Plimer's claims and found all of them to be easily rebutted by credible scientists. But what decided me was that Mr Plimer failed to answer any of these rebuttals, instead firing back a series of techno-babble questions. The federal government of the time posted a detailed rebuttal of one of his books in PDF form. Luckily I downloaded it before the current government removed it. I'm happy to share it with anyone who is interested.

ALAN Myers, (Letters, 19/2), "greenhouse" gases are so effective, that's all it takes for Earth to retain heat. Without them, the planet is a frozen ball. How warm, depends on the amount. Warmth sets how active the air becomes. More turbulence in the air, rearranges the biosphere, wiping much life away. Civilisation is very vulnerable. Over time life will regenerate. Even growing faster, plants cannot keep up with the increased supply. The absorptive oceans cannot keep up. Hence the rising level in the air. Of course plant life can't live without CO2. It is about dangerous excess causing a much more volatile atmosphere. Carl Stevenson, (Letters, 19/6), after emissions end, a policy of intense vegetation will be required. This will help remove what civilisation has put there. For like a pot of water, unless we can turn off the source of warming, in this case the sun, the heating capacity of the excess continues for centuries. Aside from climate effect, coal is so toxic and putrid. Reason enough to end its use. There is no problem with the supply of oxygen. There is an enormous problem with civilisation's accelerating supply of CO2.